Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITEterature -Foreign studies

Curfews appear to have important effects on the criminal behavior of youth. The arrest data suggest
that being subject to a curfew reduces the arrests of juveniles below the curfew age by
approximately 10% in the years following of enactment. Arrests of adults also appear to fall in
response to enactment though the intensity and timing of the effect appears to be similar across
exempt age-groups, suggesting that statistical discrimination has little to do with any spillover
effects. However, the precision of the estimated effects on older age-groups is poor and I cannot
rule out small (and potentially important) discrimination effects. It is interesting to note that these
findings are in keeping with the perceptions of those subject to curfew policies. As Adams Kenneth
(2003) notes, Public opinion shows overwhelming support for curfews. The primary basis for [this]
support is the conviction that curfews reduce crime and make the streets safer. Though this
analysis cannot uncover the exact mechanism through which curfews affect crime, the large
statutory results suggest youth crime is imperfectly substitutable across time and that temporal
targeting of law enforcement policies may be effective. An alternative rationalization of the
evidence is that parents play an important role in the enforcement of curfews over and above that
of police. If municipal curfews act as focal points in the establishment of household policies, a
curfew with modest ones (and arrests) could lead to large changes in the behavior of youth.

Youth curfews have become a popular tool for combating juvenile delinquency. A survey by
Ruefle and Reynolds (1996) found that 146 of the 200 American cities with population above
100,000 had curfew laws on the books, with 110 having enacted or revised their ordinances
between 1990 and 1995. A subsequent study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors (1997) found that
80% of the 347 cities with population over 30,000 had youth curfews. Despite their popularity with
local governments, existing studies find little evidence to support the notion that curfews are
effective at reducing crime.

(Males and Macallair, 1999; McDowell et al., 2000; Reynolds et al., 2000) A key contribution is the
separate assessment of the impact of curfew ordinances, which normally only apply to youth under
the age of 16 or 17, on arrests of youth subject to the curfew law and those above the city is
statutory maximum curfew age. Analyzing both sets of impacts is important because curfew
policies can be thought of as constituting two treatments, each applying to a different set of age
groups. The First treatment, the statutory treatment, is that of being subject to a curfew citation.
One, temporary detention, or whatever punishment is statutorily prescribed for curfew violations
by minors. This treatment only affects those youth under the statutory curfew age. The second
treatment, the statistical discrimination treatment, is that of being subject to lower standards of
probable cause as a result of one is perceived youth. Police are unlikely to be able to distinguish ex-
ante between young people just above and below the curfew age. Thus, for adjacent age-groups
curfews should raise the probability of being stopped or searched by an amount that depends very
little on one is actual age. The possibility of this second effect is frequently cited by the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as an argument for reversing such ordinances on the grounds that they
constitute violations of fundamental civil liberties. Constitutional issues aside, both treatments
should be of interest to economists. The statutory treatment represents the deterrent effect of the
curfew is statutory sanctions. Identifying this effect tells us how much crime could be reduced by
raising penalties or increasing enforcement of curfew ordinances.2 It also implicitly provides an
estimate of an important margin in the economics of crime: the substitutability of criminal activity
across time. Indeed, if, as in basic economic models
(Becker, 1968), crime is a purposive activity, and then curfews should only reduce
delinquency if the technology used to produce this behavior is imperfectly substitutable between
curfew and non-curfew hours. The statistical discrimination treatment tells us the impact of
weakening Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Estimates of
this margin are important not only for those interested in evaluating the costs and benefits of the
age discrimination implicit in youth curfews, but those involved in recent debates over racial
proofing and national security. Furthermore, these estimates are closely tied to the elasticity of
criminal behavior with respect to the probability of detection; a key parameter in Becker is classic
model. Under the assumption that police cannot distinguish between adjacent ages comparisons of
the response of age-groups just below the curfew age to those just above will estimate the statutory
treatment effect. Similarly, statistical discrimination effects can be estimated by comparing the
response of age-groups just above the curfew age to those several years older. The presence of non-
trivial statutory or statistical discrimination effects may also induce a second order effect on the
crime rates of adults due to cross-age interactions. These effects on adults may be iden tified
provided curfew laws are not enacted in response to trends in adult crime, a condition which
appears to be satisfied in the data. To preview the results, find strong evidence of persistent
statutory treatment effects on criminal behavior. Arrests for Part I offenses appear to fall by around
10% in the three years following curfew enactment. Though the results are imprecise, there do
appear to be spillover effects on young adults and adults over age 25, with both groups exhibiting
roughly equivalent declines in arrests in response to enactment. Hence, the data are less supportive
of statistical discrimination effects than the hypothesis that criminal propensity is positively
dependent across age-groups.

