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. 

Community Supervision 

of Underage Drinkers 

Highlights

In this bulletin, the authors provide a theoretical overview upon which to base 

policies, procedures, and practices that will help professionals—and their corresponding agencies—effectively supervise underage drinkers in the community. 

They also discuss the legal issues that professionals may encounter when working 

with these youth. 

Some of the authors’ recommendations include the following: 

•	 An effective community supervision program should emphasize four 

goals: community protection, youth accountability, competency development, and individual assessment. 

•	 Conditions of community supervision must be clearly stated to the youth, 

must be constitutional and fair, and must help rehabilitate the youth. 

•	 Community corrections and diversion professionals must acknowledge 

the diverse cultural backgrounds of youth and tailor interventions and 

services accordingly. 

•	 Justice system professionals must remember that youth under supervision 

maintain certain basic constitutional rights. Violation of these rights, intentional misconduct, or negligence can result in legal liability. 
 

 

 

October 2012 

Community Supervision of Underage Drinkers
 

Underage youth1 who drink face a variety of personal and 

legal consequences. Current strategies to reduce underage drinking focus on community-based initiatives such as 

decreasing the availability of alcohol to underage youth, 

reducing occasions and opportunities for underage drinking, and diminishing youth’s demand for alcohol (Bonnie 

and O’Connell, 2004). Communities can create healthier 

environments that help prevent underage drinking. They 

can make sure that prevention efforts reach the whole 

community and that treatment is available for all youth 

who need it. Youth who have been arrested or adjudicated 

for underage drinking require a special focus. 

This bulletin describes the current goals and principles 

most communities use to guide their approach to underage drinking. These goals and principles are partly guided 

by the Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) Model, 

which the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP) developed in an effort to help 

offenders take responsibility for their actions and learn 

skills to contribute to their community and to increase 

community safety. The bulletin also describes the legal 

issues underage drinkers and the justice officials who work 

with them may encounter. The authors examine current 

laws within the United States, the rights that underage 

drinkers have, and the liability issues that justice professionals may face in supervising underage drinkers following adjudication. 

Goals for Community 

Supervision Programs 

BARJ has been accepted as a guiding strategy for the past 

couple of decades (Maloney, Romig, and Armstrong, 

1988). It places equal emphasis on three primary goals: 

community protection, accountability, and competency 

development. In addition, individualized assessments of 

youth and young adults help supervisors develop case 

plans that combine these goals in practice. For more information about BARJ, see the sidebar, “The Balanced and 

Restorative Justice Model.” 

Community Protection 

Community protection refers to safeguarding all residents 

in every community, including criminals and victims. 

The effects of underage drinking are far reaching and 

have negative effects on youth and young adults, their 

THE BALANCED AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MODEL 

The three-pronged, balanced approach holds an individual when crimes occur. To be successful, this model requires 

accountable for his or her actions, develops individual stakeholders, including members of the community and 

competence and skills as a result of the youth entering justice professionals, to collaborate in the work of juvenile. 

the justice system, and upholds public safety within the 

For more information, see OJJDP’s Guide for Implementing community. The approach is based on the judicial philosothe Balanced and Restorative Justice Model at www.ojjdp. phy of restorative justice, which focuses on repairing harm 

gov/PUBS/implementing/balanced.html. between victims, offenders, and community members 

2 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

families, victims of vehicle crashes and crimes, and the 

entire community. Community protection efforts target 

communities, community groups, and youth and attempt 

to prevent crime through vigilance and monitoring by 

community members. 

Strategies to reduce underage drinking have focused on 

eliminating opportunities for youth to obtain alcohol and 

have emphasized alternative activities that do not involve 

alcohol use. Supervision and sanctions can be used to help 

youth comply with behavioral expectations. A safe and 

secure community is considered a public right. 

Accountability 

Accountability refers to measures taken to ensure that 

youth take responsibility for the damage, injury, or loss 

their actions have caused. Accountability clearly communicates that certain consequences follow harmful actions and 

that the offender is responsible for repairing the damage 

caused to victims and the community. These measures 

help youth develop greater awareness of the harmful 

consequences of their actions. Measures may include 

paying restitution, making written or public apologies 

to victims, performing community service, and repairing 

damaged property. 

