National Academies Press: OpenBook

Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility (2004)

Chapter: 8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson

« Previous: 7 Supply Side Approaches to Reducing Underage Drinking: An Assessment of the Scientific Evidence--Harold D. Holder
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

8
Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle

Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson1

Underage drinking is pervasive in the United States (see Flewelling, Paschall, and Ringwalt, 2002). This chapter focuses on the effectiveness of sanctions and law enforcement practices intended to deter youth from purchasing, possessing, or consuming alcohol, or from using misrepresentation to purchase alcohol.2 The first section of this chapter is divided into three parts: (1) a brief review of relevant federal, state, and local laws, (2) a review of related law enforcement practices, and (3) a review of the sanctions targeted at underage drinking and their effectiveness. The second section of this report briefly reviews (1) federal and state laws pertaining to the responses of elementary and secondary schools to underage drinking, (2) germane elementary through secondary school policies and sanctions, and (3) the effectiveness of these policies and sanctions in curbing underage drinking.

1  

Opinions and points of view expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

2  

This chapter is not intended to address policies designed to prevent driving by youth while under the influence of alcohol or supply side policies intended to deter vendors from selling alcohol to youth.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

LAWS AND ORDINANCES PROHIBITING UNDERAGE POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, AND PURCHASE OF ALCOHOL AND RELATED USE OF FALSE IDENTIFICATION

Federal Law

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 USCA §158) requires states to adopt a national minimum drinking age of 21 for “purchase or public possession” of alcohol as a condition for a state’s receipt of federal highway funds. The law has had a sizable effect in that, currently, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have a minimum drinking age law (MDAL) that sets the minimum drinking age at 21 (Office of Inspector General [OIG], 1991). Research has found that this change in MDALs resulted in a decrease in the number of deaths of youth associated with drinking and driving (O’Malley and Wagenaar, 1991; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1987; Jones, Piper, and Robertson, 1992); but there is little research on its impact on other aspects of underage drinking (e.g., possession, consumption, purchase, misrepresentation).

State Laws

Basic alcohol control policies are established at the state level. States vary considerably in how they have crafted laws related to underage purchase of alcohol (i.e., purchasing alcohol from retailers), possession (i.e., carrying or handling alcohol), consumption (i.e., the drinking of alcohol), and misrepresentation (i.e., lying about one’s age or using false identification to purchase alcohol) (Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation [PIRE], 2000). For example, according to MADD (2002), 34 states and the District of Columbia have a law prohibiting youth consumption of alcohol, 40 states have a law against the use of false identification to purchase alcohol, and 38 states and the District of Columbia have a law that penalizes an attempt by a youth to purchase alcohol. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have a law that sanctions the actual underage purchase of alcohol (MADD, 2002). Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have statutes prohibiting the possession of alcohol by underage persons. Although not all states prohibit each of these activities, namely, purchase, possession, consumption, and misrepresentation, many do, and the President’s Commission on Model State Drug Laws (1993) recommends that states adopt laws that prohibit all of them.3

3  

Discussion of motor vehicle-related offenses is beyond the purview of this chapter. However, two related laws may be relevant to this chapter. Open container laws make it an offense to possess an open container of an alcoholic beverage in the passenger compartment

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

For each particular alcohol violation, states’ underage drinking laws either stipulate a specific sanction or establish a range of available sanctions. The nature of these sanctions will be discussed more fully, including whether they should be criminal or noncriminal in nature. It is worth noting, however, that the severity of sanctions varies considerably, from relatively minor fines of $50 to $100 to incarceration (PIRE, 1999). Between these extremes can be found various intermediate sanctions such as required community service, mandated alcohol assessment and treatment, and driver’s license suspension or revocation. In addition, states vary in whether they impose a graduated series of sanctions that attempt to increase the severity of sanctions for subsequent offenses.

There are some fairly universal exceptions to the underage drinking laws that some commentators refer to as loopholes (OIG, 1991). For example, a substantial number of states permit youth to possess and consume alcohol on private property, although the presence or consent of their parents is often required (see Table 8-1). Similarly, roughly half permit youth to drink or handle alcohol when the youth’s parent is involved, although many of these states confine this activity to private property (see Table 8-1). Other exceptions include allowing youth to enter an establishment that serves alcohol when accompanied by a parent/guardian (e.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 4-244 [2002]) and permitting youth to handle alcohol when it is a requirement of employment (e.g., in grocery stores, restaurants) (e.g., ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 28-A, § 2051 [2002]). Youth also may be exempt when they are purchasing alcohol for their parents (e.g., IDAHO CODE § 23-1334 [2002]). Finally, youth may be exempt from these laws when the possession or consumption of alcohol is related to a religious practice (e.g., MICH. COMP. LAWS § 436.1703 [2002]) or for a medical purpose (e.g., ARK. CODE ANN. § 04.16.051 [2002]). Table 8-1 provides excerpts of the statutory language used to establish the private property and parental involvement exceptions.

   

of a motor vehicle. Similarly, anticonsumption laws make it an offense to consume alcoholic beverages in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration/National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NHTSA/NIAAA], 1999). Although these laws are used primarily in conjunction with the operation of a motor vehicle and drunk driving, they can encompass nondriving scenarios such as when youth consume alcohol in a stationary motor vehicle. Because underage drinking often occurs in remote locations, such as parks and beaches (Mayer, Forster, Murray, and Wagenaar, 1998), a stationary motor vehicle may be where youth are found to be drinking and these laws may thus become the means for applying sanctions targeted at underage drinking unrelated to the operation of a motor vehicle.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

TABLE 8-1 State Summary of Private Property and Parental Involvement Exceptions to Underage Drinking Offenses

State

Private Property Exceptions

Exceptions When Parents Are Involved

Alabama

No exception provided

No exception provided

Alaska

No exception provided

No exception provided

Arizona

No exception provided

No exception provided

Arkansas

No exception provided

This section does not prohibit the furnishing or delivery of an alcoholic beverage (1) by a parent to the parent’s child, … if the furnishing or delivery occurs off licensed premises; … (ARK. CODE ANN. § 04.16.051[b][1])

California

[prohibits] … any alcoholic beverage in his or her possession on any street or highway or in any public place or in any place open to the public … (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 25662[a]) … consumes any alcoholic beverage in any on-sale premises … (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 25658[b])

… does not apply to possession … making a delivery of an alcoholic beverage in pursuance of the order of his or her parent … (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 25662[a])

Colorado

It shall be an affirmative defense [to possess or consume] … while such person was legally upon private property with the knowledge and consent of the owner or legal possessor of such private property and the ethyl alcohol was possessed or consumed with the consent of his parent … who was present during such possession or consumption;… (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-122[3][a])

It shall be an affirmative defense [to possess or consume] … while such person was legally upon private property with the knowledge and consent of the owner or legal possessor of such private property and the ethyl alcohol was possessed or consumed with the consent of his parent … who was present during such possession or consumption; … (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-122[3][a])

 

 

The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to … a minor who possesses alcoholic liquor while accompanied by a parent … (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-89[b][3])

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

State

Private Property Exceptions

Exceptions When Parents Are Involved

Connecticut

[cannot] … possess any alcoholic liquor on any street or highway or in any public place or place open to the public, including any club which is open to the public, … (CONN. GEN. STAT. § 30-89[b])

