U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Melodee Hanes, Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ojjdp.gov

-

-

-

 

October 2012 

Underage Drinking 

Underage drinking is a widespread 

offense that can have serious physical, 

neurological, and legal consequences. 

Problematically, it has become quite 

commonplace. The Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

(OJJDP) works to eliminate underage 

consumption of alcohol and provide 

guidance for communities developing 

prevention and treatment programs. 

OJJDP created the underage drinking 

bulletin series to educate practitioners 

and policymakers about the problems 

youth face when they abuse alcohol and 

to provide evidence-based guidelines. 

The series presents findings from a study 

on preventing underage drinking in the 

Air Force as well as a literature review of 

the effects and consequences of underage 

drinking, best practices for community 

supervision of underage drinkers and 

legal issues surrounding underage drink 

ing, and practice guidelines for working 

with underage drinkers. 

The series highlights the dangers of un 

derage drinking. Hopefully, the informa 

tion it provides will support communities 

in their efforts to reduce alcohol use by 

minors through the use of evidencebased strategies and practices. 

Underage Drinking: Practice 

Guidelines for Community Corrections 

Highlights

In this bulletin, the authors describe 10 guidelines for community supervision 

professionals who regularly work with underage drinkers. These guidelines are 

derived from evidence-based practices. They help professionals develop a plan 

for screening underage drinkers, determine appropriate responses, create a case 

plan, and provide treatment. The guidelines point to the following: 

•	 Youth should be screened for alcohol problems regularly throughout their 

supervision. If they are found to be at risk for such problems, a substance 

abuse specialist should conduct a thorough assessment. Other assessments should identify youths’ risks, needs, and assets. 

•	 Justice professionals should develop an individualized case plan for 

each youth. 

•	 Professionals should match interventions with a youth’s needs and assets. 

Youth’s progress and participation in programs should be monitored. 

•	 Family and social networks must support youth. 

•	 Youth should receive swift and certain sanctions for noncompliance with 

supervision conditions but should also receive positive reinforcement for 

constructive behaviors. 
 

 

October 2012 

Underage Drinking: Practice Guidelines for Community Corrections
 

Guidelines based on evidence-based practices1 help direct 

the roles of community supervision professionals who 

work with underage drinkers. Adapting evidence-based 

practices when working with underage drinking offenders 

requires juvenile justice professionals to recognize existing 

legal, structural, procedural, and philosophical differences 

between communities. Community corrections professionals who use evidence-based practice standards in this way 

can provide a blueprint for communities to develop the 

most effective responses to this problem. 

This bulletin focuses on 10 practice guidelines based on 

the evidence-based practice literature. Practitioners should 

consider these guidelines when working with youth who 

are referred to community corrections for underage drinking and related offenses. Readers should consider these 

practice guidelines within the context of their local system 

and agency and determine how to facilitate necessary 

policy, practice, and system changes. 

Practice Guideline 1 

Conduct screening for alcohol problems at the first 

and subsequent contacts between underage drinkers 

and the justice system. 

All youth2 who come in contact with the justice system 

should be screened for alcohol and other drug involvement regardless of the offense with which they are 

charged. Although screening all youth may not always be 

practical, screening for alcohol-related problems should be 

conducted with any youth who is detained or arrested for 

underage drinking or who has risk factors that indicate 

that he or she may be particularly vulnerable to alcohol 

problems. Screening might be performed at a number of 

points, including at arrest, pretrial release, diversion, 

presentence investigation, and probation intake or 

during supervision. 

A variety of alcohol and drug screening instruments are 

available3

 but their suitability for use with adolescents and 

young adults may be questionable. Many instruments 

were developed for use with adults and may not have been 

validated for use with adolescents and young adults; others were initially developed for use in physical and mental 

health settings but may not have been validated for use 

with adolescents and young adults in the justice system. 

Administering and interpreting screening instruments may 

require different levels of training and expertise. Some 

instruments are available in the public domain and can 

be used without cost. Others must be purchased. 

Most screening instruments rely on youth’s self-reports, 

which may or may not be truthful. To ensure accuracy, 

practitioners should consider other sources of information 

about the youth’s drinking—including family, peers, law 

enforcement, schools, and written or electronic records. 

Practice Guideline 2 

Assess the youth’s risk and needs. 

An actuarial assessment of risk and needs serves two 

primary purposes. First, it helps identify youth who are 

most likely to reoffend and determine which youth should 

receive the limited resources of the justice system. Second, 

it helps identify a youth’s specific needs (which are related 

to the youth’s risk of recidivating) so that a case plan and 

interventions and services can be developed to best address those needs. 

Following an assessment of a youth’s risk and needs, the 

community corrections professional verifies the information collected and classifies the youth according to risk. 

The most intensive interventions can be reserved for youth 

determined to have the greatest probability of reoffending 

(Crime and Justice Institute, 2004). 

When choosing an assessment tool, community corrections agencies should consider factors such as ease of use, 

validity (i.e., whether the tool measures what it is designed 

to measure), reliability (i.e., whether different raters get 

2 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

similar results when using the tool on an individual), the 

amount of staff training required, and cost. If possible, the 

tool should be normalized for the population on whom it 

will be used. Risk and needs assessment instruments generally measure factors known to correlate highly with repeat 

offending, such as: 

•	 Current and prior offenses (age, frequency, seriousness). 

•	 Education level.4 

•	 Employment.5 

•	 Family and living situation. 

•	 Peer relationships. 

•	 Substance abuse history and current substance use. 

•	 Antisocial attitudes. 

In addition to providing objective data on a youth’s level 

of risk of further engagement in delinquency, the assessment should also provide information on the youth’s 

needs. For example, the results from a risk and needs 

assessment also provide information on whether a youth 

charged with underage drinking may need services and 

interventions for substance abuse. Professionals should 

use the assessment as a basis to develop a case plan for 

each youth that ensures that the youth’s critical needs are 

addressed (King County Department of Community and 

Human Services, 2005). 

