Many jurisdictions have implemented curfews in reaction to increased juvenile delinquency and other social trends. This bulletin explores developments in curfew ordinances, legal issues related to curfews, how community based jurisdictions have responded to these issues, and the elements of sound curfew programs as illustrated in seven jurisdictions. Of 200 large cities (population of 100,000 or greater in 1992), 47% had curfews in effect on January 1, 1990, and 53 additional cities implemented curfews between 1990 and spring 1995. In that same time, 37 of the 93 cities with an existing curfew ordinance revised their existing curfew ordinances. To pass constitutional scrutiny, curfew provisions must demonstrate a compelling state interest and ensure that the curfew restrictions are tailored to the law's objective. The seven cities whose curfew provisions are discussed enacted their ordinances pursuant to specific authorizing state legislation. Each of these jurisdictions collected data on juvenile crime and victimization before passing a curfew ordinance, and each then applied a unique and innovative approach to addressing both juvenile crime and youth victimization through a curfew. Each program includes one or more of a set of common elements that include curfew centers, interventions and referrals, procedures for repeat offenders, recreation and job programs, antidrug and antiaging programs and hotlines for and followup services and crisis intervention. Programs are reviewed for: (1) Dallas (Texas); (2) Phoenix (Arizona); (3) Chicago (Illinois); (4) New Orleans (Louisiana); (5) Denver (Colorado); (6) North Little Rock (Arkansas); and (7) Jacksonville (Florida). It is important that communities considering curfews be aware of legal developments and challenges, establish a firm foundation for the ordinance, and model the programs after successful efforts in other cities. (Contains 2 tables and a list of 12 sources for additional reading.) (SLD)