No exception provided

Delaware

This section shall not apply to the possession or consumption of alcoholic liquor … by members of the same family within the private home of any of said members. (DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 4, § 904[f])

This section shall not apply to the possession or consumption of alcoholic liquor … by members of the same family within the private home of any of said members. (DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 4, § 904[f])

District of Columbia

No exception provided

No exception provided

Florida

No exception provided

No exception provided

Georgia

The prohibitions … shall not apply with respect to the possession of alcoholic beverages for consumption … when the parent … gives the alcoholic beverage to the person and when possession is in the home of the parent … and such parent … is present. (GA. CODE ANN. § 3-3-23[c])

The prohibitions … shall not apply with respect to the possession of alcoholic beverages for consumption … when the parent … gives the alcoholic beverage to the person and when possession is in the home of the parent … and such parent … is present. (GA. CODE ANN. § 3-3-23[c])

Hawaii

… no minor shall have liquor in the minor’s possession or custody in any motor vehicle on a public highway or in any public place, public gathering, or public amusement or at any public beach or public park; … (HAW. REV. STAT. § 281-101.5[b])

No exception provided

Idaho

No exception provided

No exception provided

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

State

Private Property Exceptions

Exceptions When Parents Are Involved

Illinois

[prohibits ] … any alcoholic beverage in his or her possession on any street or highway or in any public place or in any place open to the public … (235 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/6-16[a][ii])

This Section does not apply to possession … making a delivery of an alcoholic beverage in pursuance of the order of his or her parent … (235 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/6-16[a][ii]) It is unlawful for any parent … to permit his or her residence to be used by an invitee of the parent’s child …, in a manner that constitutes a violation of this Section. (235 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/6-16[a-1])

Indiana

No exception provided

It is [prohibited] … to knowingly transport [alcoholic beverage] on a public highway when not accompanied by at least one (1) of his parents … (IND. CODE ANN. § 7.1-5-7-7[3])

Iowa

… except in the case of liquor, wine, or beer given or dispensed to a person under legal age within a private home and with the knowledge, presence, and consent of the parent … (IOWA CODE ANN. § 123.47[2])

… except in the case of liquor, wine, or beer given or dispensed to a person under legal age within a private home and with the knowledge, presence, and consent of the parent … (IOWA CODE ANN. § 123.47[2])

Kansas

No exception provided

This section shall not apply to the possession and consumption … when such possession and consumption is permitted and supervised, and such beverage is furnished, by the person’s parent … (KAN. STAT. ANN. § 41-727[e])

Kentucky

No exception provided

No exception provided

Louisiana

No exception provided

It is unlawful for any person, other than a parent, … to purchase on behalf of a person under 21 years of age any alcoholic beverage. (LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14:93.13)

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

State

Private Property Exceptions

Exceptions When Parents Are Involved

Maine

A minor may not: Consume any liquor …, except in a home in the presence of the minor’s parent … (ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 28-A, § 2051[1][B]) A minor may not: Have in the minor’s possession except: In a home in the presence of the minor’s parent, … (ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 28-A, § 2051[1][E][2])

A minor may not: Consume any liquor …, except in a home in the presence of the minor’s parent … (ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 28-A, § 2051[1][B]) A minor may not: Have … in the minor’s possession except: In a home in the presence of the minor’s parent, … (ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 28-A, § 2051[1][E][2])

Maryland

No exception provided

No exception provided

Massachusetts

No exception provided

Whoever, being under 21 years of age and not accompanied by a parent …, knowingly possesses, transports or carries on his person, any alcohol or alcoholic beverages, … (MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 138, § 34C)

Michigan

No exception provided

No exception provided

Minnesota

… it is an affirmative defense … that the defendant consumed the alcoholic beverage in the household of the defendant’s parent … and with the consent of the parent … (MINN. STAT. § 340A.503[Subd. 1(2)]) It is unlawful … to possess any alcoholic beverages with the intent to consume it at a place other than the household of the person’s parent … (MINN. STAT. § 340A.503[Subd. 3])

… it is an affirmative defense … that the defendant consumed the alcoholic beverage in the household of the defendant’s parent … and with the consent of the parent … (MINN. STAT. § 340A.503[Subd. 1(2)]) It is unlawful … to possess any alcoholic beverages with the intent to consume it at a place other than the household of the person’s parent (MINN. STAT. § 340A.503[Subd. 3])

Mississippi

[it is an offense if he or she] has in his or her possession in any public place, any alcoholic beverages … (MISS. CODE ANN. § 67-1-81[2])

No exception provided

Missouri

No exception provided

No exception provided

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

State

Private Property Exceptions

Exceptions When Parents Are Involved

Montana

No exception provided

Except in the case of an alcoholic beverage provided in a nonintoxicating quantity … by his parent …,… a person may not sell or otherwise provide an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age. (MONT. CODE ANN. § 16-6-305[1][a])

 

 

A parent, … may not knowingly sell or otherwise provide an alcoholic beverage in an intoxicating quantity to a person under 21 years of age. (MONT. CODE ANN. § 16-6-305[1][b])

Nebraska

… consume, or have in his or her possession … any alcoholic liquor in any tavern or in any other place, including public streets, alleys, roads, or highways, upon property owned by the State of Nebraska or any subdivision there of, … (NEB. REV. STAT. § 53-180.02)

No exception provided

 

… except that a minor may consume, possess, or have physical control of alcoholic liquor in his or her permanent place of residence … (NEB. REV. STAT. § 53-180.02)

 

Nevada

… possesses any alcoholic beverage in public … Possession “in public” includes possession: (a) On any street or highway; (b) In any place open to the public; and (c) In any private business establishment which is in effect open to the public. (NEV. REV. STAT. § 202.020[2],[4]) The term [in public] does not include: … Possession in private clubs or private establishments; … (NEV. REV. STAT. § 202.020[5][d])

The term [in public] does not include: … Possession in the presence of the person’s parent … (NEV. REV. STAT. § 202.020[5][b])

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

State

Private Property Exceptions

Exceptions When Parents Are Involved

New Hampshire

No exception provided

No exception provided

New Jersey

… who knowingly possesses … or … consumes any alcoholic beverage in any school, public conveyance, public place, or place of public assembly, … (N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:33-15[a])

[offers, serves, or makes available an alcoholic beverage] … This subsection shall not apply to a parent … (N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:33-17[a])

 

It is not a violation …, when a parent … of a minor serves alcoholic beverages to that minor on real property, other than licensed premises, under the control of the parent … (N.J. STAT. ANN. § 60-7B-1[B])

This subsection shall not apply to any person in his home … who offers or serves or makes available an alcoholic beverage … in the presence of and with the permission of the parent … (N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:33-17[a])

New Mexico

No exception provided

It is not a violation …, when a parent … of a minor serves alcoholic beverages to that minor on real property, other than licensed premises, under the control of the parent … (N.M. STAT. ANN. § 60-7B-1[B])

New York

No exception provided

… may possess any alcoholic beverage with intent to consume if the alcoholic beverage is given: … to the person … by that person’s parent … (N.Y. ALCO. BEV. CONT. LAW § 65-c[2][b])

North Carolina

No exception provided

No exception provided

North Dakota

No exception provided

No exception provided

Ohio

No exception provided

No underage person shall knowingly possess or consume any low-alcohol beverage in any public or private place, unless accompanied by a parent, … (OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 4301.631[H])