Some organizations assume that a risk and needs assessment should be performed only when a youth is placed on 

probation, not when he or she is placed in a diversionary 

program.6

 Risk and needs assessment data are beneficial 

at any point in the justice system process. Community 

corrections professionals should use their discretion to 

determine when to perform a risk and needs assessment, 

based on the youth’s location within the system (probation or diversion), the agency involved, and the practicality 

of performing an assessment. 

Data obtained from a risk and needs assessment can determine the effectiveness of prescribed interventions for 

an individual youth. A youth’s risk level and needs can 

also change over time. Therefore, periodic reassessment 

is as important as initial assessment. This helps ascertain 

whether the prescribed interventions are having a positive 

(or negative) impact on the youth. 

Practice Guideline 3 

Assess youth for strengths and assets. 

After performing a risk and needs assessment, professionals 

should examine what strengths, assets, and tools are 

available to help youth build a healthier and more productive future. The Search Institute (n.d.) has developed a 

list of 40 developmental assets that may improve youth’s 

lives. This list can be viewed at www.search-institute.org/ 

content/40-developmental-assets-adolescents-ages-12-18.7 

Professionals should determine which of these assets a 

youth already has and look for ways to build other assets. 

Research has shown that higher levels of these 40 assets 

contribute to youth’s positive achievements, including academic achievement, and decrease their difficulties and problem behaviors, including problem alcohol use and violence 

(Search Institute, n.d.; Scales and Roehlkepartain, 2003). 

Practice Guideline 4 

Assess youth for substance abuse problems. 

If screening and assessment indicates the youth may have 

an alcohol problem, a substance abuse professional who 

has special training and experience in working with youth 

and young adults should further assess the youth. Underage drinkers may not meet the strict definition for alcohol 

abuse or dependence as outlined by the Diagnostic and 

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition 

(DSM–IV) (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), but 

they may still have significant alcohol abuse issues. 

Substance abuse assessment determines the nature and complexity of an individual’s alcohol use and related problems. 

The assessment gathers information from a variety of sources. Coordinating the gathering and use of this information 

among the various organizations and agencies that deal with 

young people can result in better assessments (Buck Willison 

et al., 2010). The substance abuse professional performing 

the assessment should gather the following types of information in this process:8 

•	 Arrest, court, and corrections records. 

•	 Educational records. 

•	 Medical records. 

•	 Mental health and substance abuse treatment records. 

•	 Self-reports and interviews from youth. 

•	 Interviews with collateral contacts. 

•	 Instrument test results. 

A number of factors increase youth’s risk of alcohol and 

other drug problems or provide some protection against 

these problems. Information on both risk and protective 

factors should be collected throughout the screening and 

assessment process. This information should be used to 

develop case plans, determine treatment styles, and enhance youth’s resilience9

 against such problems. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 3 
 

After the data have been reviewed and analyzed, justice 

system personnel and the substance abuse assessment 

professional must determine the extent of the youth’s 

substance abuse problem, the factors that contribute to 

the problem, the strengths and supports available to the 

individual youth, what consequences the problem has led 

to, and the individual youth’s readiness for intervention. 

Practice Guideline 5 

Determine the most appropriate system-level 

response and individual-level intervention(s) 

and develop an individualized case plan. 

After screening, risk and needs assessments, and alcoholrelated assessments have been completed, community 

corrections professionals should recommend the most 

appropriate system- and individual-level responses and 

interventions for youth. Professionals should then create a 

case plan. Possible approaches and case-plan requirements 

are described here. 

System-Level Response 

Each jurisdiction should have many options available for 

a system-level response. The response must coincide with 

the goals of the agencies that enforce underage drinking. 

System goals should incorporate balanced consideration of 

community safety, offender accountability to victims and 

communities, and competency development in offenders (Harp et al., 2004). The decisionmaking criteria for 

system-level responses may be based on factors such 

as (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2002:44): 

•	 The nature of the offense. 

•	 The juvenile’s background and history. 

•	 The harm that the victim or community suffers. 

•	 The community’s views. 

•	 State laws and local court policies. 

Possible system-level responses include: 

•	 Warn, fine, release. First-time offenders who have 

committed relatively low-level offenses (i.e., low-risk 

offenders) may be required to pay a fine and not be 

placed in custody. 

•	 Diversion. Another option for low-risk, first-time offenders with low-level offenses may be a juvenile or 

adult diversion program. Diversion programs allow 

youth to meet the requirements of the program and 

thus avoid criminal charges. Requirements may include 

attending prevention programs, paying restitution to 

victims, or community service. 

•	 Supervised probation. Juvenile justice professionals 

may suggest that youth with previous justice system involvement, a more serious offense, or serious substance 

abuse issues be placed on probation. 

•	 Split sentence. If the offense was even more serious 

or the offender requires a stronger response from the 

justice system, a split sentence might be imposed that 

consists of limited time in jail coupled with probation. 

According to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, incarceration may 

not be an option for juvenile status offenders (such as 

underage drinkers).10 Instead, juveniles may be placed 

in a program where they are incarcerated at a detention 

facility only on weekends after they violate a probation 

term. Alternately, juvenile offenders could report to a 

day center as a sanction and return home at night. 

•	 Residential placement. Residential placement or secure 

confinement for juveniles (or incarceration for youth 

between ages 18 and 20) is considered the most 

restrictive recommendation and should be reserved for 

youth who have committed the most serious offenses 

or those who have not benefited from previous justice 

system involvement. Residential placement for youth 

with alcohol problems should include a substance 

abuse treatment program. 

Individual-Level Interventions 

Individual-level interventions are the sanctions, services, and 

programs that youth will be involved in once a decision is 

“A youth’s risk level and needs can change over time. 

Periodic reassessments ascertain whether the prescribed 

interventions are having an impact on the youth.” 