Competency Development 

Youth and young adults should leave the justice system 

as more capable and productive members of society than 

when they entered. Youth can take classes, learn how 

to have positive interactions with adults, find employment, and perform community service (Bazemore and 

Umbreit, 1994). 

Individualized Assessment 

Youth who enter the justice system should be given individual assessments that help them develop a plan of action. 

These plans should provide a combination of supervision, 

accountability measures, competency development opportunities, and treatment. An individualized assessment can 

help identify the most beneficial sanctions, supervision 

approaches, and treatment methods for each youth and 

may be used to group youth with similar needs during 

supervision. Each youth’s assessment and case plan should 

evaluate the reasons youth participate in underage drinking, highlight his or her strengths and resources, assess his 

or her needs, and determine the strategies that may change 

his or her attitudes and behaviors. 

Principles for Addressing 

Underage Drinking 

The primary goals of intervention described above provide 

a purpose and direction for practitioners working with 

underage drinking offenders. Additionally, the authors define six important principles that provide a foundation for 

the diversion and probation programs youth attend. These 

principles are described below. 

Principle 1: Implement a 

Comprehensive Approach 

Effectively addressing underage drinking requires a 

comprehensive approach to diminish the supply of 

alcohol available to underage youth and control and 

change their attitudes and behaviors to decrease their 

alcohol consumption. 

Communities should implement a well-rounded strategy 

to reduce underage drinking. Past strategies have targeted 

communities, the alcohol industry, policymakers, and general adult and youth populations. These strategies include 

(Bonnie and O’Connell, 2004): 

•	 Increasing the minimum drinking age to limit youth’s 

access to alcohol. 

•	 Strengthening prohibitions against providing alcohol 

to those who are underage. 

•	 Raising taxes on alcohol products to reduce youth’s 

consumption. 

•	 Decreasing advertisements and media that portray alcohol consumption as an attractive and acceptable activity 

for youth and young adults. 

•	 Developing strategic partnerships to enhance prevention efforts. 

•	 Providing educational services to youth on preventing 

alcohol use. 

These approaches are often referred to as universal strategies because they are directed toward all youth and all 

communities. Although these strategies can be very effective in preventing underage drinking and related problems, 

further work is needed to identify youth who have already 

begun using alcohol and may be at risk for substance abuse 

or may have already exhibited signs of dependence. At-risk 

youth should be directed to intervention programs because they already have attitudes and behaviors consistent 

with a greater demand for alcohol. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 3 
 

 

Principle 2: Provide a Balanced Response 

The entire justice system and community supervision 

agencies should create balanced responses to youth 

that are tailored to the specific characteristics and 

situation of each youth and should collaborate to 

establish written criteria for system responses to 

ensure fair access to and use of services. 

A wide range of youth may engage in underage drinking. 

Some of these youth may be at low risk of reoffending. 

For others, the offense is just the beginning of increasingly 

serious alcohol problems (Dick et al., 2011). 

In response to these problems, the justice system must 

send a clear message that underage drinking is not acceptable, while not overreacting by imposing intensive 

interventions or services for youth who have little risk of 

reoffending. To determine what level of intervention is 

appropriate for a youth, justice staff should conduct a 

careful assessment. 

Juvenile justice practice promotes the use of the least restrictive sanctions that will produce the desired outcomes 

for the individual youth or young adult (Maxwell, 2003). 

For example, diversionary programs are often used to prevent youth from going through the formal court process. 

Additionally, when possible, youth may be supervised in 

the community and placed on probation rather than sent 

to a custodial program. In fact, although it has yet to be 

enacted into law, the proposed Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2009 (U.S. 

Senate, 2009) encourages states to provide juveniles with 

alternatives to detention if they are status or firsttime minor offenders. 

Justice professionals, treatment providers, and other policymakers should collaborate to establish criteria that refer 

youth to intervention based on their risk level. These criteria 

will ensure the most equitable, effective, and economical use 

of community resources. 