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

State

Private Property Exceptions

Exceptions When Parents Are Involved

Oklahoma

… possession of any intoxicating beverage … while such person is upon any public street, road, or highway or in any public building or place. (OKLA. STAT. Tit. 21, § 1215)

No exception provided

Oregon

Except when such minor is in a private residence accompanied by the parent … and with such parent’s consent, … no person … shall have personal possession of alcoholic liquor. (OR. REV. STAT. § 471.430[1])

Except when such minor is in a private residence accompanied by the parent … and with such parent’s consent, … no person … shall have personal possession of alcoholic liquor. (OR. REV. STAT. § 471.430[1])

Pennsylvania

No exception provided

No exception provided

Rhode Island

No exception provided

No exception provided

South Carolina

No exception provided

No exception provided

South Dakota

No exception provided

No exception provided

Tennessee

… has in such person’s possession in any public place, any alcoholic beverage, … (TENN. CODE ANN. § 57-4-203 [b][2][A])

No exception provided

Texas

No exception provided

A minor may possess an alcoholic beverage: … if the minor is in the visible presence of his adult parent, … (TEX. ALCO. BEH. CODE ANN. § 106.05[b][2])

Utah

… to possess or consume any alcoholic beverage while riding in a limousine or chartered bus. (UTAH CODE ANN. § 32A-12-209[3])

No exception provided

Vermont

No exception provided

No exception provided

Virginia

No exception provided

Except, … where possession of the alcoholic beverages … is due to … an order of his parent; … (VA. CODE ANN. § 4.1-305[A][ii])

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

State

Private Property Exceptions

Exceptions When Parents Are Involved

Washington

It is unlawful … to be in a public place, … while exhibiting the effects of having consumed liquor …,… exhibiting the effects means … odor … close proximity to container … speech, manner, appearance, … (WASH. REV. CODE § 66.44.270[2][b]) … no person shall open the package containing liquor or consume liquor in a public place. (WASH. REV. CODE § 66.44.100)

This subsection (2)(b) [exhibiting the effects of having consumed liquor] does not apply if the person is in the presence of a parent … (WASH. REV. CODE § 66.44.270[2][b])

West Virginia

No exception provided

No exception provided

Wisconsin

No exception provided

No exception provided

Wyoming

[an offender is he or she] … who has any alcoholic or malt beverage in his possession or who is drunk or under the influence of alcoholic liquor, … on any street or highway or in any public place … (WYO. STAT. ANN. § 12-6-101[b])

Any person who … furnishes, gives … any alcoholic liquor … who is not … [a] member of his own immediate family, is guilty … (WYO. STAT. ANN. § 12-6-101[a])

 

 

This subsection does not apply to possession … by a person [under 21] …: Who is in the physical presence of his parent …; (WYO. STAT. ANN. § 12-6-101[b][I])

Local Ordinances

A third arena in which prohibitions against underage drinking have been enacted is at the local or municipal level. Local governments are becoming increasingly active in legislating against crime in general and specifying related sanctions (Logan, 2001), and a number of communities have enacted legislation that targets underage drinking. Local ordinances can send a strong message about what a community considers to be acceptable norms, and this often has been the rationale for adopting such laws (Humphrey, 2000). However, like state laws, local ordinances vary considerably in how they address underage drinking (OIG, 1991; PIRE, 2000).

Many municipalities have ordinances in place that are used to supplement or enforce statewide underage drinking laws even though they may

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

not be specifically aimed at underage drinking. These include public place restrictions, teen party ordinances, public nuisance laws, and noisy assembly laws. Public place ordinances place restrictions on the availability and use of alcohol in public places often frequented by youth such as parks, recreation facilities, beaches, and parking lots (PIRE, 1999). Teen party ordinances essentially prohibit teen parties in private residences (although liability typically falls on the host family rather than the youth). Public nuisance laws and noisy assembly ordinances allow law enforcement officials to investigate noisy teen parties. The rationale for these ordinances is that underage drinking is most severe in popular gathering places (Mayer et al., 1998; Wolfson, Wagenaar, and Hornseth, 1995).

However, communities are also enacting local ordinances specifically designed to curb underage drinking (Gliksman, Douglas, Rylett, and Narbonne-Fortin, 1995; Humphrey, 2000). In some states, municipalities are permitted by the relevant state law on underage drinking to take steps that are as restrictive as or more restrictive than the state law (e.g., COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-13-122 [2002]). For example, New Jersey law permits underage drinking on private property, but the New Jersey legislature recently passed a law (N.J. STAT. ANN. § 40:48-1 [2002]) that allows municipalities to close this loophole and outlaw underage drinking on private property. So far, about forty New Jersey municipalities have taken advantage of this opportunity (Gallagher, 2001). Similarly, Glastonbury, Connecticut, authorized law enforcement officials to issue a $100 ticket to anyone under 21 who is caught possessing alcohol anywhere in town, even on private property, except when a parent or guardian provided the alcohol and is present (PIRE, 2000).

However, not all local governments are interested in enforcing or extending statewide bans on underage drinking. Burlington, Vermont, for example, recently passed an ordinance that decriminalizes underage drinking by making consumption or possession of alcohol a civil rather than a criminal offense in which the offender receives a small ($50) fine for alcohol violations (Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, 1999).

LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES

Enforcement Techniques

The burden of enforcing underage drinking laws typically falls on county and local law enforcement officials (Wolfson et al., 1995).4 Law

4  

State administrative agencies such as Alcoholic Beverage Control are typically responsible for enforcing vendor laws, but they may have no authority to cite or arrest youth who violate underage drinking laws (OIG, 1991).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

enforcement officials employ a number of techniques to enforce underage drinking laws.

For example, “Cops ’N’ Shops” is a technique in which law enforcement officials pose as retail clerks and catch youth attempting to purchase alcohol (PIRE, 1999). Cops ’N’ Shops operations can also identify youth using false identification or lying about their age. Some states authorize retailers to confiscate false identifications immediately, then to contact law enforcement officials (e.g., CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 25659 [2002]) (PIRE, 1999).

A party patrol is a method used by law enforcement officials to specifically enforce existing possession and consumption laws. There is some evidence that this technique is effective. Oregon implemented a weekend drunk driving and party patrol program that has law enforcement officers working with schools to identify in advance the anticipated location of teen parties, which the officers then patrol. An unpublished evaluation of this program revealed that arrests of youth for possession of alcohol increased from 60 to 1,000 individuals in one year (with a corresponding decrease of 35 percent in underage drunk driving accidents) (Little and Bishop, 1998).

Law enforcement officials rely considerably on third parties to identify underage drinking. For example, law enforcement officers often become involved in parties at private residences because of a complaint by a neighbor or an ambulance call (Gallagher, 2001). Law enforcement officials may take steps to encourage such reports.