4 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

made about how the system will handle the case. Individuallevel interventions may include fines, fees, community service, 

counseling, educational programs, cognitive-behavioral 

programs, treatment, and more. These interventions should 

be tailored to meet the needs of the youth and the unique 

circumstances surrounding each case. The court or community corrections agency may provide these services and 

programs (such as community service) or they may be part 

of the social services system in the private sector (e.g., treatment, counseling). 

Effectiveness of Promising Prevention 

Approaches 

Research has found a number of effective prevention approaches for curbing underage drinking. Most of these 

efforts are directed toward youth and young adults who 

have not started drinking or whose drinking is minimal 

and has not caused them problems. Some individuals in 

the juvenile and adult justice systems also fall into these 

groups and should be placed in prevention programs to 

keep them from becoming at high risk for underage drinking. Therefore, justice system personnel and community 

corrections professionals should help plan and implement 

prevention programs. 

Prevention programs that have been found somewhat 

effective or promising include (Bonnie and O’Connell, 

2004): 

•	 Elementary and secondary school-based interventions. 

•	 Programs that provide parents with the skills and 

impetus to appropriately monitor and supervise 

their children. 

Cognitive-behavioral therapy/treatment (CBT) is one type 

of intervention that has proven effective with a range of 

juvenile and adult offenders (Lipsey, Landenberger, and 

Wilson, 2007), including substance users. The underlying 

premise of CBT is that thoughts affect emotions, which 

influence behaviors (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, n.d.). Cognitive-behavioral interventions include techniques to change thought patterns, 

attitudes, values, and expectations that have resulted in 

problem behaviors. They also instill more balanced thinking, which promotes positive behavior (King County 

Department of Community and Human Services, 2005; 

Lipsey, Landenberger, and Wilson, 2007). 

Many programs are based on the CBT approach. CBT 

interventions provide skills training. They include opportunities for participants to practice using new skills by 

role-playing and other means. They also allow staff to reinforce positive attitudes and behaviors (Crime and Justice 

Institute, 2004). 

Justice system personnel should avoid services and programs that are not effective at preventing underage drinking, such as those that only provide information, use fear 

tactics, send messages about not drinking until a person is 

“old enough,” focus strategies on youth’s self-esteem, or 

focus on strategies to reduce peer pressure. 

Recommending Services or Supervision 

to Underage Drinkers 

The program or agency the youth works with may have 

standard services or supervision conditions the youth must 

adhere to. Additional services or conditions should be 

imposed that are relevant to the specific needs of the youth 

and the offense he or she committed. For example, underage drinkers might have to: 

•	 Abstain from alcohol or other drug use. 

•	 Undergo alcohol or drug testing. 

•	 Undergo extensive assessment by a substance 

abuse professional. 

•	 Participate in alcohol or other drug education 

and treatment. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 5 
 

•	 Face confinement at home (except for school, work, 

religious activities, or supervised community activities 

such as theater and athletics). 

•	 Abide by an early curfew. 

•	 Lose driving privileges because of license suspension 

or revocation. 

•	 Pay restitution to victims who were injured or suffered 

losses as a result of the youth’s behavior. 

•	 Participate in restorative justice programs. 

•	 Participate in cognitive-behavioral programs or 

educational classes. 

•	 Perform community service to repay the community. 

•	 Pay fines and fees to the justice system for the additional burden that the unlawful behavior caused. 

•	 Lose college scholarships, face suspension from sports 

teams, or face eviction from college residence halls. 

Case Planning 

Once a disposition or sentence has been established for 

a case, an individualized case plan should be developed. 

The plan should indicate the level of supervision the youth 

requires, the youth’s specific needs, and the interventions 

that will be used. Case plans should be developed in conjunction with the youth and his or her parent or guardian 

(Carey et al., 2000). 

The case plan can be understood as a contract between the 

community corrections professional and the youth under 

supervision and provides a blueprint for how the case should 

be handled. In practice, case plans range from a simple 

outline of requirements for completing the supervision 

(e.g., diversion, probation) to plans that identify risk factors, 

protective factors, strengths, assets, priority targets, goals, 

objectives, action steps, and more. At a minimum, a case 

plan should include (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 

2002:74): 

•	 Objectives that the youth must achieve in supervision. 

•	 Goals—including abstaining from alcohol use, staying 

away from situations in which alcohol is readily available, and repairing the harm that previous drinking 

caused. 

•	 Activities the community corrections professional and 

youth under supervision can participate in to accomplish those goals and objectives. 

•	 A timeframe for completing each objective. 

To focus on the strengths and assets of an individual 

youth, Henderson, Benard, and Sharp-Light (2007) suggest constructing a resiliency chart that lists a youth’s challenges and strengths in parallel columns. As challenges are 

resolved, they are removed from the chart. New strengths 

and positive supports are added as they are developed. 

Practice Guideline 6 

Identify each offender’s readiness to change and 

prompt him or her to make positive changes using 

motivational interviewing techniques. 

Stages of Change 

To promote effective behavior change, community corrections professionals must be familiar with the processes 

that individuals go through when they try to change their 

behavior. The Stages of Change Model that Prochaska, 

DiClemente, and Norcross (1992) developed has been 

found effective in helping individuals change unwanted 

behaviors. It has been analyzed and critiqued in other 

research (e.g., Littell and Girvin, 2002). Individuals go 

through five stages when working to change a behavior 

pattern. They include: 

•	 Precontemplation. The time when a person does not 

intend to change or denies that a problem exists. 

6 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

“Treatment programs should have plans and 

ongoing services to help youth remain alcohol-free.” 

•	 Contemplation. The time when a person recognizes 

the problem and thinks about overcoming it but does 

not make a concrete commitment to take action. 

•	 Preparation. The time when a person develops specific 

plans to change within a defined timeframe. 