Principle 3: Use Evidence-Based Practices 

Assessment, intervention, response to, and supervision of underage drinking offenders should be 

based, when possible, on practices that research has 

proven effective. 

Drug and alcohol treatment can be effective in deterring 

youth from future drug abuse and criminal offending. 

Research has found that the length and intensity level of 

treatment is strongly correlated with its effectiveness (see 

National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2007). In fact, research 

has found reductions in drug and alcohol use, crime, risky 

health behaviors, and mental health problems among individuals who have engaged in drug and alcohol programs (see 

Johnson et al., 2002). Using sanctions can also help motivate 

individuals to participate in treatment programs and succeed 

(Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2005). 

Research on the most appropriate interventions for underage drinkers is not as robust as some of the substance 

abuse treatment literature. This area of scientific investigation must grow before the field can verify the best possible 

strategies for fostering public safety, offender accountability, competency development, and positive treatment 

outcomes for this subset of individuals. To progress, local 

community corrections agencies must develop effective 

program evaluations. Programs should gather data on their 

practices and outcomes and seek the help of researchers in 

pinpointing the most useful strategies. 

Principle 4: Develop Culturally 

Appropriate Responses 

Responses to underage drinking must be sensitive 

to the cultural background of the youth. 

Community corrections and diversion professionals must 

strive to understand the cultural traditions of the youth 

and young adults with whom they work. To achieve this 

understanding, professionals need to have ongoing dialogue with key persons from different races, ethnicities, 

religions, sexual orientations, and cultural groups. Such 

dialogue will help cultural groups understand the interventions and services the community provides and enhance 

services and make them more culturally appropriate. 

The considerable diversity among youth and young adults 

entering the justice system requires responses that take 

into account the needs of each person. Responses should 

be sensitive to the fact that law enforcement and courts 

have discriminated against many minorities in the past, so 

minorities may fear the justice system. 

Nonetheless, underage drinking offenders should be held 

accountable for their behavior, regardless of their cultural 

backgrounds and special needs. Professionals should not 

4 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

allow youth to use their culture as an excuse or justification for drinking. Professionals must choose their methods 

carefully so that they enhance public safety and help youth 

become healthy, law-abiding individuals. 

If youth receiving diversion or probation services are not 

proficient in English, interpreters should be provided to 

ensure that they receive appropriate and satisfactory services. Whenever possible, interpreters should not be family 

members or friends of the youth or young adults. 

Principle 5: Increase Practitioners’ 

Knowledge and Understanding 

Community corrections agencies and practitioners 

should engage in ongoing training and collect data for 

program evaluation and research to increase their individual and collective knowledge of underage drinking 

and the responses to it. 

Community corrections and diversion professionals must 

have a solid understanding of the dynamics of underage drinking, the goals of supervision, the strategies for 

monitoring underage drinkers, and the skills required to 

intervene effectively. Agencies train staff on how to deal 

with underage drinking. Beyond agency-based training, 

professionals should read professional literature, consult 

with local experts, and attend training programs to enhance their own knowledge and skills. 

Once interventions are put into practice, community corrections managers should collect data to measure their 

effectiveness. For instance, if the desired outcome of an 

alcohol awareness class is to increase participants’ knowledge of risks associated with underage drinking, a simple 

preclass/postclass test can provide the necessary data. If 

the data show no increase in knowledge for a reasonable 

number of participants, then the manager knows that the 

program should be enhanced. Alternately, a program evaluation may show that an intervention is working, which 

can support managers’ requests for funding or grants, 

prove the need for additional staff positions, or generate 

community support for their program. 

Principle 6: Collaborate With 

Other Organizations and Agencies 

Community corrections agencies and professionals 

should collaborate with community-based and 

justice system strategies and programs to reduce 

underage drinking. 

Underage drinking presents social, health, and justice 

system problems that a single person or agency cannot 

resolve. Effective intervention requires cooperation and 

collaboration between professionals in a variety of fields 

and services. 