Enforcement Rates

The rates of drinking among youth are quite high (see Flewelling, Paschall, and Ringwalt, 2002). However, existing research suggests that rates of enforcement of underage drinking laws are quite low. For example, Wagenaar and Wolfson (1994) estimated that only two of every thousand illegal drinking episodes by youth under 21 resulted in an arrest.5 Similarly,

5  

This estimate was calculated by first taking projections based on youth surveys that 90 drinking episodes per month occur for every 100 persons of ages 16 to 20. This translates into 1.08 million drinking episodes per year for every 100,000 members of this age group. Because the median liquor law violation arrest rate in this country at that time was 2,286 per 100,000 persons ages 15 to 20 (a rate of 0.02286), Wagenaar and Wolfson (1994, p. 41) concluded that, on average, only two of every thousand episodes of youth drinking result in an arrest. As discussed, not all underage drinking episodes are illegal (e.g., under state law, such drinking may be permitted when it occurs in the home or in the presence of the youth’s parent or guardian). Also, self-report surveys of alcohol-related behavior are somewhat unreliable and could lead to overestimates of the frequency of this behavior. Thus, the estimate provided by Wagenaar and Wolfson (1994) may exaggerate the lack of enforcement of these laws. However, even if they have underestimated enforcement by tenfold, this would still represent a

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

another study found that in 2000, there were 484 arrests for liquor law violations per 100,000 youth ages 10 to 17 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], 2002).6 Even though enforcement rates are low, possession laws may be enforced more often than laws targeting vendors. DiFranza and Godshall (1996) found that underage drinkers were arrested for possession of alcohol 47 times more often than vendors were arrested for selling alcohol to underage drinkers.7

Differences in rates of arrest by gender and ethnicity have been identified. In 2000, the juvenile male arrest rate for drunkenness was more than three times greater than the female rate (OJJDP, 2002).8 Similarly, males are involved in more alcohol-related status offense cases that are formally prosecuted than females (OJJDP, 2000). Regarding ethnicity, in 2000, Native American youth had the highest arrest rate for liquor law violations, which was roughly twice that for white youth, which in turn was roughly three times that for African-American and Asian youth (OJJDP, 2002).9 It has been asserted that these laws are enforced more often against poor youth as compared to middle- and upper-class youth (Mosher, 1998; Wolfson et al., 1995), although data are lacking regarding differences in arrest rates by socioeconomic class.

   

dramatic lack of enforcement of these laws. At the same time, it should be noted that enforcing these laws is relatively difficult in general as this behavior is often not readily observable by law enforcement officials in the course of their routine duties nor likely to often generate a complaint that will bring it to their attention.

6  

These arrest statistics do not, however, reflect the response rate of law enforcement officials. They may intervene in underage drinking and disperse the youth involved, but choose not to make an arrest or issue a citation (Hunter Hurst, Jr., National Center for Juvenile Justice, personal communication, August 16, 2002). Data are lacking on how frequently this occurs.

7  

Although not the focus of this chapter, there is some evidence that focusing on retailers is more effective at preventing underage drinking than focusing on underage drinkers (Scribner and Cohen, 2001).

8  

It may also be noted that between 1993 and 2000, the rate of liquor law violation arrests of males ages 10 to 17 increased 22 percent, while the rate for females increased 41 percent (OJJDP, 2002). In assessing these arrest rates, it should be noted that the 2001 National Household Survey of youth ages 12 to 20 found that 22 percent of males reported what was characterized as binge drinking in the past 30 days compared to 16 percent of females (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2002).

9  

In assessing these arrest rates, it should be noted that the 2001 National Household Survey of youth ages 12 to 20 found that 22 percent of white youth, 19 percent of Native American youth, 10.7 percent of Asian-American youth, and 10.5 percent of African-American youth reported what was characterized as binge drinking in the past 30 days (SAMHSA, 2002).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

Explanations for Low Enforcement Rates

There is considerable conjecture regarding why enforcement rates are low (OIG, 1991; Wolfson et al., 1995; PIRE, 1999; Kelder, 1997; Little and Bishop, 1998; Mosher, 1998), but little supporting data. Part of this low enforcement may be attributed to the fact that this behavior is often not readily observable by law enforcement officials in the course of their routine duties nor likely to generate a complaint that will bring it to their attention. However, there has also been considerable speculation that law enforcement officials are not enforcing these laws as vigorously as they might. Identified barriers to enforcement can be divided into four categories: legal barriers, indifference by prosecutors and the courts, conflicting societal norms (parental, societal, peer), and limited law enforcement resources and negative attitudes about these laws held by law enforcement officers.

An identified legal obstacle to the ability of law enforcement officials to monitor and intervene in underage drinking is that many states do not prohibit youth possession in private residences and permit parents to supply alcohol to their children (PIRE, 1999). Under these circumstances, police may have no legal grounds to intervene, for example, at a teen party.

Some law enforcement officers claim they are frustrated by the absence of a serious response by the court system to these offenses (Wolfson et al., 1995). For example, it is asserted that prosecutors (and judges) view alcohol-related offense cases more as a nuisance than as matters that need to be vigorously prosecuted. As a result, it is asserted that many alcohol-related offenses are not formally accepted for prosecution (OIG, 1991). If a case is prosecuted, prosecutors may seek only a relatively small fine.10 Judges, it is contended, often dispense light sentences and nominal penalties against youth who violate these laws (Mosher, 1998; Wolfson et al., 1995). Officers may feel it is a waste of their time to arrest youth for underage drinking when prosecutors and judges fail to take the offenses seriously.

Parental and societal attitudes may also be a serious barrier to enforcement efforts (Little and Bishop, 1998). Parents will often plead with law enforcement officials, prosecutors, or judges to be lenient with their child to avoid a permanent record, arguing, “We did this when we were young”

10  

According to one prosecutor, prosecutors who deal with hardened criminals all day find an underage alcohol offense “refreshing.” As gatekeepers, they are unlikely to respond to these cases until the individual is in the court for the third or fourth time, at which point they may refer the person for an alcohol assessment. Many prosecutors remember drinking when they were young and, in addition, feel the pressure of parents pleading for leniency for their child (John A. Bobo, Jr., American Prosecutors Research Institute, personal communication, October 18, 2002).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

(Wolfson et al., 1995). Similarly, there is considerable public indifference to underage drinking and related laws (NHTSA/NIAAA, 1999). Generally, society is not concerned with youth drinking at parties, as opposed to youth drinking and driving, presumably because the consequences are perceived to be less serious (Little and Bishop, 1998).

Finally, there are identified barriers intrinsic to law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement departments claim that budgets are tight and therefore they are unwilling to commit resources and personnel to combating underage drinking, especially when they have what they consider to be more serious criminal activity requiring their attention (Mosher, 1998; Wolfson et al., 1995). Law enforcement officials also complain that these cases are too time consuming. Because arrested minors are required by federal law (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 [Pub. L. 93-415, 424 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.:]) to be held in a separate area from adults, when a minor is arrested the officer may have to stay with the youth for many hours until the parents are located and the officer can release the child to the parents. Leaving the youth in a juvenile detention center often is not an option as centers are either nonexistent, full, or far away (Wolfson et al., 1995). Furthermore, many state guidelines prohibit secure detention for these minor offenses (Hunter Hurst, Jr., National Center for Juvenile Justice, personal communication, August 16, 2002).11 Law enforcement officers also report that the large volume of paperwork associated with a juvenile arrest is burdensome (Wolfson et al., 1995). It has also been contended that law enforcement officers may disagree outright with such laws and therefore refuse to enforce them (Little and Bishop, 1998).

