Browning was touting this as a sign of the policy’s success...

WTF. In a city notorious for not providing/allowing for activities for young people, it's a sign of success that we stopped some teenagers from going to a movie?

If that statement alone doesn't get this program chased off the books, this city truly has lost all sense of perspective.

haven't any of these people seen over the edge?

Unfortunately, B!X, it barely a raised eyebrow from the forum. DA Hayden even said: "The process itself is important. We can't have all these kids roaming about on the street. It's causing a real problem."

When I asked Chief Sizer if she understood the concerns of the cops' Citizens' Review Committee and the mayor's Racial Profiling Committee about the policy, she replied:

"It's concerning, obviously. And I think part of that is framed around suspicion of the police—it is not coincidental that the policy came out of Northeast."

"Jim Hayden and Richard Brown [the community activist who pushed for the policy] are frustrated, and are trying to come up with creative ways to empower parents to remind them they are accountable for the actions of their kids," she continued. "But we need to mature the program, and front-load it with access to services."

front-load it with access to services

*head explodes*

Of course, that's got nothing to do with letting young people actually be able to do things.

Perhaps it's time to ask Sizer et all what they see as the police-approved list of activities for young people.

Target practice?

Sorry.

"We can't have all these kids roaming about on the street. It's causing a real problem."

Problem: prove it

I'm sick of this making policies around "problems" that have no real accountable source.
I want to see documentation, signed affidavits and analysis by real experts before any policy restricting the freedom of any party/group is instituted.

But of course that wont happen because money is the only real thing running Portland anymore and those who have it either are not from here (therefore don't give a shit about our liberal precedence) or simply could care less.
Rich People Are Not Always Smart People and shouldn't be the only demographic represented in this city.

But Dex, we don't need proof. The Oregonian says it's a problem.

Really, it's the crap that Hollywood churns out that should actually scare kids away from going to the movies. That and the fact that if I get kicked in the chair from behind at a movie one more time, I'm gonna seriously hurt somebody.

Finally, BB. Someone cuts to the heart of this issue!

I'm confused on one part of this issue: The parents that were cited failed to show up for the GREAT Families sessions, so therefore the program is a failure? Is that like saying those diversion programs for DUI offenders are failures if the drunk drivers don't show up? What am I missing here?

There's a war going on that the poor can't win.

Let's see, drug-free zones, cerfews, sit-lie laws, sweeping homeless people.

For one of the most liberal city council's the city has ever had it sure seems like they have done nothing to empower the poor and everything to target them!

Martin: It's a bit like saying that, yes. Except here we're talking about a policy that impacts poor African American women, rather than people who drink too much and drive their cars. I think that's what you might be missing.

Who the hell is this Neighborhood District Attorney Jim Hayden? Another one of the
Airheads that have managed to finagle a
job with government so they can try out all their airhead notions? Let's get real
and stop this foolishness before it goes
way too far.

Thanks, Matt. I guess I'm just confused as to what parents are thinking when they let their 14-year-olds out unsupervised after 10:15 on weekdays and midnight on weekends. ORS 163.577 only covers kids under 15, right? I'm not the parent of a kid that age, so maybe I'm way off base.

Martin. I'm with you, except that, it's left up to parents to police that in every area of the city except Northeast (and downtown). Kids under 15 in Lake Oswego are free to do what they like after 10.15 without any possibility that their parents will have to appear in juvenile court for it.

Actually, come to think of it, maybe I'm not with you. When I was 14 me and my friends were all safely tucked away in the local pubs. (See the film Hot Fuzz, "the greater good.")

I've never been to Lake Oswego after 10:15pm, Matt, but I have a feeling that it's pretty dead. Also, I think this is a city of Portland thing, not a city of Lake Oswego thing (if you consider Lake Oswego an actual city, which I'm pretty sure we don't).
Personally, I've never had a problem unruly gangs of 14-year-old kids roaming the streets in either downtown or northeast, although I'm sure that if you head over to bikeportland dot org you'll find people that have had a few problems.
Again, I'm not a parent of a 14-year-old, so I may be talking out of my ass here. But I'd like to think that if I were, after 10:15pm on a school night would be reserved for homework, guitar practice, or maybe even sleeping. Because there's no way I'm getting up early to take their lazy ass to fucking social studies.

Martin: You said "I've never been to Lake Oswego after 10:15pm, Matt, but I have a feeling that it's pretty dead."

So what you're saying is that these kids in Northeast should be punished for living in an urban area? Good God, man. You had better join the Police Bureau! And it sounds like you may have skipped out of social studies!

I'm not a parent of a 14-year-old, either, but if I were, I would hope you'd respect my right to work as many jobs as I had to in order to pay for the kid's clothes, not cite me and fine me and humiliate me, if they happened to be out on the town while I was working the night shift.

Likewise I'd respect your right to pay for guitar lessons and raise your kid the way you choose.