The first youth curfew was enacted in Omaha, Nebraska in 1880 (Hemmens and Bennett,
1999). In 1884, President Harrison gave a speech endorsing curfews as the most important
municipal regulation for the protection of the children of American homes, from the vices of the
street (Note, 1958). By 1957, 57 of the 109 cities with 1950 population over 100,000 reported
having curfews (Note, 1958). Although many cities have long had curfew statutes, the most recent
period of sustained enforcement came in the early 1990s when violent crime and victimization of
juveniles began to rise and cities learned to craft curfew legislation in a manner amenable to the
courts. Prior to this period, many cities had been unable to defend their curfews from legal
challenges that they violate civil rights, especially the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of
the Constitution. Many cities, fearful of challenges by the ACLU and others, either allowed
enforcement of their laws to lapse or in some cases actually repealed existing ordinances. It is
against this backdrop that Dallas, Texas passed a new curfew ordinance in 1991 that would become
a model for many other American cities. The Dallas curfew was narrowly tailored to apply to youth
of specified ages, at specific times, and had a number of exemptions to the law including for youth
accompanied by an adult, responding to an emergency, and traveling to or from school, work, or a
religious service. Furthermore, the parameters of the curfew were designed to deal with the
specific needs of the city. The city had collected data showing, among other things, that juvenile
delinquency increased proportionally with age between the ages of 10 and 16, that the time during
which murders by juveniles were most frequently committed was between 10 p.m. and 1 a.m., that
these murders most often occurred in apartments, parking lots, and streets and highways, that
aggravated assaults by juveniles were most likely to occur between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m., and that 31
percent of robberies occurred on public streets and highways (Department of Justice, 1996). The
ACLU challenged Dallas is law shortly after it was introduced, causing a judge to issue an injunction
against its immediate enforcement.

In Qutb v. Strauss (11 F. 3d 488, 1993) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld
the law, arguing that the city demonstrated that the ordinance was sufficiently narrowly tailored
and that it met a compelling state interest, the two conditions necessary for passing the "strict
scrutiny" test of constitutional infringement. An appeal was made to the Supreme Court which
refused to hear the case, thus setting a precedent for the design of youth ordinances. Even before
the Fifth Circuit upheld the law, local governments were paying close attention to the construction
of the Dallas curfew. Cities such as Miami, FL, El Paso, TX, and San Antonio, TX explicitly modeled
their programs on Dallas is. By 1996, President Clinton was publicly touting youth curfews as an
effective policy for combating juvenile delinquency and the Department of Justice and U.S.
Conference of Mayors were issuing briefings to local governments on best practices for curfew
creation. In many cities, curfews have been introduced by government officials as credible and
effective community-based responses to increases in serious juvenile crime. Curfews have been
touted as particularly useful in high-crime neighborhoods or communities. In some areas they have
been endorsed primarily as a strategy to limit the late-night activities of juvenile gangs. Curfew
laws have become increasingly important instruments of the crime control or "just deserts"
approach to juvenile justice, which emphasizes accountability and more severe sanctioning of
juvenile offenders. This approach has largely supplanted the rehabilitative justice model that
dominated juvenile justice since the early 20th century

(Feld, 1990; Krisberg, Schwartz, Litsky, and Austin, 1986; Ruefle and Reynolds, 1995).Legal
challenges have prompted lawmakers to rethink and re-shape curfew laws to address and protect
essential juvenile rights. Comprehensive and precise language defining the key terms in these laws
is intended to provide clear definitions of prohibited behavior