SANCTIONS USED TO CURB UNDERAGE DRINKING AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS

Purpose of Sanctions

One response to underage drinking has been to impose sanctions—or a range of sanctions—on violators of underage drinking laws. These sanctions are supposed to convey social norms about appropriate behavior (i.e., the declarative effects of the law). In addition, according to the NHTSA/

11  

A possible solution to this problem is a juvenile holdover program. These programs allow law enforcement officers to, among other things, place the care of a youth with another entity and return to their primary duties while parents/guardians are being located (Mowatt and Chezem, 2002). For example, the Juvenile Assessment Center in Miami, Florida, has incorporated such a juvenile holdover program and documented saving more than 500,000 hours of police officer time in the center’s five years of existence (Wansley Walters, Director, MiamiDade Juvenile Assessment Center, personal communication, November 11, 2002).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

NIAAA report (1999), any disposition pertaining to underage drinking should (1) protect the public, (2) hold the offender accountable, and (3) provide education or treatment to the offender to prevent future acts.

A number of sanctions are available for responding to violations of underage drinking laws. States often distinguish among possession, consumption, purchasing, and misrepresentation and may have different sanctions for these various offenses. Sanctions tend to vary in their severity, whether they are considered criminal or civil in nature, and whether they are to be enhanced for subsequent offenses. Some states also make distinctions based on the age of the offender. Types of sanctions and their effectiveness will be discussed following a description of the agents authorized to dispense them.

Agents Dispensing Sanctions

When an underage offender is arrested, the case may be referred to criminal court, juvenile court, or a diversion program, depending in part on the age of the child, the nature of the offense, and the adjudicative structure within the state (NHTSA/NIAAA, 1999). Each of these settings tends to have a different philosophy and consequently may impose different sanctions within the limits of its authorizing statute.

Criminal Court

Criminal courts handle the majority of underage drinking cases for individuals ages 18 to 20 because these individuals have aged out of a juvenile justice system that is typically limited to youth under the age of 18 (NHTSA/NIAAA, 1999). The primary goal of criminal courts when an offense is established is punishment, and therefore offenders are likely to receive a formal disposition that will be part of their permanent criminal record. Dispositions include fines, incarceration, required participation in diversion programs, community service, referral for alcohol assessment and treatment, and mandatory education. Information is lacking on the relative use of these various dispositions and the recidivism rates for convicted underage drinkers.

Juvenile Court

Alcohol possession, consumption, and purchase violations by individuals (typically) under the age of 18 are considered status offenses in that when the minor turns 21 these activities are legal. Because juvenile courts have rehabilitation as their primary goal, it is not surprising that 58 percent of nonmotor vehicle-related cases involving alcohol are handled informally

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

(i.e., no petition is filed by prosecutors and no adjudicatory hearing is held) (OJJDP, 2002). In contrast, 43 percent of all juvenile court cases were handled in this manner in 1998 (OJJDP, 2002). Juvenile courts tend to impose sanctions that may include probation, referral to a treatment program, a fine, restitution, community service, commitment to a residential facility, or voluntary diversion. Often, a dispositional order includes multiple sanctions (NHTSA/NIAAA, 1999). Information is lacking on the relative use of these sanctions by juvenile courts and the recidivism rates for underage drinking offenders.

Diversion Programs

Diversion programs are alternatives to formal case processing, adjudication, and sanctions. They are designed to hold offenders accountable for their actions while keeping them out of the juvenile justice system (McPhail and Wiest, 1995). The common elements of pretrial diversion programs are community service, parental involvement, continuing education, continuous monitoring and supervision, restitution, and counseling (Panzer, 1997). Congress has recently recognized the importance of pretrial diversion and alternatives to institutionalization (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1997, 42 USCA § 5602). The most widely used diversion program is teen court, although juvenile drug courts are gaining notoriety.12

12  

Although not yet widely employed, a few relevant diversion programs other than teen courts and juvenile drug courts do exist. They include informal probation and Youth Accountability Boards. In California, informal probation is a statutory pretrial diversionary program under the supervision of local probation officers (Panzer, 1997). A contract is generally signed by the juvenile and his or her parents agreeing to certain terms such as restitution, community service, counseling, and continuing education. The juvenile is not subject to further adjudication for the offense and has no record of a formal adjudication. However, failure to successfully complete the requirements of the contract may cause the probation officer to file a petition for formal court proceedings on the original affidavit. California has also experimented with Youth Accountability Boards (YABs) (Panzer, 1997). For example, in San Bernardino County, youth may be diverted to a YAB. A YAB panel consists of three to five adult volunteers. A local probation officer provides the police reports of those juveniles who they believe would most benefit from the program and the YAB decides whether to accept the case or return it to the probation officer. If accepted, the case is further investigated and interviews with the parent(s) and child are conducted. A hearing with the juvenile and parent(s) is subsequently held. There is no requirement that the juvenile admit the crime. The panel determines the disposition. A legally binding contract is created detailing the provisions of the disposition, which may include restitution, community service, counseling, specialized education, and a condition to do well in school. An identified weakness of this model is that little parent training is required. A 20-month follow-up revealed a 97 percent success rate (measured as no referral back to the juvenile justice system as a repeat offender) for juveniles completing the program (see Panzer, 1997).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Teen Courts

The philosophy underlying teen courts is that teenagers are less likely to run afoul of the law if they are involved in a judicial proceeding that exerts positive peer pressure in an educational setting (Godwin, Steinhart, and Fulton, 1998). The programs are typically designed for first-time offenders between the ages of 10 and 18 who have already admitted their guilt, often to nonviolent offenses such as alcohol violations. Indeed, alcohol violations are the fourth most common type of offense handled by teen courts (Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall, 2002). Peer juries issue sanctions that include future participation as a teen court juror, financial restitution, obtaining counseling, in-house detention, community service, and writing a letter of apology or an extensive essay (Johnson and Rosman, 1997). Teen courts may attempt to address parental behavior as well. For example, the youth’s parent(s) may be required to spend one hour a day with the youth.

Evaluations of teen courts generally find lower recidivism rates for youth who are diverted to the teen court (Butts et al., 2002). There are, however, several notable limitations of this research. First, the effects of individual sanctions have not been examined, so it is unknown whether one sanction is more effective than another sanction (or a combination of sanctions). Second, the mechanisms responsible for behavior change have not been identified and therefore the cause of the change is unknown. Finally, although there is a general teen court model, considerable variations exist from site to site and sanctions are dispensed on an individual case basis, making generalizations difficult (Butts et al., 2002; Panzer, 1997). Because of the wide variability in these programs, it is difficult to conclude that the “teen court model” is effective (see Rossi, Freeman, and Lipsey, 1999:217-218), particularly with regard to alcohol offenses, which have not been studied separately.

Juvenile Drug Courts

The philosophy underlying juvenile drug courts (JDCs) is that a combination of incentives and sanctions, with substantial monitoring, is required to achieve behavior change. JDCs provide immediate and continuous intervention that requires the youth (and the family) to participate in treatment, submit to frequent drug testing, attend regular and frequent status hearings, and comply with other conditions (Danziger and Kuhn, 1999). Most JDCs are postadjudication programs that operate after the guilt of the youth has been determined (by trial or plea). This enables the court to exert more extensive authority over the youth. JDCs tend to focus on youth who have more serious problems—moderate to heavy substance use, multiple convictions, more serious offenses—but who are not dangerous to the community (Cooper, 2001). Some scholars who have studied JDCs estimate that a half

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

to a third of the cases seen in JDCs involve alcohol (Jeffrey A. Butts, Urban Institute, personal communication, September 10, 2002). However, others assert that alcohol-related cases are not typically diverted to a JDC unless there is a finding in juvenile court that the youth is abusing alcohol (Caroline Cooper, Justice Programs Office, American University, Drug Court Clearinghouse Project, personal communication, November 12, 2002).