•	 Action. The time when a person begins to make observable changes in problematic behaviors. 

•	 Maintenance. The time when a person sustains the 

behavioral changes and works to avoid relapse. 

Individuals may require several cycles of these stages before they achieve long-term behavior change (DiClemente, 

2003). When youth are placed in community supervision, 

professionals often approach them as if they should be at 

the action stage, acknowledging that they have a problem 

and are ready to change behavior. However, most youth 

are not at this stage when they are first placed on supervision. Most are at the precontemplation or contemplation 

stage. Therefore, justice system professionals must identify the stages youth are working on and move them to 

each following stage rather than assuming that all youth 

will change their behavior at the same rate. Professionals should match their strategies with the youth’s stage of 

change. 

Motivational Interviewing 

Motivational interviewing is a client-centered counseling 

style for bringing about behavior change that helps clients 

explore and resolve ambivalence. In other words, motivational interviewing encourages clients to want to make 

changes in their behavior. Behavior change arises from the 

client’s internal values, goals, and sense of accomplishment. External influences such as threats, incentives, and 

peer pressure may thwart change. When people change for 

internal reasons, such as a will or desire to change, they 

exert more effort, gain more satisfaction, and stick with 

the changes for longer than when they change for external 

reasons. 

Walters and colleagues (2007) describe four basic principles of the motivational interviewing process: 

•	 The interviewer must express empathy to the youth to 

understand his or her reasons for change, rather than 

relying on the court’s preset agenda. 

•	 The interviewer must be able to handle the youth’s 

resistance to change through patience and diligence. 

•	 The interviewer must ask questions and make statements to help the youth identify his or her own reasons 

for change. 

•	 The interviewer must support the youth’s sense of selfworth by remaining optimistic, reminding the youth 

of personal strengths and successes, and affirming the 

youth’s efforts to change. 

The interviewer should use reflective statements to 

paraphrase what the youth has said and describe what the 

interviewer understands about the youth’s thoughts and 

feelings. This lets the youth know that the interviewer is 

trying to understand his or her thoughts, feelings, and actions. It also gives the youth a chance to make corrections 

if the officer has not understood him or her correctly. 

People are more likely to thrive and change when they 

receive praise and positive rewards than when they are 

criticized and punished. Affirmations may be paired with 

incentives to increase the chances that the youth will repeat positive behaviors. Incentives might include praise, 

a written commendation, and additional privileges. 

Practice Guideline 7 

Refer underage drinking offenders with alcohol 

disorders to appropriate alcohol treatment and 

monitor their attendance and participation. 

For youth whose assessment indicates a need for alcohol 

abuse treatment, this treatment should be integrated with 

justice system interventions. Alcohol treatment helps 

drinkers stop using alcohol, recover from its effects, and 

achieve a healthier lifestyle. Typically, justice system 

professionals will not provide treatment, but they must still 

know how to identify appropriate treatment programs and 

how to match youth with an appropriate program. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 7 
 

Treatment and justice system professionals may need to 

work together to decide how to handle actions such as 

relapse. For example, a treatment professional may view 

relapse as an expected part of the treatment process for 

which the youth or young adult may need additional 

services or support. A justice system professional may see 

the same behavior as a violation of supervision conditions, 

for which sanctions are warranted. Lack of coordination among various systems serving a youth may result in 

confusion and frustration for the youth and everyone who 

provides services to the youth. 

Assessment and Treatment Matching 

Qualified substance abuse treatment professionals should 

assess individuals who demonstrate alcohol problems at 

initial screening and concurrently assess their families to 

identify youth with special circumstances (Brannigan et 

al., 2004). Professionals should also evaluate the characteristics of youth who need treatment to match them with 

treatment programs. 

Staff who provide alcohol treatment for youth must possess a broad range of knowledge and skills. These may 

include an extensive knowledge of adolescent development 

and psychiatric problems, the ability to work with families, 

and a positive attitude. 

The options available for alcohol treatment programs 

will vary. Some communities may have only one or two 

resources; others will have many. When programs are 

limited, justice system professionals may have to develop 

additional resources. Justice system professionals should 

ask the following questions when investigating programs 

(Crowe and Reeves, 1994): 

•	 Program characteristics. What substances does the 

treatment program cover? Whom does it treat? What is 

the cost of the program? What criteria must the youth 

meet to be eligible? 

•	 Program proficiency. Does the program deliver treatment in the intended manner, quantity, and intensity? 

Do evaluations of the program show that it provides 

positive results for the majority of clients? 

•	 Program strategies. Are individuals in treatment held 

accountable for attendance, punctuality, and abstinence? 

What consequences are given for each infraction? How 

are referrals made? 

•	 Staff competency and attitudes. Does the program 

employ sufficient staff for the number of program participants? Are staff experienced and trained in providing 

services? Do staff provide strong leadership? Do staff 

show compassion and model positive personal characteristics? Do staff exhibit attitudes that require responsibility 

and accountability from youth offenders? Are staff willing 

to coordinate with the justice system? 

Justice system professionals should monitor treatment delivery and the youth’s progress in treatment. They should also 

keep in mind that research indicates: 

•	 Participation in any treatment is more beneficial than no 

treatment at all. 

•	 The longer the period spent in treatment, the more 

positive the outcome. 

•	 Treatment will likely be more successful if families 

participate. 

•	 Skills training in treatment results in more successful 

outcomes. 

•	 Participation in continuing care activities, such as selfhelp groups, provides more positive treatment outcomes. 

Treatment Models 

Many treatment models have been developed, but not all 

of them have been thoroughly researched and determined 

effective. Characteristics of successful treatment approaches include the following: 

•	 Comprehensive, integrated treatment approach. 

Treatment for adolescents is more effective when it 

is integrated into all aspects of their lives—including 

school, home, family, peer groups, workplaces, and 

justice system agencies (Brannigan et al., 2004). For 

example, treatment programs should help students keep 

up with schoolwork, help families learn better communication skills, and encourage youth to associate with 

peers who do not drink. 