(Marketos,1995, Seibert, 1995). "Exceptions" to the restrictions that the law places upon
various juvenile behaviors have been added to prevent curfews from violating First Amendment
rights of free speech, association and assembly, religious expression, and unrestricted travel
(Johnson, 1995; Horowitz, 1991; Marketos, 1995). Consistent standards of enforcement, in cluding a
mandatory enforcement requirement, have been appended to some curfew laws to forestall claims
that they involve arbitrary and discriminatory application (Marketos, 1995, Seibert, 1995). Courts
have generally upheld as constitutional the government’s claim of having a compelling interest in
passing teen curfew laws in response to rising juvenile crime
 (Hananel, 1994; Qutb v. Strauss,11 £ 3d 488 1993). However, cities have not been required
to present evidence to the courts indicating that curfews have actually been instituted in response
to the juvenile crime problem. There has also been no requirement to provide evidence that
curfews have curtailed crime or reduced juvenile victimization in cities where they have been
adopted

(DeLucia,1995; Johnson, 1995; Marketos, 1995; Seibert, 1995; Lester, 1996). Indeed, the
research literature is nearly bereft of studies examining the effects of curfews on crime, the
community, or youth offenders (Ruefle and Reynolds, 1995). The claims in several high profile
cities such as Denver, San Antonio, and New Orleans that serious juvenile crime decreased 30 to 60
percent in their areas following the adoption of curfew laws have been based on anecdotal
evidence, rather than systematic data collection and analysis (Siebert, 1995).

The national rates of violent juvenile crime that had climbed so steeply from the mid-1980's
to 1993 and were instrumental in the reemergence of teen curfew laws have declined rather
sharply since 1995 (Sickmund et al., 1997). There are only two studies that have examined the link
between curfews and changes in rates of juvenile arrests. A dated curfew outcome study (Hunt and
Weiner, 1977 examined the effects of a summertime curfew law in a large Midwestern City. Rates of
serious crimes (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) committed by juveniles during the month of August
were calculated for the four years prior to adoption of the summer curfew and compared with rates
after the curfew took effect. The findings suggested that crime rates were reduced during curfew
hours. However, there was also some evidence of "crime displacement", that is, an observable
increase in criminal activities during the afternoon hours when the curfew was not in effect. A
recent study examined whether rates of curfew arrests were associated with rates of juvenile
arrests on a year-by-year basis from 1978 to 1996 for the state of California

(Males & Macallair,1999). Categories of youth crimes examined were: all arrests, felonies,
violent felonies, homicides, property felonies, and misdemeanors. A statewide analysis revealed
that curfew arrests were generally unrelated to juvenile arrest rates, although they were associated
with higher rates of misdemeanor arrests for all youth and specifically for whites, Hispanics, and
Asians. Curfew enforcement was related to higher rates of violent crime by Asian youth, and higher
rates of all types of crime for Asian and white youth. Although there are no national crime statistics
that specify the number of annual curfew violations, the FBI crime statistics include a category
which groups curfew and loitering violations. In 1992, there were 91,100 youths cited for these
offenses. This seems to be a high number when compared to the 129,600 youth arrested in the
same year for all violent crimes (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994). By 1995, curfew and loitering
violations had risen to 149,800, surpassing the incidence of all violent crimes (147,700)

(Sickmund, Snyder, & Poe-Yamagata, 1997). The most recent figures indicate that
curfew/loitering violations had reached 183,000 in 1997, more than double the rate from 1992
(Snyder, 1998). Critics of teen curfews have argued that they have little impact on serious juvenile
crimes, citing statistics indicating that most of these offenses occur in the after-school hours before
parents return home from work (Seibert, 1995). Approximately 57 percent of all violent juvenile
crime occurs on school days; 20 percent of it occurs between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. serious
violent crimes by juveniles peaks at 3 p.m. on school days, and it peaks in the evening between 8:00
p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on non-school days

(Sickmund et al., 1997; Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). The rate of violent crimes committed by
juveniles is four times greater in the afterschool hours than in the usual curfew period. The
potential for efforts to be successful in reducing a community's juvenile violent crime rate are
greater if they target youth in the hours immediately after school as compared to the late-night
hours typically covered by juvenile curfews (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). Critics of teen curfews
have also voiced the suspicion that these laws are enforced in an arbitrary and discriminatory
fashion, targeting youth in low income, minority neighborhoods. It is feared that if broad
enforcement discretion is granted to police, they will use the curfew as a pretense to detain and
question youth, particularly minority youth. Studies examining police decision-making practices
suggest that this concern is justified. The curfew law was adopted in response to a reported
increase in serious and violent juvenile crime (murder, rape, assault, and burglaries) in the city
over the past several years. Its stated purpose was to reduce juvenile crime and violence