The presumption of JDCs is that drug treatment and related sanctions are most effective when initiated soon after the youth’s arrest (Johnson and Rosman, 1997). Positive rewards and incentives for compliance with program conditions are considered to be as important as sanctions for program noncompliance (Cooper, 2001). The sanctions available to JDCs include imposition of or increase in curfew conditions, community service, frequent court contacts, treatment contracts and/or urinalysis, and short-term incarceration.13 Incentives for positive behavior change include promotion to a subsequent program phase, awards or gift vouchers to a local sporting event, certificates or tokens acknowledging the participant’s accomplishments, the judge’s praise, and the praise of other drug court participants. In essence, the courtroom is supposed to become a therapeutic environment in which the judge is inextricably linked to the imposition of sanctions and incentives (Hora, Schma, and Rosenthal, 1999; Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, 1999).

JDCs have a fairly short history, so little systematic data exist on their effectiveness. Belenko (2001) reviewed seven evaluations of JDCs that have been released. Unfortunately, these evaluations focused primarily on process rather than outcomes. A few local evaluations have been completed. For example, Miller, Scocas, and O’Connell (1998) conducted an outcome evaluation of a JDC in Delaware.14 They found no statistical difference in recidivism (defined as rearrest) between the treatment group and the comparison group.15 However, they did find that individuals who completed

13  

According to Jennifer Columbel, Drug Courts Program Office, Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, many JDC judges across the country routinely impose detention or mandate lengthy terms of treatment, without considering whether these sanctions are developmentally appropriate or whether other behavior modification techniques might be more appropriate (Jennifer Columbel, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office, personal communication, November 8, 2002).

14  

This was an evaluation of a new JDC in Delaware that began in 1995. Participants were 144 individuals between the ages of 11 and 19:80.4 percent were males, and 59.7 percent were white, and 37.4 percent were African American.

15  

The comparison group (N = 142) was culled from case records for juveniles who had appeared during the first half of 1995. Questions might be raised about whether this constituted an appropriate comparison group as the comparison group had longer histories of and more serious criminal activity than the treatment group. Therefore, the treatment group might have been more inclined to exhibit a lower recidivism rate following appearances before the JDC.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

the program were significantly less likely than those who did not complete the program to be rearrested. It should also be noted that this JDC was atypical of most JDCs in that the program targeted new drug offenders with no criminal history. Furthermore, only 5.6 percent of the offenders appearing before the court were there for alcohol-related charges.16

Applied Sanctions and Their Effectiveness

As indicated, the courts and associated diversion programs have a number of sanctions available to them for responding to youth brought before them who have engaged in underage drinking. As noted, sanctions vary in their severity, whether they are considered criminal or civil in nature and thus what consequences they have for the youth, whether they are to be enhanced for subsequent offenses, and whether their application varies with the age of the youth. The following section will briefly describe these sanctions and, when available, review the effectiveness of the sanctions. As will be seen, only limited information is available on the effectiveness of sanctions and thus there is a great need for research on the effectiveness of sanctions (Martin, 2000). One particular challenge hindering this research is that more than one sanction is typically imposed on an individual and, therefore, it is difficult to isolate the effectiveness of a particular sanction.

Fines

Fines are perhaps the most common sanction imposed on youth for underage drinking (PIRE, 1999). Fines may be imposed on a preestablished basis and without a court appearance following a citation by an arresting officer or may be assigned as part of a court-ordered sanction (NHTSA/ NIAAA, 1999). Typically, fines range from $50 to $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second offense, and $500 for a third and subsequent offenses (e.g., MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 436.1703 [2002]). However, some states impose much harsher fines. For example, Idaho imposes fines of up to $1,000 for first-time offenses (IDAHO CODE § 18-1502 [2002]). They may be civil or criminal in nature.

16  

Adult drug courts have been evaluated extensively, and generally have been found to be effective at reducing drug use, at least for some offenders (Belenko, 1999). However, because alcohol is legal for adults, there are no alcohol-related cases in adult drug courts. Because they do not address alcohol-related offenses and because the mechanisms for successful interventions for youth offenders may be considerably different from those for adult offenders, considerable caution should be exercised before using the results obtained for adult drug courts as a proxy of the likely effectiveness of JDCs.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

Law enforcement officials generally believe that fines are not an effective deterrent to underage drinking for several reasons. First, parents often pay these nominal fines for the youth (Wolfson et al., 1995). Second, because the majority of teens are employed, a $50 fine, for example, is a relatively small amount of money to them (American Savings Education Council, 1999; Teenage Research Unlimited, 2001). Finally, many fines go uncollected and there is often no mechanism to collect on the debts (OIG, 1991). Unfortunately, empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of fines in deterring underage drinking is lacking.17

Community Service

Community service is another common sanction imposed on youth for underage drinking violations (PIRE, 1999). The relevant law may stipulate the boundaries of community service to be imposed (e.g., not less than 24 nor more than 32 hours) (e.g., CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 25658 [2002]), it may establish a minimum that must be imposed (e.g., at least 25 hours) (e.g., N.C. GEN. STAT. § 18B-302.1 [2002]), or it may leave the decision to the discretion of the judge.

Community service is widely viewed as an effective sanction to impose on youth. Wolfson et al. (1995) recommend community service placements in locations where the youth are most likely to see the effects of alcohol abuse. Unfortunately, there is little direct evidence on the effectiveness of community service as a deterrent to underage drinking (NHTSA/NIAAA, 1999). In addition, one concern with imposing community service is that many communities lack the resources necessary to coordinate and supervise the community placements (Canadian Cancer Society, 2001).

Referral for Alcohol-Related Assessment and Mandated Treatment

Referral for assessment and, if necessary, mandated treatment of alcohol dependence or abuse is another response often available to courts (PIRE, 1999). Typically such referral is left to the discretion of the court (e.g., IDAHO CODE § 18-1502 [2002]).

17  

One somewhat related study was undertaken in conjunction with underage smoking. Jason and Schoeny (in press) examined whether there was any effect on smoking behavior when towns (matched on population and income) in Illinois enforced both tobacco possession laws and laws that targeted tobacco vendors or only the latter. The possession laws imposed fines on underage smokers. The authors concluded that enforcing both sets of laws reduced the rate of increased smoking among sixth- through eighth-grade white students (although not among the minority youth) significantly more than enforcing sales laws alone. This study did not, however, isolate the effects of fines per se.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

Unfortunately, the effects of treatment for alcohol dependence of youth in the context of a court order have not been examined. There is evidence that alcohol treatment programs are effective for some youth (see, e.g., Brown, D’Amico, McCarthy, and Tapert, 2001). The question remains, however, whether court-mandated treatment is beneficial for youth. Generally, voluntary treatment is thought to be more effective than mandated treatment. In studies of adults, however, mandatory treatment, along with the threat of alternative consequences such as incarceration for noncompliance, has been shown to be effective (Miller and Flaherty, 2000). One reason this approach may be effective is that more favorable outcomes are associated with longer periods of treatment (Taxman, 1998). If underage drinkers are more likely to stay in treatment when they are under court order, mandating alcohol treatment may be an effective intervention.