All jurisdictions and agencies must build alliances to foster 

public safety, offender accountability, skill learning, and 

treatment. Collaboration involves sharing knowledge, 

information, resources, power, and decisionmaking. 

Individuals and organizations work together to provide a 

more consistent response to underage drinking and have a 

positive impact on their communities. 

There are several key reasons for collaboration when 

providing community supervision for underage drinking 

offenders: 

•	 A variety of participants will bring different viewpoints 

about underage drinking to the decisionmaking process. 

If these perspectives and ideas are processed effectively, 

they can be honed into a final plan that best meets the 

needs of the supervising agency and the community. 

•	 Collaboration means that agencies and stakeholders are 

more likely to identify all of the issues associated with 

underage drinking in the community. If agencies and 

stakeholders recognize issues from the outset, they can 

save time in the planning process. 

•	 Stakeholders who provide input from the beginning of 

the process may invest long-term in the project. Those 

who have not had an opportunity to share their ideas and 

hear other viewpoints are more likely to find fault in the 

program or even sabotage it during its implementation. 

•	 Involved stakeholders may be good ambassadors for 

the strategies that the group puts forth. A well-chosen 

group of stakeholders can promote the program and 

come to its defense if the program encounters any 

problems. 

The group must view each collaborator as an equal 

member who can work independently and with others 

and respect others’ suggestions. Collaborations should 

involve people with differing opinions and should include 

parties that: 

•	 Will be affected by the underage drinking supervision 

strategies. 

•	 Have essential background knowledge. 

•	 May strongly support or reject the implementation of 

the approach. 

If collaborators disagree, they should understand that 

knowing the objections to a particular course of action 

may help planners create stronger, more acceptable strategies. With compromise and understanding, persons opposed to a change will often modify their opinions. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 5 
 

 

Legal Issues 

Lawmakers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia 

have passed legislation controlling alcohol purchase, possession, and/or consumption by persons younger than 21. 

Given the extent that persons younger than 21 use alcohol, juvenile justice staff may encounter many clients who 

have been arrested for alcohol use or for whom alcohol use 

has contributed to their pattern of illegal behavior. This 

section describes laws related to alcohol use and the rights 

of underage drinkers. 

Age and Legal Status 

The legal system specifies the age at which one becomes 

an adult for different purposes. Youth can marry without 

parental consent at age 18; can purchase tobacco products 

at age 18; and can obtain a driver’s license, depending on 

the state, between ages 16 and 18. Youth cannot legally 

purchase alcohol if they are younger than 21. 

States and U.S. territories differ regarding how they 

classify underage alcohol offenses and which courts have 

jurisdiction over offenders. In some states, youth younger 

than age 18 who are charged with an alcohol offense will 

be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. In other 

states, youth ages 16 and older who are charged with an 

alcohol offense will be under the jurisdiction of an adult 

court. Sanctions and remedies that are available to the 

juvenile and adult courts vary widely as well. By law, some 

states treat underage alcohol offenses as a civil matter and 

those charged are diverted out of the court’s jurisdiction. 

Other states have minimum and mandatory fines as well 

as rigorous conditions and limitations on expunging the 

record of the underage drinker. Each system has differences in process, procedure, and sanctions. 

Underage Drinking Laws 

All 50 states and Washington, DC, have legislation that 

controls alcohol purchase, possession, and/or consumption by persons younger than 21. The National Minimum 

Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. 158) provided 

federal highway funds only if states adopted a minimum 

drinking age of 21. Shortly thereafter, all states enacted 

laws to conform to this federal requirement. State laws vary 

considerably, but those related to the behavior of minors 

include the following (Hafemeister and Jackson, 2004): 

•	 Fifty states and the District of Columbia bar the 

purchase of alcohol by persons younger than 21. 

•	 Forty-six states and the District of Columbia make 

the possession of alcohol by persons younger than 

21 illegal. 

•	 Forty states forbid the use of false identification to 

purchase alcohol. 

•	 Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia 

penalize youth younger than 21 who attempt to 

purchase alcohol. 