•	 Developmentally appropriate programs. Some youth 

begin drinking by age 12 or earlier, and young adults 

are prohibited from drinking until age 21, so the range 

of those involved in the justice system because of underage drinking may cover 10 years or more. During 

this period of development, youth undergo tremendous 

physical, sexual, social, cognitive, emotional, and moral 

changes. Alcohol or other drugs may impede developmental progress. Assessments should examine each 

youth’s individual developmental progress in these areas 

and not only rely on age as an indicator of maturity. 

Treatment programs should modify content, activities, and approaches to make them appropriate for the 

developmental level of those in the program. Younger 

adolescents focus on family and same-sex peers whereas 

older adolescents strive to achieve independence from 

their families and begin dating. 

8 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

•	 Program retention. The longer that youth participate 

in substance abuse treatment programs, the greater 

the likelihood that the treatment will be effective. 

Therefore, programs should implement strategies to retain youth in treatment, such as motivational interviewing, positive reinforcement, and engaging parents. 

For information about specific treatment approaches 

found to have positive outcomes, see the sidebar, “Positive 

Treatment Approaches.” 

Gender and Cultural Competence 

The factors that contribute to alcohol abuse and the experience of underage drinking may differ for males and females and for youth from different cultures. For example, 

a high correlation exists between childhood trauma— 

especially sexual abuse—and chemical use by girls and 

women. Girls are more likely to have been sexually abused 

and to experience abuse over a longer period of time than 

boys. They are also likely to begin alcohol use in dating 

relationships. Girls often use alcohol as a means of selfmedicating troubling feelings and emotional states. 

On the other hand, boys are more likely to begin alcohol use with their male peers. Boys often use alcohol as 

a rite of passage and as a means to increase pleasure and 

excitement. Because the reasons they use alcohol and the 

contexts within which they consume alcohol are different, 

boys and girls should not be placed together in treatment 

programs. Another reason for same-sex placement is that 

during adolescence and young adulthood, male and female 

sexual development holds a strong influence on youth 

PosiTive TreaTmenT aPProaChes 

In Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility, Rosalind Brannigan and colleagues (2004) describe a 

number of approaches that have had positive outcomes for 

youth with drug and alcohol dependencies. These include: 

•	 Twelve-step approaches. These programs involve 

detoxification, psychological evaluation, general and 

individual treatment planning, group therapy, lectures, 

and individualized counseling. These approaches use 

group therapy, so that those who are further along in the 

recovery process pass on knowledge, experience, and 

values to new participants. Participants may be referred 

to Alcoholics Anonymous programs after completing 

treatment to help stem the possibility of relapse. 

•	 Therapeutic communities. These residential programs 

provide social opportunities to individuals with drug and 

alcohol problems. The treatment is delivered in long-term 

residential settings in which peers and professionals 

and may impede the treatment process if both genders are 

placed together (Brannigan et al., 2004). 

Underage drinking offenders should be held accountable 

for their behavior regardless of cultural backgrounds and 

special needs. However, cultural beliefs and traditions 

may be incorporated into the treatment setting to bolster 

youth’s commitment and engagement. Respected members of different cultural groups should be invited to share 

their perspectives and become involved in the treatment 

process as role models. 

Continuing Care 

Substance abuse is often defined as a chronic, relapsing 

disorder. Most youth will not maintain sobriety without 

additional support after completing treatment. Youth and 

young adults often believe drinking will enhance their 

social interactions. They remain vulnerable to influences 

by peers. Overall, they have a high likelihood of relapse 

without ongoing interventions. Good treatment programs 

should have plans and ongoing services to help youth 

remain alcohol-free. 

Continuing care options may be problematic for youth 

and young adults who receive initial treatment in one 

locale and then move to another locale. Justice system 

professionals may also encounter youth returning from 

confinement in juvenile or adult facilities who need ongoing support services. Professionals should assume a case 

management role in these situations to refer such youth 

to appropriate sources of ongoing care. 

emphasize that individuals must be responsible for their 

own addiction and recovery. 

•	 Cognitive-behavioral therapies. These programs focus 

on individuals’ thoughts and behaviors and are based 

on the theory that individuals’ beliefs and urges generate their actions. Strategies include teaching individuals 

about the internal and external cues that prompt them 

to drink. Individuals learn coping strategies and skills to 

deal with problems they encounter and prevent relapse. 

•	 Family therapy. These programs provide individual and 

family therapy sessions. Therapies are based on the 

assumption that a youth’s environment, including family, 

peers, and the community, influences alcohol use. Youth 

build essential skills, improve communication with their 

families, and learn coping mechanisms for dealing with 

stress. Sessions with parents address parenting styles 

and focus on how parents can have a more positive 

influence on their children. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 9 
 

Treatment Outcomes 

Treatment programs should gather and analyze data on 

the treatment’s effectiveness and should be able to document that this information is used to improve or enhance 

treatment strategies (Brannigan et al., 2004). Juvenile 

justice professionals involved in a youth’s case should be 

aware of these outcomes. 

Practice Guideline 8 

Engage family and social support networks in 

the supervision process. 

Juvenile justice professionals should get the families and 

communities of underage drinkers involved in the prevention and intervention processes. Studies have consistently 

shown that informal agents of control (e.g., family and 

neighborhood, and social networks) are more powerful 

than formal agents of control (e.g., probation, parole, law 

enforcement) in helping persons under community 

supervision achieve and maintain behavior change (Petersilia, 2003; Sampson, Morenoff, and Gannon-Rowley, 

2002; Perrone et al., 2004; Gottfredson and Hirschi, 

1990). If supportive individuals can be recruited to 

provide positive feedback for a desired behavior, the youth 

may be more successful in changing his or her behavior 

(Crime and Justice Institute, 2004). 