(Tolliver, 1994).The curfew law applies to all youth 17 years of age and younger, from 11
p.m. to 5 a.m. week nights, and from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. on weekend nights. The law contains several
exceptions to violations including youths who are: accompanied by a parent or other authorized
adult; exercising first amendment rights (religion, speech, assembly); cases of reasonable necessity;
standing on the sidewalk in front of their residence; returning home within an hour of a school,
religious, or voluntary activity; engaged in employment activity; in a motor vehicle with an
authorized driver; operators or passengers of a motor vehicle in direct route to a destination within
or out of the city limits; married; or homeless and using a public place as an abode. The law also
contains a provision to cite the parents of youth violators if they permit the youth to violate the
curfew or fail to prevent the youth from violating the curfew. Cited parents face a fine of up to $499.
Enforcement of this provision is left to the discretion of the police officer.
References

1. Adams, Kenneth. 2003. The Effectiveness of Juvenile Curfews at Crime Prevention. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 587(1):136-159.

2. Ruefle, William and Kenneth Mike Reynolds. 1995. Curfews and Delinquency in Major American Cities.
Crime and Delinquency 41(3):347-363.

3. Males, Mike and Dan Macallair. 1999. "An Analysis of Curfew Enforcement and Juvenile Crime in
California. "Western Criminology Review”,. Published online at:
http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v1n2/males.html

4 Becker, Gary S. 1968. Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy
76(2):169-217.

5.Hemmens, Craig and Katherine Bennet. 1999. Juvenile Curfews and the Courts: Judicial Response to a
Not-So-New Crime Control Strategy. Crime and Delinquency 45(1):99-121.

6. Feld, B. (1990). The punitive juvenile court and the quality of procedural justice: Disjunctions between
rhetoric and reality. Crime & Delinquency 36: 443-366.
7. Marketos, A. (1995). The constitutionality of juvenile curfews. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 46:
17-30

8.Seibert, K. (1995). Nocturnal juvenile curfew ordinances: The Fifth Circuit "narrowly tailors" a Dallas
ordinance, but will similar ordinances encounter the same interpretations? Washington University Law
Quarterly 73: 1711-45

9. Sickmund, M., Snyder, H. and Poe-Yamagata, E. (1997). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1997 update
on violence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

10.Hunt, A. L. and Weiner, K. (1977). The impact of a juvenile curfew: Suppression and displacement in
patterns of juvenile offenses. Journal of Police Science and Administration 5: 407-12.

11.Tolliver, T. (1994). Staying out late is a basic right, teens contend in curfew hearing. The Lexington
Herald-Leader, October 14. p. Al.