•	 Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia prohibit 

youth younger than 21 from consuming alcohol. 

Despite these laws, states make frequent exceptions when 

regulating alcohol-related activities among youth. For 

example, some states allow underage individuals to possess 

and consume alcohol on private property. About one-half 

of the states allow some lesser restrictions on alcohol use 

when parents of those younger than 21 are present or give 

consent. Some laws allow youth to enter businesses that 

serve alcohol when accompanied by a parent. Some state 

laws prohibit those younger than 21 from serving alcohol, 

but others allow it when it is a job requirement. Some 

states may exempt youth and young adults from strict 

adherence to the prohibitions against alcohol use due to 

religious practices or medical purposes (Hafemeister and 

Jackson, 2004). 

Besides federal and state underage drinking laws, localities 

may enact ordinances. Some may restrict activities in which 

underage drinking is likely to occur or restrict alcohol use 

in public places that youth often frequent (Hafemeister 

and Jackson, 2004). 

Sanctions for noncompliance with underage drinking laws 

vary by state and locality. Penalties are established for adults 

6 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

 

“The considerable diversity among youth entering the justice system
 

requires responses that take into account the needs of each person.”
 

who illegally sell or provide alcohol to minors. Those set 

by law for minors who purchase or consume alcohol range 

from fines as low as $50 to incarceration, depending on 

the age and legal status of the youth. Intermediate sanctions may include community service, alcohol assessment 

and treatment, and driver’s license suspension or revocation (Hafemeister and Jackson, 2004). 

Justice system personnel must know the laws and the exceptions to them and should understand how they can be 

implemented. Justice system professionals should consult 

local counsel if they have questions about specific laws or 

ordinances in their jurisdictions or if they do not understand 

the appropriate response to an underage drinking incident. 

Rights and Privileges of Underage Drinkers 

Youth found guilty of certain offenses may lose some of 

their rights and freedoms. However, certain constitutional 

rights cannot be diminished because of age or legal status, 

including the right to freedom of speech and religion, 

the right to due process, the right to confront and crossexamine witnesses, the right to equal protection under the 

law, and the right against self-incrimination (Del Carmen 

and Sorensen, 1988). 

Therefore, justice system personnel must carefully consider 

their responses to underage drinking offenders to ensure 

that youth receive fair treatment. When constructing 

conditions of community supervision, professionals must 

ensure that they meet the following criteria (Del Carmen 

and Sorensen, 1988): 

•	 Supervision conditions must be constitutional and cannot violate any of the individual’s constitutional rights. 

•	 Conditions must be clearly stated and understandable 

to the youth. 

•	 Conditions must be reasonable, meaning that they are 

fair and that youth can achieve them. 

•	 Conditions must help protect society and/or rehabilitate the individual. 

Legal counsel should scrutinize policies and procedures 

developed for community supervision of underage drinking 

offenders before they are implemented. This will 

avoid the risk of later challenges based on violations of 

youth’s rights. 

Confidentiality 

Two sets of federal confidentiality laws and regulations 

can be applied to individuals who experience addiction or 

other results of alcohol use, one for service programs and 

the other for health care agencies and providers. States also 

may have specific confidentiality policies regarding addiction, alcohol treatment, or justice system involvement. 

Justice system professionals must know federal, state, and 

local confidentiality requirements to safeguard their own 

practices. They should also know the requirements of 

other treatment programs and services that may work with 

the same youth. 

Federal regulations for service programs. The privacy of 

persons receiving alcohol-related services is protected under 42 U.S.C. 290dd-3 and ee-3 (U.S. Code, 2007). This 

federal confidentiality law applies to all programs receiving 

federal assistance that provide alcohol or drug abuse diagnosis, treatment, or referral. It prevents the disclosure of 

information that would identify a person who is receiving 

alcohol or drug treatment. 

Programs must protect patient records in a secure room 

in a locked file cabinet or similar place, and written 

procedures should detail exactly who has access to those 

records. Likewise, programs must establish appropriate 

policies and procedures to protect the electronic information maintained on clients. Programs must provide clients 

a written summary of confidentiality requirements (Crowe 

and Reeves, 1994). 