Parents and legal guardians of youth younger than age 

18 have a legal obligation to financially support and supervise their children. Community corrections professionals should also be involved in the supervision process on 

some level. At a minimum, this may mean parents or legal 

guardians must sign forms allowing their child to participate in a diversion program or must attend their child’s 

court hearing. 

Family and community support is no less important for 

young adults between the ages of 18 and 21. After youth 

reach age 18, parents are not legally required to financially 

support and otherwise supervise their children. However, 

they may feel socially obligated to do so. Although working 

with family members of adults in diversion programs may 

not be common or required, it can be beneficial for reinforcing positive change and, in the case of young adults with 

substance abuse problems, for preventing relapse. 

One way that families and social networks can help is by 

monitoring and supervising the behavior of youth. The 

amount of time that community supervision professionals spend with youth under supervision is fairly limited 

when compared to the amount of time that youth spend 

with their families and social networks. Therefore, these 

individuals are in a unique position to provide support that 

a government entity cannot and to take note of warning 

signs that the youth may be engaging in activities that are 

contrary to his or her supervision conditions or program 

requirements. These violations of supervision conditions 

could ultimately lead to a violation or revocation if not 

addressed promptly. 

For example, parents or legal guardians of minors should 

monitor the youth’s behavior by doing the following 

(Bonnie and O’Connell, 2004): 

•	 Knowing a youth’s friends. 

•	 Making sure adults always supervise youth. 

•	 Knowing a youth’s plans for the day or the evening. 

•	 Knowing what youth are doing when they are away 

from home. 

•	 Enforcing evening curfews. 

•	 Being involved in a youth’s projects and activities. 

•	 Using appropriate punishments for inappropriate 

behavior and rewards for positive behaviors. 

Professionals and staff may need to work with parents and 

community supporters to teach them the positive parenting 

practices listed above. Parents may need encouragement or 

persuasion to change parenting habits that are unproductive 

or harmful. Finding ways to leverage the mutual loyalty and 

support of a youth’s family and social networks can remind 

the youth that his or her actions affect family members and 

others within the social network. Therefore, their actions 

can motivate and facilitate change. 

“Family and social networks are powerful [agents] in helping persons under 

community supervision achieve and maintain positive behavior change.” 

10 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

Engaging families and social networks should not only 

be used to enforce community supervision requirements. 

Families and social networks also bring attention to what 

the youth is doing well, identify the youth’s strengths and 

resources, and find solutions to problems or eliminate 

obstacles when the youth is not meeting program goals 

or objectives (e.g., not attending education classes, not 

paying restitution, not performing community service). 

In general, the solutions that mean the most are the 

ones that the youth and the youth’s supporters develop 

(Mullins and Toner, 2008). 

Practice Guideline 9 

Monitor compliance with supervision conditions 

and case plan expectations. 

Monitoring youth’s behavior and responding to instances 

of noncompliance is such a fundamental aspect of community supervision that, in many cases, it has become the 

essence of probation work. However, successful supervision encompasses a much broader range of essential activities (e.g., screening and assessment, developing case plans, 

motivational interviewing, and engaging families and social 

support networks). Nonetheless, community supervision 

staff must create and implement methods for monitoring 

underage drinkers’ behavior. Effective monitoring begins 

by building cooperative and coordinated interactions with 

other agencies and individuals to facilitate gathering accurate and timely information about each youth’s behavior. 

Community corrections staff should aggressively pursue 

information to instruct case management decisions. Officers should establish and maintain sufficient contacts to 

monitor each youth’s activities and ascertain the youth’s 

compliance with supervision conditions and expectations. 

Community corrections personnel should arrange to have 

any programs in which a youth is enrolled notify them 

immediately about unexcused absences or noncompliance 

with program expectations. Supervising officers should 

also obtain information from other agencies in the juvenile, criminal, or civil justice system; family members; and 

schools, if they have contact with a youth who is under 

supervision. Personnel should flag new arrests, 911 calls, 

and other incidents involving a youth under supervision, 

regardless of the youth’s risk level. Agencies can expedite information requests and enter into formal agreements about how such exchanges will occur. Requests for 

information about specific individuals require community 

corrections officials to obtain signed release forms. 

Alcohol and Drug Testing 

If a youth is placed on probation, he or she should be 

screened regularly for alcohol and other drug use. If the 

youth is placed on diversion, the agency operating the 

diversion program should investigate the pros and cons of 

administering drug tests before making this part of their 

program requirements. 

Youth under probation supervision should be subject to 

conditions that prohibit alcohol or other drug use and 

require random testing. At the beginning of supervision, 

and occasionally throughout, youth should be tested for 

the presence of any illegal substances, including marijuana, 

cocaine, methamphetamine, opiates, alcohol, and any 

other substances common in the locality. 

Screening tests should be performed at times when youth 

and young adults are most likely to have been drinking, 

such as weekends, evenings, and early mornings. Community supervision staff may want to consider conducting 

tests at locations where youth live, work, or socialize rather 

than waiting until they are in the community corrections 

agency office. 

If the youth participates in a nonprofit diversion program, 

the program may not have the authority of the court behind it or have the same resources as a government entity. 

In these cases, the nonprofit program should carefully 

investigate the pros and cons of administering drug tests 

before making these tests part of their requirements. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 11 
 

 

“Swift, certain, and consistent sanctions should be applied for unacceptable 

behavior. Positive and constructive behaviors should be rewarded.” 

Practice Guideline 10 

Apply sanctions for noncompliance when necessary, 

and increase positive reinforcement. 

Swift, certain, and consistent sanctions should be applied 

for unacceptable behavior, particularly when youth engage 

in drinking or other dangerous activities. Juvenile justice 

professionals must also strive to reward the youth’s positive and constructive behaviors. To achieve sustained behavioral change, people respond better to incentives than 

to punishment. Research has shown that the optimal ratio 

is four positive reinforcements for every negative reinforcement (Cullen, 2002). 