Review of Related Literature- foreign literature

The literature on teen curfews is limited to several articles in law journals, two outcomeevaluations, a
multitude of newspaper stories, and a recent survey on curfews in the nation's largestcities. This
literature has reviewed and evaluated the legal issues associated with various court caseschallenging
teen curfew laws. These lawsuits have essentially argued that curfews violate theconstitutional rights of
juveniles and negate the child rearing rights and responsibilities of parents.Constitutional questions
concerning violations of the Equal Protection Clause, First Amendment rights,and 14th Amendment
guarantees of due process have been raised most often.Legal challenges have prompted lawmakers to
rethink and reshape curfew laws toaddress and protect essential juvenile rights. Comprehensive and
precise language defining the keyterms in these laws is intended to provide clear definitions of
prohibited behavior (Marketos, 1995,Seibert, 1995). "Exceptions" to the restrictions that the law places
upon various juvenile behaviors havebeen added to prevent curfews from violating First Amendment
rights of free speech, association andassembly, religious expression, and unrestricted travel (Johnson,
1995; Horowitz, 1991; Marketos,1995). Consistent standards of enforcement, including a mandatory
enforcement requirement, havebeen appended to some curfew laws to forestall claims that they
involve arbitrary and discriminatoryapplication (Marketos, 1995, Seibert, 1995).Courts have generally
upheld as constitutional the government's claim of having acompelling interest in passing teen curfew
laws in response to rising juvenile crime (Hananel, 1994; Qutbv. Strauss, 11 £ 3d 488 1993). However,
cities have not been required to present evidence to the courtsindicating that curfews have actually
been instituted in response to the juvenile crime problem. Therehas also been no requirement to
provide evidence that curfews have curtailed crime or reduced juvenilevictimization in cities where they
have been adopted (DeLucia, 1995; Johnson, 1995; Marketos, 1995;Seibert, 1995; Lester, 1996). Indeed,
the research literature is nearly bereft of studies examining theeffects of curfews on crime, the
community, or youth offenders (Ruefle and Reynolds, 1995). The claimsin several high profile cities such
as Denver, San Antonio, and New Orleans that serious juvenile crimedecreased 30 to 60 percent in their
areas following the adoption of curfew laws have been based onanecdotal evidence, rather than
systematic data collection and analysis (Siebert, 1995). The nationalrates of violent juvenile crime that
had climbed so steeply from the mid-1980's to 1993 and wereinstrumental in the reemergence of teen
curfew laws have declined rather sharply since 1995 (Sickmundet al., 1997). There are only two studies
that have examined the link between curfews and changes inrates of juvenile arrests.A dated curfew
outcome study (Hunt and Weiner, 1977) examined the effects of asummertime curfew law in a large
Midwestem city. Rates of serious crimes (rape, robbery, burglary,etc.) committed by juveniles during the
month of August were calculated for the four years prior toadoption of the summer curfew and
compared with rates after the curfew took effect. The findingssuggested that crime rates were reduced
during curfew hours. However, there was also some evidenceof "crime displacement",that is, an
observable increase in criminal activities during the afternoon hourswhen the curfew was not in effect.

A recent study examined whether rates of curfew arrests were associated with rates of juvenile arrests
on a year-by-year basis from 1978 to 1996 for the state of California (Males & Macallair,1999).
Categories of youth crimes examined were: all arrests, felonies, violent felonies, homicides,property
felonies, and misdemeanors. A statewide analysis revealed that curfew arrests were generallyunrelated
to juvenile arrest rates, although they were associated with higher rates of misdemeanorarrests for all
youth and specifically for whites, Hispanics, and Asians. Curfew enforcement was relatedto higher rates
of violent crime by Asian youth, and higher rates of all types of crime for Asian and whiteyouth.The
twelve most populous counties in California were examined for the 1980-96 period.Again, curfew arrest
rates were generally unrelated to youth arrest rates overall, but were positivelyrelated to arrests for
misdemeanors. In four counties, curfews were associated with higher rates of bothviolent and property
crimes. Most significantly, none of the counties with the highest rates of curfewenforcement showed a
significant decrease in juvenile arrests for any kind of crime. The authorsconcluded that their analysis of
teen curfews in California did not support the contention that curfewenforcement is related to
reductions in any kind of juvenile crime (Males & Macallair, 1999).Ruefle and Reynolds (1995) reviewed
more than 160 newspaper stories about curfewswhich appeared during 1993 and part of 1994. They
found that the rationale for adoption of curfews inmost cities was to reduce juvenile crime and crime
victimization. Several cities were reported to haveadopted curfews both as a hedge against the
geographical displacement of juvenile crime to their citiesfrom other areas and as part of a "domino
effect" when surrounding cities and municipalities passedthem. At the time of the survey, three major
American cities (Denver, Phoenix, Orlando) had adoptedcity-wide curfews that had specific application
to "hot spot" high crime areas.Ruefle and Reynolds (1995) also conducted a telephone survey of police
departments inthe 77 cities in the United States with populations of 200,000 or more to determine the
extent andcontent of their curfews. Fifty nine (77%) of these largest cities had curfew ordinances by
mid-1994. Ofthese cities, 33 (56%) had curfews enacted prior to the 1990's, and 26 (44%) had adopted
them for thefirst time between 1990 and 1994. Many of the cities with longstanding curfews had revised
theirordinances during the early 1 990's.Although there are no national crime statistics that specify the
number of annual curfewviolations, the FBI crime statistics include a category which groups curfew and
loitering violations. In1992, there were 91,100 youths cited for these offenses. This seems to be a high
number whencompared to the 129,600 youth arrested in the same year for all violent crimes (FBI
Uniform CrimeStatistics, 1994). By 1995, curfew and loitering violations had risen to 149,800, surpassing
the incidenceof all violent crimes (147,700) (Sickmund, Snyder, & Poe-Yamagata, 1997). The most recent
figuresindicate that curfew/loitering violations had reached 183,000 in 1997, more than double the rate
from1992 (Snyder, 1998).