Matt, what is the appropriate community response to the situation you describe where a young kid happens to be out on the town while his single mom is working?

Matt, "I don't have time to take care of my kids" is a scary excuse, no matter what neighborhood you live in.

Martin, Belinda: I'm not offering solutions to the problem. I don't think that's my job, is it? And I'm sorry if the situation is "scary."

But what I am telling you, based on my reporting, is that the curfew solution is damaging the perception of law enforcement in Portland and appears to many in its current form as ill-considered at a policy level.

Apparently curfew and its enforcement is a problem in Lake Oswego, too. Several Lake Oswego High School students tried to get their City Council to change the rules there last year. The Council refused, and the ACLU is now suing on behalf of the students.

That said, as a parent of teenagers I have found the curfew laws enormously helpful and not unreasonable. They're helpful when "because I say so" doesn't work quite as well as it did when my kids were smaller, and teenagers don't believe "because you'll be too tired to do x in the morning" from their mother. They just don't. "Because it's the law" meant pretty much the end of the argument (once I had a copy of the ordinance printed out). And I think the restrictions are reasonable because there are exceptions. Whenever my sons were out after curfew (when they were subject to it), I gave them a note stating why and that they had my permission.

Our SW Portland neighbors' clean-shaven, short-haired, model-citizen, Caucasian son was stopped while driving with a group of his friends and questioned about curfew. It's not something that happens only in some parts of the region to certain types of kid.

With respect, Amanda, the statistics from the pilot project show that only African American mothers in North Portland were cited into juvenile court.

I hear what you're saying as a parent, that the law is a way to stop arguments, but honestly, I have more understanding for the frustrations of the Lake Oswego kids who are suing, personally.

Somebody told me I was in danger of winning the "blowhard of the month" prize on this issue, but really, as a matter of public policy, I just don't understand it.

When, as a reporter, you are faced with community concern and concern from the city's police oversight committee that a new policy may be adversely targeting poor African American single mothers, it would be irresponsible not to examine those concerns.

Looking at who was cited under the Spring Break policy, where they were cited, how is the community not to feel that the pilot is paying them undue attention?

There is more at stake here than just "where the problem is happening" and "responding to community pressure to do something about it." Where new policies are concerned, I imagine that policy-makers have to consider not just the policy in isolation, but how its implementation might impact the community's perception and trust in the police, when it's tried out.

Then there's maintaining the morale and commitment of police officers—a tricky balance to strike, and I'm glad I don't have to try! But in this case why not, for example, take extra precautions to guard against allegations of profiling by rolling out the policy citywide? Why just in North Portland and downtown? And why did the one white kid who got picked up not get his parents cited? Because his or her grandma couldn't drive down to pick them up? The community isn't buying it.

It seems implied in one or two of the comments here that the "problem" can best be framed in these terms: There are poor black women who can't afford to stay home at night and look after their kids. The "solution?": punish those women for that unhappy reality by forcing them to attend classes run by the government where people in power tell you "how to take care of your kids." It doesn't matter that there's a free meal involved—there's a danger that for those women, they just feel dumped on by a society that's already left them behind. The next step? Fine them $720. It's hardly compassion in action.

The fact that none of those women cited actually attended the sessions should tell us more than that we need to do more to involve the parents in their children's lives. It should prompt us to ask why this particular attempt to do that, seems to have failed.

Matt, I hope you don't think that my comment was one that implied that "There are poor black women who can't afford to stay home at night and look after their kids." It seems to me that you are the one who put together the hypothetical mom who is working overtime to support her family.

I've been thinking about the issues raised by the news story on the spring break curfew enforcement project since I first read it somewhere-- about why it is that to some people it was such an obviously a bad idea to offer curfew offenders and their parents a communication and parenting class when the police seemed to think it was a wholistic community service.

Was it obviously a bad idea after only African American single mom's were affected? Or is the premise flawed no matter who is caught violating curfew? Was the choice of NE and downtown for the pilot obviously weighted against African American families? Why then the criticism of applying it more widely throughout the City?

I really respect Chief Sizer's approach to the issue of racial profiling, she seems to be open minded and willing to examine difficult issues rather than adopt either of the polarized views that the reason there are more people of color involved in police contacts is because they are more involved in crime or because police are overwhelmingly racist.

Is there a need to do more to involve parents in their children's lives as you suggest? Or is that patronizing? Maybe the police should just focus on catching people who have committed crimes and putting them through the penal system if they get criticized for trying the social-worker crime prevention stuff.

Matt, there are two issues here: curfew laws in general, and the Spring Break sweep in particular. I read your blog post as speaking to the curfew in general. And responded that it's not just kids and parents in NE Portland who care about it and are affected.

