Home | BaltimoreBrew.com
Commentaryby Kim Trueheart12:46 pmJun 2, 20140

Why not a targeted curfew to deal with youth violence?

OPINION: The broad-brush approach of the proposed curfew means that some of the youth activities at the rec center where I volunteer will have to be limited.

Above: Neighborhood kids gather outside the locked doors of the Parkview Rec Center, which was closed in 2012 as a result of budget cuts.

Tonight the Baltimore City Council will vote to enact changes in the curfew law that purport to improve it.

To me the changes are a feeble attempt to stem youth violence in the city, the distasteful result of a mayoral administration reaching out – against abundant good advice – for a crowd-pleasing quick fix to a complex problem.

While everyone agrees that some of our youth are out of control, we have not had any open debate, community meetings or citizen feedback on the steps that should be taken to protect them and the community.

Even at this later date, we haven’t been given information on how many children are on the streets late at night. Or what, if any, connection their being outside has on the city’s crime and murder rates, the latter of which has been rising steadily (despite the hiring of a new commissioner and an array of consultants) since 2011.

Instead, we have City Council Bill 13-0261, “Minors – Curfew Reform,” a heavy-handed piece of legislation being ramrodded through a meek City Council.

The bill requires all youth 14 and under to be indoors between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. year-around. This would preclude teenagers from engaging in some of the healthy activities – computer training, study hall, modern dance, art, basketball – that the Liberty Rec and Tech Center, where I volunteer, sponsors for teenagers in Northwest Baltimore.

We currently keep the center open until 9 – and sometimes later.

The new law would force us to cut our hours short to make sure that kids in our programs are not picked up as “curfew violators” while walking back to their homes or stopping off for a soda at a corner store.

Rebellious Behavior versus Hard-Core Offenders

The vast majority of our youth are not committing crimes, but some are exhibiting rebellious attitudes in response to what they view as an uncaring government and community.

For the most part, I believe their feelings are justified; however, their rebellious outbursts are not the answer and are unacceptable.

The facts underlying their perceptions result from deep problems years in the making exacerbated by misguided actions of the adults who run the city – closing recreation centers, maintaining a school system that ranks dead last across the state for student outcomes, underfunding after-school programs, and underfunding youth summer jobs amidst a stagnant local economy and a brutal job market.

Last January, the mayor announced a shift in police strategy that focuses on targeting violent repeat offenders of violent crime. The fiscal year 2015 Preliminary Budget increases spending for police by $6,502,169, along with a new police contract which we have learned will reward officers with a 13% pay increase.

By making these significant investments in the BCPD, the mayor and police commissioner hope to reduce violent crime by removing repeat violent offenders from our neighborhoods. In contrast, the mayor’s FY 2015 Preliminary Budget decreases the city’s contribution to Baltimore City Public schools by $7,082,615.

Such blatant inequity is unconscionable. To date, the only curfew-related investment we’ve heard of was reflected in a April 23 Board of Estimates agenda item that requested funding approval for “Youth Connection Center ($195,000): The Connection Center will allow youth that are in violation of curfew laws to be transported to a safe, non-punitive environment until their parents or guardians arrive for pick-up.”

This paltry investment pales in comparison to the increase in the police department’s budget and leaves little doubt about the outcomes intended for our youth resulting from this flawed reformed curfew legislation.

A substantial investment to deliver desperately-needed quality programs and services – targeting troubled youth – is what is lacking in the mayor’s new curfew strategy.

Instead, by lumping all curfew violators as “youth in need of service,” the mayor is creating an overly broad category of kids that will divert police from their mission (catching criminals) and will fritter away what few social services the administration is willing to commit to its proposed Youth Connection Center.

Is Crime Limited to Curfew Hours?

What’s more, there is no evidence that troubled youth time their crimes to the hour of the day or commit more crimes after 9 p.m. (or 10 p.m. in the case of teens over 16).

In fact, there is plenty of evidence – from Police Commissioner Anthony Batts himself – that some teenagers, without any after-school activities, engage in property theft, vandalism and other anti-social behavior when coming home from school.

We need to take concrete steps to locate these teenagers – and redirect their behavior – in order to avoid such civic embarrassments as last week’s mass theft of bicycles at Druid Hill Park. (That incident happened in the late afternoon, within eyesight of Recreation and Parks’ headquarters office.)

If targeted enforcement is good for violent repeat offenders, then why is it not also good for our youth?
_________________________
Kim Trueheart is an active citizen who volunteers at Liberty Rec and Tech Center, a school-based community partnership.

Most Popular