License Suspension and Revocation

An increasingly common response by legislatures is to suspend or revoke an offender’s driver’s license (NHTSA/NIAAA, 1999). Previously, license suspension and revocation were pursued in the context of drunk driving. However, states have expanded the grounds for which driver’s licenses may be suspended or revoked to encompass underage drinking offenses that do not involve the operation of a motor vehicle (OIG, 1991). Imposition of the suspension may be mandatory or discretionary, depend on the age of the youth, civil or criminal in nature, decided by the court or an administrative agency, preestablished or of various lengths, and independent of or enhanced by prior offenses. For an examination of these statutes, their permutations, and constitutional challenges that have been lodged against them, see Appendix 8-A.

According to a report by OIG (1991), law enforcement personnel strongly believe that the possibility of license revocation is an effective deterrent because a driver’s license is important to most youth. There is some concern, however, that because the threat of detection of driving without a license is so low, youth will simply drive without a license (Canadian Cancer Society, 2001). However, this has not been empirically demonstrated nor has the belief that license revocation is an effective deterrent to underage drinking in general.

Mandatory Attendance at an Educational Program

Another available sanction is required attendance at an educational program, typically an alcohol education program (e.g., COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-13-122 [2002]) (PIRE, 1999). These specialized classes are designed to

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

deal with alcohol-related issues and to inform youth of the consequences of their alcohol-related behavior (NHTSA/NIAAA, 1999).

The effect of such required education programs on the drinking behavior of youth is unknown. It has been suggested, however, that imposing sanctions that are readily, easily, and cheaply applied, such as education, are likely to be more effective than responses such as incarceration (PIRE, 1989). However, it is doubtful whether education alone will be an effective deterrent given that education-based programs have been ineffective at changing behavior in settings such as school-based substance abuse prevention programs (e.g., Gottfredson, 1997).18 However, it may be that education that occurs in conjunction with other sanctions enhances the effect of the education program.19

School Involvement

Some state laws require that law enforcement and schools collaborate in responding to underage drinking cases (NHTSA/NIAAA, 1999). For example, Iowa requires law enforcement officers to notify the school of an alcohol possession violation (IOWA CODE ANN. § 123.47B [2001]). A Montana law specifies that the teen court must notify the school district when a minor is involved in teen court as a result of a substance violation (MONT. CODE ANN. § 41-5-215 [2002]). The impact of this type of collaboration has not been evaluated. However, it is arguable that such an approach provides greater monitoring of the offender and therefore may help to change behavior.

Commitment to a Residential Facility

Case dispositions may include commitment to a residential facility (e.g., training schools, camps, ranches) for delinquents or status offenders (NHTSA/NIAAA, 1999; OJJDP, 2002). However, commitment to a resi-

18  

Gottfredson (1997) conducted a review of the empirical literature on various school programs designed to reduce drug and alcohol use (no available data on alcohol alone). Her findings generally led to the conclusion that drug education (e.g., information dissemination, fear arousal, moral appeal, and affective education) and law-related education (e.g., laws, the legal process) were ineffective. There were some clear program effects on law-related factual knowledge, but she characterized the other outcome effects as minimal (e.g., the effect size for the 11 delinquency items was 0.22).

19  

For example, Popkin, Stewart, and Lacey (1988) found that a combination of education and license suspension is more effective than license suspension alone among adult driving under the influence offenders.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

dential facility is a less commonly used sanction (NHTSA/NIAAA, 1999). For example, the OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book (2002) reports that 8 percent of adjudicated liquor law violation cases resulted in placing minors in a residential facility. The deterrent effect of placing youth in a residential facility for underage drinking is unknown.

Incarceration

Incarceration is the most severe form of sanction and appears to be used far less frequently for underage drinking offenses than other sanctions. Unfortunately, as is true of underage drinking sanctions in general, there are no data available on the impact of incarceration on underage drinking, including whether youth are aware that this is a possible sanction and, if they are aware, whether its availability deters this behavior. However, if incarceration is part of the sanctioning response, it has been recommended that incarceration be short term rather than long term because of assertions that short-term incarceration will be more effective (Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, 1999).

Other Sanctions

As mentioned earlier, a number of sanctions are available to teen court juries. In addition to those sanctions discussed above, other sanctions include future participation as a teen court juror, in-house detention, writing a letter of apology or an extensive essay, and sanctions targeting the parent(s) of the youth (e.g., parent required to spend one hour a day with the minor) (Johnson and Rosman, 1997). Additional sanctions typically used by JDCs include imposition of or an increase in curfew conditions, an increase in frequency of court contacts, intensive probation, a lecture from the court, a loss of sobriety time, home detention, and a change of school placement (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2001). Although teen court and JDC programs have been subjected to some global evaluations, these various sanctions have not been evaluated and therefore it is unknown what individual deterrent effect they have on underage drinking.

Effect of Sanctions for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Violations

The NHTSA/NIAAA (1999) report reviewed the literature on the effectiveness of a number of individual sanctions imposed for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The sanctions reviewed included incarceration, out-of-home placement, residential weekend intervention (for screening and assessment), probation, home detention, electronic home monitoring, driver’s license suspension/revocation, license plate removal/registration

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

revocation, community service, restitution, victim-offender mediation, attendance at victim impact panels, fines, emergency department visitation, education, and treatment. The report concluded that few of these sanctions have been empirically tested, either for adults or minors. However, one sanction of relevance to this chapter has been tested with youth. Tulsa, Oklahoma, developed an emergency department visitation program in which minors spent time in an emergency room, preferably late at night on the weekend, to view the effects of drunk driving. In addition, youth visited a rehabilitation center for patients with spinal cord injuries, attended a victim impact panel presentation, participated in a small group alcohol counseling session, and wrote an essay about their experiences in the program. A study of this program found reduced recidivism (i.e., rearrest for DUI) among 16- to 25-year-olds over a two-year period. Program participants had a recidivism rate of 1.2 percent compared to the national DUI rearrest rate of approximately 30 percent (Police Executive Research Forum, n.d.).

Probation and Monitoring Compliance with Sanctions

Little has been written about the importance of monitoring compliance, but it appears to be critical for enhancing the deterrent effects of sanctions. In juvenile court, compliance with sanctions is usually monitored by the probation department. Probation (as a form of monitoring compliance) places youth under informal or formal supervision. Also available to courts is intensive probation, which may include biweekly visits, electronic monitoring, and unannounced visits. Judges have wide-ranging discretion in stipulating the probation conditions (NHTSA/NIAAA, 1999). These conditions typically encompass many of the sanctions already discussed. For example, judges may include as a condition of probation the payment of a fine, obtaining an alcohol dependency assessment or periodic testing for alcohol use, attendance at an education program, or community service. A number of conditions can be set simultaneously by the court. Probation provides a mechanism for ensuring that these conditions are satisfied. It can also provide a means to monitor the behavior of the youth, either by regular or sporadic encounters with a probation officer, and to ensure a swift reengagement with the courts should the youth reoffend.

The effectiveness of probation to deter underage drinking has not been studied.20 Similarly, there have been no evaluations of intensive probation

20  

However, focusing on juvenile offenders in general, Olson and Adams (2002) conducted an outcome evaluation of 821 juvenile probationers in Illinois discharged in November 2000. They concluded that probation is an effective form of supervision and rehabilitation for large numbers of juveniles.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

(NHTSA/NIAAA, 1999). Obtaining sufficient resources to permit ongoing monitoring of offenders by probation officers historically has been a challenge for the criminal justice system. To the extent that more resources are available to monitor the ongoing behavior of an underage drinker, this approach may have more promise in this context. Also, some youth may be more accustomed to relatively close supervision and the monitoring of their behavior in general and thus be less resistant and more responsive to periodic monitoring by probation officers.