Programs may release information about an individual 

receiving alcohol treatment services if he or she2

 signs a 

consent form. In this case, programs must also include a 

written notice that federal law protects the information 

and that the recipient cannot further disclose the material. 

When a parent or guardian signs for a minor, the minor 

has a right to revoke such consent later. 

For underage drinkers involved in the justice system, consent 

forms cannot be revoked until a youth’s legal status changes. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 7 
 

“Youth should leave the justice system as more capable 

and productive members of society than when they entered.” 

Alcohol and drug treatment programs may advise criminal 

justice agencies without obtaining an individual’s consent, if 

the person referred for treatment fails to apply for or receive 

services from the program (Crowe and Reeves, 1994). 

Federal regulations for health care agencies and providers. The federal Standards for Privacy of Individually 

Identifiable Health Information (Privacy Rule) (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 2002, 2003) 

and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 

Act of 1996 (HIPAA) parallel, in many ways, the substance 

abuse confidentiality rules just discussed. The Privacy Rule 

establishes a foundation for federal protection of the privacy 

of health information. HIPAA regulations apply to health 

plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers 

who conduct certain health care transactions electronically. 

HIPAA regulations limit the number of people who have 

access to protected health information. Programs must 

take reasonable steps to limit the use or disclosure of that 

information. Similar to the confidentiality requirements 

for substance abuse programs, individuals may sign an 

authorization to release health information in appropriate 

circumstances. These regulations require (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002, 2003): 

•	 Notifying patients about their privacy rights and how 

their information can be used. 

•	 Adopting and implementing privacy procedures for 

health care providers and health plans. 

•	 Training employees to understand the privacy 

procedures. 

•	 Designating an individual in charge of seeing that the 

privacy procedures are adopted and followed. 

•	 Securing patient records containing identifiable health 

information so they are not readily available to those 

who do not need them. 

Justice system agencies and personnel are not classified as 

health care or treatment providers and may not be subject 

to all of these confidentiality requirements. These agencies 

must decide which confidentiality procedures they will 

follow. Besides the two types of federal confidentiality 

requirements just discussed, justice system agencies may 

also be subject to state and local confidentiality provisions. 

Discrimination and Access to Services 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, as 

amended (2008) ensures equal access to employment, 

goods, and services for disabled individuals. Those 

who are diagnosed with substance abuse disorders are 

protected under this law (Crowe and Reeves, 1994). 

ADA prohibits discrimination in employment practices 

and requires all employers with 15 or more employees to 

implement the law. Job applications, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, training, and other aspects of 

employment are covered under the act. Anyone who meets 

the skill, experience, education, or other requirements of 

a job must be considered qualified, even if reasonable 

accommodations are required for him or her to perform 

the job. 

Thus, employers cannot ask a recovering substance abuser 

to reveal his or her chemical dependency in applications 

or interviews. However, employers can test for illegal 

drug use. They can use the results of drug tests to make 

employment decisions—persons who currently engage in 

the use of illicit drugs are not protected (Crowe and 

Reeves, 1994). 

Treatment programs and justice system agencies also 

may have to modify facilities or activities to accommodate physically disabled individuals. This is true even if 

programs do not receive any federal funding (Crowe and 

Reeves, 1994). 

Searches 

Justice system personnel may need to search their property or ask youth to take an alcohol or drug test to verify 

youth’s compliance with supervision conditions. For 

example, if a youth is not allowed to possess alcohol, 

justice system professionals may need to search his or 

her residence, vehicle, and other places the youth might 

keep personal property to verify compliance. Courts have 

consistently upheld the practice of warrantless searches of 

probationers’ properties. Local legal counsel should review 

the need for search warrants because state laws may differ 

8 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

from federal laws. Agencies should establish appropriate 

officer safety policies for searches, and personnel should 

abide by all safety procedures. 