A continuum of sanctions and incentives should be available so that youth can receive the appropriate level of 

response. This continuum, or graduated response model, 

means that supervision officers should respond to lesser 

infractions with lesser penalties and to greater infractions 

(or ongoing lesser infractions) with greater penalties. 

Similarly, continued compliance or a major accomplishment would merit increasing rewards. Ultimate sanctions 

would include revoking supervision, which would result 

in incarceration; an ultimate reward or incentive would include the successful completion of supervision. However, 

each agency must develop its own menu of sanctions and 

incentives and modify them for particular youth on a caseby-case basis. Often, youth can help define the sanctions 

and incentives that are meaningful for them. 

Not every instance of noncompliance merits a return to 

court, but agency supervisors and courts should be kept 

informed through regular compliance reports that describe 

how officers responded to noncompliance. Community 

supervision officers should understand the court’s position 

on enforcement and should neither promise nor threaten 

what the court cannot or will not deliver. Officers should 

work with the court to develop a common system for 

responses from the court that are most likely to achieve 

community supervision goals. 

Conclusion 

In moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach to responding to underage drinking offenders, juvenile justice 

professionals must recognize that effective intervention 

with all juvenile and adult offenders begins with good 

assessment and case management practices. Additional 

risk, needs, and substance assessments can yield objective 

information that can be used to validate the assumptions 

that community corrections professionals have about 

youth. Such assessments will give professionals more 

information about youth’s needs and determine how 

youth can best receive services and begin to change. 

Assessment data can also be used to assess the effectiveness of prescribed interventions. 

Getting input and assistance from the youth when developing the case plan can increase youth’s understanding of 

the program requirements or conditions. Unfortunately, 

many underage drinkers may not see a need for change 

or want to change. Thus, justice system professionals 

must work with youth to determine their readiness to 

change and motivate them to progress through the 

change process. 

When carrying out the elements of case plans, officers 

should incorporate evidence-based practices—matching 

interventions with youth’s needs, engaging youth in 

cognitive-behavioral interventions and skills training, and 

referring youth to appropriate alcohol treatment programs. Successful case plans should also involve elements 

of family and community support. As the case plan is 

carried out, community corrections officers must monitor 

youth’s compliance with supervision conditions and apply 

sanctions when necessary. Successful officers employ more 

incentives than sanctions in responding to youth, which 

makes youth more likely to change negative behavior and 

maintain positive behavior. 

Future research should concentrate on developing more 

effective treatment options and determining the best 

supervision methods for underage drinkers. With such 

research, states and communities can set up more effective 

policies, practices, and guidelines for professionals who 

work with this community. 

12 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

For more information 

This bulletin was adapted from Underage Drinking: Intervention Principles and Practice Guidelines for Community 

Corrections (Crowe et al., 2011). In this bulletin, the authors have provided 10 guidelines, culled from evidencebased practice literature, to aid community supervision 

professionals in their work with underage drinkers. The 

bulletin is the fourth in an Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) series on underage 

drinking. The goal of the series is to better inform practitioners, policymakers, and judges on the effects of underage drinking in the hope that this information will support 

the development of more effective policy and practice 

guidelines to combat the problem. 

Other bulletins in the series highlight the importance of 

preventing and reducing consumption of alcohol by youth 

younger than age 21, outline some of the legal issues that 

community supervision professionals may encounter when 

working with underage drinkers, and present findings from 

an evaluation of OJJDP’s Enforcing Underage Drinking 

Laws initiative implemented in five communities with local 

Air Force bases. 

The bulletins can be accessed from OJJDP’s Web site, 

ojjdp.gov. Underage Drinking: Intervention Principles and 

Practice Guidelines for Community Corrections is available 

online at www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/ 

UDIPPGCC.pdf. 

endnotes 

1. Guidelines informed by evidence-based practices are based on 

evidence obtained from blind, controlled trials, i.e., research that 

follows the scientific method.

 2. For the purposes of this bulletin, the term “youth” indicates 

any adolescent or young adult younger than age 21. 

3. These include, for example, the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test, Adolescent Drug Involvement Scale, Adolescent 

Drinking Index, Drug and Alcohol Quick Screen, Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire, and Rutgers Alcohol Problem 

Index. 

4. A low education level is correlated with higher levels of 

offending. 

5. Unemployment or underemployment is correlated with higher 

levels of offending. 

6. Diversionary programs channel some youth offenders outside 

the juvenile justice system. The purposes of diversionary programs are to prevent youth who have committed relatively petty 

acts from being stigmatized as criminals and to free the resources 

of the juvenile justice system, including courts and detention facilities, to focus on more serious offenders. For more information 

about diversionary programs, see Steven et al., 2004.

 7. The Search Institute (n.d.) has also developed a checklist that 

helps assess youth’s developmental assets. 

8. Much of this information may be confidential and may require 

a signature from the individual and his or her legal guardian 

before it can be released. 

9. More information about resilience can be found in Henderson, Benard, and Sharp-Light, 2007. 

10. Section 223(a)(11)(i) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5633) 

provides that states that receive formula grants under the act shall 

not place juveniles who are charged with or who have committed 

an offense that would not be criminal if an adult committed it in 

secure detention facilities or secure correctional facilities. 

references 

American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (4th ed.). Washington, DC: 

American Psychiatric Association. 

Bonnie, R.J., and O’Connell, M.E., eds. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 13 
 

 

Brannigan, R., Falco, M., Dusenbury, L., and Hansen, W.B. 

2004. Teen treatment: Addressing alcohol problems. In Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility, edited by R.J. 

Bonnie and M.E. O’Connell. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press, pp. 697–715. 