` Critics of teen curfews have argued that they have little impact on serious juvenilecrimes, citing
statistics indicating that most of these offenses occur in the after-school hoursbefore parents return
home from work (Seibert, 1995). Approximately 57 percent of all violent juvenile crime occurs on school
days; 20 percent of it occurs between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.Serious violent crimes by juveniles peaks
at 3 p.m. on school days, and it peaks in the eveningbetween 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on non-school
days (Sickmund et al., 1997; Snyder &Sickmund, 1999). The rate of violent crimes committed by
juveniles is four times greater in theafterschool hours than in the usual curfew period. The potential for
efforts to be successful inreducing a community's juvenile violent crime rate are greater if they target
youth in the hoursimmediately after school as compared to the late-night hours typically covered by
juvenilecurfews (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999).Critics of teen curfews have also voiced the suspicion that
these laws are enforced in anarbitrary and discriminatory fashion, targeting youth in low income,
minority neighborhoods. Itis feared that if broad enforcement discretion is granted to police, they will
use the curfew as apretense to detain and question youth, particularly minority youth. Studies
examining policedecision-making practices suggest that this concern is justified.Results indicate that
numerous extra-legal factors contribute to the increasedlikelihood of juvenile arrest. These factors
include: social class, race, demeanor, and area ofresidence of the offender; presence of co perpetrators;
and general police department policiesand deployment practices (Fisher and Doyle-Martin, 1981, Smith
and Visher, 1981; Sutphen,Kurtz, and Giddings 1993). Critics argue that curfews are merely another law
enforcementweapon that will be misused by police to cite youth for curfew violations when they
aresuspected of committing other crimes but there is insufficient evidence for an arrest (Federale,1995;
Ford, 1994; Ruefle and Reynolds, 1995).

LITERATURECITED

Adams,K.(2003).TheEffectivenessofJuvenileCurfewsatCrimePrevention.Annalsof
theAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience.RetrievedonJanuary24, 2019 from
https://bit.ly/30c7Z3X

Díaz del Castillo, A., Sarmiento, O. L., Reis, R. S., & Brownson, R. C. (2011).
Translatingevidencetopolicy:urbaninterventionsandphysicalactivitypromotion inBogotá, Colombia and
Curitiba, Brazil.Translational behavioral medicine, 1(2), 350-360. Retrieved on January 10, 2019 from
https://bit.ly/3hSHJSm

Families(2010).JournalofJuvenileJustice,4(2).RetrievedJanuary20,2019from https://bit.ly/2U7A7ky

Sutphen,R.D.,&Ford,J.(2001).Theeffectivenessandenforcementofateencurfew
law.J.Soc.&Soc.Welfare,28,55.RetrievedonJanuary10,2020fromhttps:// bit.ly/3dy2Qqr

Wilson, D., Fried J, Reynoldset T., (2016).”Juvenile curfew effects on criminal

behaviorandCampbellCollaborationsystematicreview.“JournalofExperimentalCriminology”.
 Wu, J., Zhao, S., Sheng, V. S., Zhao, P., & Cui, Z. (2016, July). Multi-label active
learningforimageclassificationwithasymmetricalconditionaldependence.In
2016IEEEInternationalConferenceonMultimediaandExpo(ICME)(pp.1-6). IEEE.Retrieved on
January 10, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2MrfcEX

Villarica, H. (2011). Maslow 2.0: A new and improved recipe for happiness.
TheAtlantic,308(1).RetrievedonJanuary11,2019fromhttps://bit.ly/3csnRBP