Legal Liability Issues 

Justice system professionals are responsible for their conduct. They must abide by the same criminal laws as any 

other citizen and may face lawsuits related to their job or 

professional performance. The following types of actions 

by justice professionals could result in liability (National 

Center for Juvenile Justice, 2002): 

•	 Intentional misconduct. 

•	 Negligence. 

•	 Abuse of authority resulting in a violation of a youth’s 

protected rights. 

•	 Oppressive conduct resulting in the deprivation of a 

youth’s civil rights. 

If a justice system professional is accused of wrongdoing, 

he or she may raise defenses such as self-defense or consent. 

Additionally, because community corrections professionals are government officials, they may be able to protect 

themselves against lawsuits using an official immunity 

defense. Three types of official immunity might apply 

(National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2002): 

•	 Absolute immunity. Protects practitioners—such as 

judges, prosecutors, and legislators—from lawsuits 

when they are acting in an official capacity. 

•	 Quasi-judicial immunity. Protects justice system 

professionals performing judicial functions or operating 

under the direction of a judge (e.g., a probation officer 

acting pursuant to a court order) against liability claims. 

•	 Qualified immunity. Provides protection against lawsuits when an officer acts in good faith. In other words, 

the justice system professional must act with the honest 

belief that he or she is performing his or her duties lawfully and without malice. 

If a justice system professional’s actions unknowingly 

infringe on a youth’s rights, good faith may also be used as 

a defense in civil rights cases (National Center for Juvenile 

Justice, 2002). If a justice professional has been asked to 

take improper actions, he or she may avoid liability by notifying superiors of the problem in writing and refraining 

from further actions that violate another person’s rights 

(National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2002). 

The “public duty doctrine” states that public officials are 

not liable for negligent conduct if a youth under their supervision causes harm to someone. For example, a probation 

officer’s duty to protect applies only to specific individuals, 

not the general public. Unless the officer had a duty to a 

specific individual and breached that duty, he or she would 

not be held liable. However, if an officer knows that a youth 

might cause harm to a person or group of people, he or she 

must try to prevent the act and/or warn possible victims 

(National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2002). 

Justice system professionals can avoid exposure to lawsuits 

by (Crowe, 1999): 

•	 Following established department policies and procedures on how to respond to alcohol-involved youth. 

•	 Documenting activities taken to address alcohol 

problems. 

•	 Staying informed about treatment and confidentiality 

laws regarding substance abusers. 

•	 Getting signed releases of information from youth. 

•	 Consulting with supervisors and/or obtaining court 

approval when in doubt about an issue. 

Conclusion 

Supervising underage drinkers can be complicated because 

youth become subject to the adult legal system before 

they are allowed to drink. Therefore, justice professionals 

must understand the legal issues that may confront them 

before they begin to supervise youth, particularly underage drinkers. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 9 
 

To best inform professionals, future research must work 

toward a better understanding of the most effective 

treatment and supervision approaches that enable underage drinkers to succeed. Furthermore, Congress must 

pass legislation like the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2009 to provide professionals with the resources they need to do their jobs 

effectively. In the end, implementing research and policy 

may lead to more effective practice guidelines to combat 

underage drinking. 

For More Information 

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

Corrections (Crowe et al., 2011). The bulletin is the third 

in an OJJDP series on underage drinking. The goal of the 

series is to better inform practitioners, policymakers, and 

judges on the negative 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. 

In this bulletin, the authors have highlighted common 

goals and principles communities should consider when 

creating supervision programs for underage drinkers. They 

also have outlined legal issues practitioners may encounter 

within a community supervision program. 

Other bulletins in the series describe the effects and consequences of underage drinking, provide practical guidelines 

for supervising underage drinkers in the community, and 

present the findings of an evaluation of OJJDP’s Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws initiative implemented at 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. In this bulletin, the term “youth” refers to adolescents 

and young adults younger than age 21. 

2. If the individual is a minor, his or her parent or legal 

guardian must also sign the form. 

References 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. 

2008. Public Law 101–336, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., U.S. 

Statutes at Large 104:327, as amended by Public Law 

110–325, 110th Cong., 2d Sess., U.S. Statutes at Large 

122:3553–3559. 