Buck Willison, J., Brooks, L., Salas, M., Dank, M., Denver, M., 

Gitlow, E., Roman, J., and Butts, J. 2010. Reforming Juvenile 

Justice Systems: Beyond Treatment. A Reclaiming Futures National 

Evaluation Report. Portland, OR: Reclaiming Futures National 

Program Office, Portland State University. 

Carey, M., Goff, D., Hinzman, G., Neff, A., Owens, B., and 

Albert, L. 2000. Field service case plans: Bane or gain? Perspectives 24(2):30–41. 

Crime and Justice Institute. 2004. Implementing Evidence-Based 

Practice in Community Corrections: The Principles of Effective 

Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. Available online: www.nicic.gov/ 

library/019342. 

Crowe, A.H., Mullins, T.G., Cobb, K.A., and Lowe, N.C. 

2011. Underage Drinking: Intervention Principles and Practice 

Guidelines for Community Correction. Lexington, KY: American 

Probation and Parole Association. 

Crowe, A.H., and Reeves, R. 1994. Treatment for Alcohol and 

Other Drug Abuse: Opportunities for Coordination. Rockville, 

MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center 

for Substance Abuse Treatment. 

Cullen, F.T. 2002. Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In 

Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control, 2d ed., edited by J.Q. 

Wilson and J. Petersilia. Oakland, CA: ICS Press, pp. 253–289. 

DiClemente, C. 2003. Addiction and Change: How Addictions Develop and Addicted People Recover. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

Gottfredson, M., and Hirschi, T. 1990. A General Theory of 

Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

Harp, C., Kuykendall, M., Cunningham, M., and Ware, T. 2004. 

Juvenile Delinquency and Community Prosecution: New Strategies 

for Old Problems. Alexandria, VA: American District Attorneys 

Association. 

Henderson, N., Benard, B., and Sharp-Light, M.A., eds. 2007. 

Resiliency in Action: Practical Ideas for Overcoming Risks and 

Building Strengths in Youth, Families, and Communities, 

2d ed. Ojai, CA: Resiliency in Action, Inc. Available online: 

www.resiliency.com/htm/bestofjournal.htm. 

King County Department of Community and Human Services. 

2005. Guidebook to Elements of Successful Programs to Reduce Juvenile Justice Recidivism, Delinquency and Violence. Seattle, WA: 

Community Services Division. 

Lipsey, M.A., Landenberger, N.A., and Wilson, S.J. 2007. Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Criminal Offenders. 

Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Institute for Public Policy, 

Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology. 

Littell, J.H., and Girvin, H. 2002. Stages of change: A critique. 

Behavior Modification 26:223–273. 

Mullins, T.G., and Toner, C. 2008. Implementing the Family 

Support Approach for Community Supervision. Lexington, KY: 

American Probation and Parole Association. 

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2002. Desktop Guide to 

Good Juvenile Probation Practice. Pittsburgh, PA: National 

Center for Juvenile Justice. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. n.d. OJJDP 

Model Programs Guide: Cognitive behavioral treatment. Available 

online: www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ProgTypesCognitivePrev.aspx. 

Perrone, D., Sullivan, C.J., Pratt, T.C., and Margaryan, S. 

2004. Parental efficacy, self-control, and delinquency: A test of a 

general theory of crime on a nationally representative sample of 

youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 48:298–312. 

Petersilia, J. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., and Norcross, J.C. 1992. In 

search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. 

American Psychologist 47(9):1102–1114. 

Sampson, R., Morenoff, J., and Gannon-Rowley, T. 2002. Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology 28:443–478. 

Scales, P.C., and Roehlkepartain, E.C. 2003. Boosting student 

achievement: New research on the power of developmental 

assets. Insights and Evidence 1(1):1–10. 

Search Institute. n.d. What are developmental assets? 

Available online: www.search-institute.org/content/ 

what-are-developmental-assets. 

Steven, P., Marsh, R., Bundy, W., Mimura, S., and Perkins, T. 

2004. Control group study of juvenile diversion programs: An 

experiment in juvenile diversion—the comparison of three methods and a control group. Social Science Journal 41:129–135. 

Walters, S.T., Clark, M.D., Gingerich, R., and Meitzer, M.I. 

2007. Motivating Offenders to Change: A Guide for Probation 

and Parole. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. Available online: www.nicic.gov/ 

library/022253. 

14 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 

This bulletin was prepared under grant number 

2007–AH–FX–K003 from the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 

U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the 

Office of Justice Programs, which also 

includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National 

Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims 

of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender 

Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking.

Acknowledgments

This bulletin was adapted from Underage Drinking: Intervention Principles and Practice Guidelines for 

Community Corrections authored by Ann H. Crowe, with Tracy G. Mullins, Kimberly A. Cobb, and 

Nathan C. Lowe. Ann Crowe, M.S.S.W., Ed.D., was a project director and senior research associate at 

the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) until her retirement in December 2006. Tracy 

Mullins is a deputy director of APPA in Lexington, KY. Kimberly Cobb is a research associate with 

APPA. Nathan Lowe is a research associate with APPA. The authors would like to acknowledge the 

Underage Drinking Enforcement Training Center at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation 

(PIRE) in Calverton, MD, and the American Probation and Parole Association in Lexington, KY. The 

authors would also like to thank Kathryn Stewart, M.S., director of the Dissemination and Diffusion of 

Science-Based Prevention Component of the Prevention Research Center Grant at PIRE and founding 

partner of Safety and Policy Analysis, International.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications 

are not copyright protected. We encourage you 

to reproduce this document, share it with your 

colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter 

or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite 

OJJDP and the authors of this bulletin. We are 

also interested in your feedback, such as how 

you received a copy, how you intend to use the 

information, and how OJJDP materials meet 

your individual or agency needs. 

Please direct comments 

and/or questions to:

National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service 

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420 

301–519–5600 (fax) 

Web: tellncjrs.ncjrs.gov

NCJ 237231

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP *NCJ~237231* Permit No. G–91