It's important to be clear about whether the problem is with the policy (or policies, since Lake Oswego and Portland are different jurisdictions), or unequal implementation of curfews in general/Portland's in particular. I agree the unequal targeting of people in NE, and mothers rather than fathers, are problems to be concerned about.

Would you please explain your comment, "I have more understanding for the frustrations of the Lake Oswego kids who are suing, personally"? Why?

Amanda: the problem with this policy in my mind is two-fold.

First, it's not been implemented fairly.

Second, it wouldn't be fair even if we were to implement it across the board, but for a different reason.

The first problem speaks to the the unequal implementation of this particular policy in Portland, and the second problem is to do with the unfairness of curfew policies, in my view, in general. They limit the rights of young people—that's what I mean by having understanding for the frustrations of the Lake Oswego kids.

If a police officer had told me, aged 13, to "get back in my house" after midnight, I wouldn't have respected his opinion. It might be unpleasant but teenagers have a right to be obnoxious.

I think I can win the first argument. I don't think in Portland, however liberal it's supposed to be, that I'd have much chance of winning the second. So I'll stick to the first, for now.

If a police officer had told me, aged 13, to "get back in my house" after midnight, I wouldn't have respected his opinion. It might be unpleasant but teenagers have a right to be obnoxious.

Oh, come off it, Matt - in the UK not only teenagers but also adults specifically DON'T have the right to be obnoxious. The Anti-Social Behaviour Act addresses not only parental responsibility but also housing nuisances, noise, graffiti and littering.

Minors don't have lots of rights people 18 or older have. Parents today need help from the greater society, sometimes in laws such as curfew, to let kids know what our community finds acceptable (even constructive and laudable, in some cases). And what isn't. The unspoken "norms of society" of yesteryear don't exist any more. Let's stick with the issue of uneven implementation and discriminatory enforcement, when it exists.

b!X, the City just approved $200,000 additional funding for Portland Parks & Rec evening and weekend programs for teens. More money was specifically allocated for University Park Community Center near New Columbia, too. The teen programs Parks has been offering for the past six months have proved wildly popular. Part of the new money is dedicated to supporting a committee of teens working to identify what futher programs and funding is needed to provide positive recreational options for young people.

Amanda: Why would we want to compare ourselves to the UK's penal laws, and more importantly, lack of a constitution?

Moreover, the Antisocial Behavior act has been HUGELY controversial in the UK for targeting poor youth and creating an underclass. Here's a BBC report on the issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4252945.stm

Parents today need help from the greater society, sometimes in laws such as curfew, to let kids know what our community finds acceptable (even constructive and laudable, in some cases). And what isn't.

Again, I bring this back to the Portland-specific question of: who is telling who how to raise their kids, and where? Which "communities" find what "unacceptable?"

The unspoken "norms of society" of yesteryear don't exist any more.

No. But the unspoken, unexamined prejudices of yesteryear still do—and I'm not accusing you of these, Amanda. It's our society at large.

I don't see how policies like this one do anything but dump on the powerless, and that's a perpetuation of, rather than a challenge to, America's past. There's nothing remotely creative about it.

I think we may be talking about different things again, Matt. I don't find it prejudiced or unreasonable for our communities to set the expectation that all children under 18, in all parts of our region (Lake Oswego as well as Northeast and SW Portland) should be home by 10:15 when there's school the next day, midnight when there isn't. There are exceptions for jobs and other needs. I don't see the curfew in general as a "dump on the powerless" - only selective enforcement of it.

It's not prejudiced to believe the research that school students need to sleep, and that those who keep regular hours tend to do better academically. It's sad that curfew laws are necessary now, but in some ways they can be seen as society trying to protect our investment in providing good educational opportunities. Citizens who help pay for schools, teachers, and related support have a stake in whether students show up the next morning ready to learn, or exhausted from gallivanting all night.

No. I think we're talking about the same thing, Amanda, but that we just disagree.

The research can say what it likes about sleep and regular hours—you could say much the same about journalists, that if they get enough sleep and don't drink too much, they're likely to perform better over the long term. But we don't make up arbitrary laws to stop journalists from drinking, or tell them when to stop playing online poker. Do we?

Curfew laws are no more "necessary now" than they were in the 1950s when rock'n'roll started, and all the kids started listening to this strange new devil music with the electric gee-tars. They are unnecessary restrictions of youthful freedom and I hate them for that.

People, no matter how young or old, should not be restricted from the fundamental human right to "gallivant" if they want to.

What's more, we know for a fact that those students who want to gallivant are going to do so, regardless of whatever laws we put in place. So the law ends up impacting good kids regardless, who are probably sensible enough to make smart decisions when they need to. After all, isn't that what our so-called education system is supposed to be teaching them?

And if you want to talk about safeguarding the public's investment, what about the cost of piloting a policy that doesn't seem to have worked? How many police overtime hours? How much of the DA's time (which surely, doesn't come cheap...) could have been better spent on prosecuting more serious cases?