Bazemore, G., and Umbreit, M.S. 1994. Balanced and 

Restorative Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Bonnie, R.J., and O’Connell, M.E., eds. 2004. Reducing 

Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. 2005. Substance 

Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System. 

DHHS Publication No. SMA 05–4056. Rockville, MD: 

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

Crowe, A.H. 1999. Working With Substance Abusing 

Youths: Knowledge and Skills for Juvenile Probation and 

Parole Professionals. Lexington, KY: American Probation 

and Parole Association. 

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

2011. Underage Drinking: Intervention Principles and 

Practice Guidelines for Community Corrections. Lexington, 

KY: American Probation and Parole Association. 

“The justice system must send a clear message that underage drinking 

is not acceptable, while not overreacting by imposing intensive 

interventions for youth who have little risk of reoffending.” 

10 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

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

and Other Drug Abuse: Opportunities for Coordination. 

DHHS Publication No. SMA 94–2075. Rockville, MD: 

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

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. 

Del Carmen, R.V., and Sorensen, J.R. 1988. Legal issues 

in drug testing probationers and parolees. Federal Probation 52:19–27. 

Dick, D.M., Aliev, F., Viken, R., Kaprio, J., and Rose, 

R.J. 2011. Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index scores at 

age 18 predict alcohol dependence diagnoses 7 years 

later. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 

35(5):1011–1014. 

Hafemeister, T.L., and Jackson, S.L. 2004. Effectiveness of 

sanctions and law enforcement practices targeted at underage drinking not involving operation of a motor vehicle. 

In Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility, edited by R.J. Bonnie and M.E. O’Connell. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, pp. 490–540. 

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 

1996. 1996. Public Law 104–191, 104th Cong., 2d Sess., 

U.S. Statutes at Large 110:1936–2103. 

Johnson, J., Ahmed, A., Plemons, B., Powell, W., Carrington, H., Graham, J., Schwartz, R.P., and Brooner, 

R.K. 2002. Steps to Success: Baltimore Drug and Alcohol 

Treatment Outcomes Study. Report submitted to Baltimore Substance Abuse Systems, Inc. Retrieved April 9, 

2010, from www.soros.org/initiatives/baltimore/articles_ 

publications/publications/steps/steps.pdf. 

Maloney, D., Romig, D., and Armstrong, T. 1988. The 

balanced approach to juvenile probation. Juvenile and 

Family Court Journal 39(3):1–4. 

Maxwell, G. 2003. Achieving effective outcomes in youth 

justice: Implications of new research for principles, policy 

and practice. Paper presented at the Australian Institute of 

Criminology conference “Juvenile Justice: From Lessons 

of the Past to a Road for the Future,” Sydney, N.S.W., 

Australia. 

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2002. Desktop Guide
 

to Good Juvenile Probation Practice. Pittsburgh, PA:
 

National Center for Juvenile Justice.
 

National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2007. Principles of
 

Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations:
 

A Research-Based Guide. NIH Publication No. 06–5316.
 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Human and Health
 

Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute
 

on Drug Abuse.
 

National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. 1984
 

(July 17) [2007]. Public Law 98–363, Section 6(a), 98th
 

Cong., 2d Sess., U.S. Statutes at Large 98:437, codified at
 

U.S. Code, Title 23, Section 158. 

U.S. Code. 2007. Title 42, Sections 290dd-3 and ee-3. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2002 

(August 14). Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information—Final Rule. 45 CFR Parts 160 

and 164. Federal Register 67(157):53,182–53,273. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2003. 

Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health 

Information. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. Available online: www.hhs. 

gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/ 

introdution.html. 

U.S. Senate. 2009. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2009. S. 678, 111th 

Cong., 1st Sess., Congressional Record 155, No. 50 

(March 24): S3662–3669. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 11 
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) before her retirement in December 2006. 

Tracy Mullins is a deputy director of the APPA in Lexington, KY. Kimberly Cobb is a research associate with the APPA. Nathan Lowe is a research associate with the 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 237147

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~237147* Permit No. G–91