Other Responses

Public Humiliation

Some communities have responded to underage drinking by making public the names of individuals involved in underage drinking incidents (Wolfson et al., 1995). For example, OIG (1991) reported that Alabama issued press releases listing names of minors arrested for alcohol violations. Similarly, Michigan published the results of vendor sting operations (OIG, 1991). No evaluation of this approach has been conducted.

Parental Notification

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1997) recommends parental notification as a response to underage drinking. For example, law enforcement officials may be required to notify a parent when a minor has been cited (i.e., no arrest occurs) for an alcohol-related violation (e.g., MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 436.1703(6) [2002]). This approach has been recommended because it is believed to engage parents in addressing the problem, allows parents to handle the problem at home, and enables them to use disciplinary means that they have found effective and as they see fit, rather than interjecting the courts into an environment with which they are not familiar. No evaluations of this approach have been conducted. Moreover, evaluation of this approach probably would be difficult because the intervention takes place in the home, where outsiders would not know exactly what transpired and where situations would vary considerably from case to case.

Incentives for Positive Behavior Change

One primary difference between JDCs and other types of courts is the emphasis of JDCs on providing incentives for positive behavior change. Incentives include promotion to a subsequent program phase, providing an award or a gift (e.g., a voucher to a local sporting event), issuing a certifi-

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

cate or a token acknowledging the participant’s accomplishments, and receiving the judge’s praise or the praise of other drug court participants. However, there have been no empirical studies of the effect of these various incentives.

Lessons Learned from the Tobacco Literature

Like underage drinking laws, the extent to which tobacco possession laws are enforced in each state is largely unknown (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1999).21 Cismoski (1994) argues that these laws are almost never enforced.

Although they may not be enforced frequently, it appears that youth tobacco possession laws are enforced more often than tobacco access laws. This is surprising given the existence of the federal Synar Amendment (Pub. L. 102-321, 1991).22 This legislation seeks to promote greater vendor vigilance and requires states to achieve a maximum sales-to-minors rate of no more than 20 percent by Fiscal Year 2003 (i.e., a minor attempting to purchase tobacco should be able to complete a purchase less than 20 percent of the time). However, Forster, Komro, and Wolfson (1996) examined a 1992 Minnesota law that prohibited the purchase, attempt to purchase, and possession of tobacco by minors. Forster and colleagues found that the 222 cities included in the study were far more likely to penalize youth than merchants for underage smoking violations. Specifically, she found that more than 90 percent of the cities studied reported at least some action to enforce their underage tobacco possession law, with more than 40 percent of these cities applying serious penalties. In contrast, only 25 percent of the cities studied reported taking enforcement actions against retailers for selling tobacco to underage youth and only 10 percent of these cities reported that serious penalties were imposed for such sales.

Little evidence is available to indicate that the enforcement of tobacco possession laws has decreased underage smoking behavior (Canadian Cancer Society, 2001; Kelder, 1997; Mosher, 1998). However, as noted, one study found that a combination of enforcing sales laws and possession laws reduced the rate of increased smoking among white sixth- to eighth-grade students (Jason and Schoeny, in press). This suggests that enforcing tobacco possession laws does have value when occurring in conjunction with the enforcement of sales laws.

21  

Nor has research been generated that indicates whether underage drinking laws are more, less, or just as likely to be enforced as underage smoking laws.

22  

The Synar Amendment (there is no equivalent law for alcohol) is designed to reduce, then eliminate, youth tobacco use by curtailing access and availability. This is accomplished by requiring states to govern tobacco sales to minors coupled with compliance monitoring.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

Based on his research on underage smoking, one scholar has surmised that sanctions for underage smoking deter youth who are already law abiding, but may be less of a deterrent for other youth (Leonard Buckle, the Tobacco Control Resource Center, Northeastern University School of Law, personal communication, October 4, 2002), particularly if they are applied infrequently and inconsistently. For these youth, a penalty for tobacco use may serve to reinforce their sense of alienation from society, rather than encourage compliance with the law (Hirschhorn, 2000) or serve as a badge of honor enhancing their status with their peer group.

Criminalizing Underage Drinking

Bonnie (1979) recommends that prior to enacting a law, legislators need to determine the purpose of the law and their desired goals, then craft laws that will enable them to meet those goals.23 The purpose of possession, consumption, purchase, and misrepresentation laws is to protect, not punish, youth. Wolfson and Hourigan (1997) argue that it may not have been the intent of legislatures to criminalize underage drinkers (and thereby to establish a permanent criminal record for such youth), but this has been the result. Criminal penalties tend to accomplish deterrence only when punishment is sufficiently swift, certain, and severe (Zimring and Hawkins, 1973). Wolfson and Hourigan (1997) add that the assumption of legislators may have been that the mere existence of underage drinking laws would deter underage drinking and that enforcement and sanctions would not be necessary. However, there is little indication that this has occurred. But for those youth who have been apprehended and successfully prosecuted, the result may be the imposition of a criminal record with long-term implications.24

23  

Bonnie (1979) studied the effect of decriminalizing marijuana use and found considerable support for this approach. He determined that those states that had taken this step did not experience an increase in the use of marijuana and that a number of other positive benefits resulted, including reduced administrative expenses. He also noted that merely labeling a sanction as criminal or civil does not necessarily change the employment of the sanction and that some sanctions, such as fines, fit well under either label. One advantage of a civil approach is that elements of proof and procedural requirements may be relaxed and a less burdensome process may be employed. Another advantage is that it may deter future behavior while avoiding the establishment of a permanent criminal record that may significantly impact the future well-being of the youth. Also, a civil penalty may be viewed as less severe and more measured to the offense, which in turn may increase support for these laws and enhance their enforcement and prosecution.

24  

In the perhaps related context of marijuana use, Bonnie (1979) provides some guidance for how to decriminalize such behavior but still hold offenders accountable.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

Conclusions

In sum, laws and sanctions against underage drinking exist to some extent in all states, although many state laws contain loopholes. It has been recommended that all states should adopt consumption, possession, purchase, and misrepresentation laws (President’s Commission on Model State Drug Laws, 1993).25 It appears from the literature that enforcement of existing laws is low and therefore a major barrier to reducing underage drinking. When arrests are made and sanctions imposed, compliance monitoring is often lacking. The effect of sanctions on underage drinking is unknown because little research has examined this question. However, based on deterrence theory, it could be argued that sanctions as they exist in the current context are not effective. That is, courts impose small fines (i.e., sanctions are not sufficiently severe); enforcement, prosecution, and adjudication are uncertain (i.e., there is little certainty of punishment); and often there are long delays, at least from a youth’s perspective, before a case is heard or resolved (i.e., no swiftness).

PROHIBITING POSSESSION, CONSUMPTION, AND PURCHASE OF ALCOHOL BY MINORS IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS26

Federal Law

Within the relatively new federal law, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110), is the Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Act. This Act requires schools (kindergarten through college) to have written policies regarding the use or possession of alcohol (and other drugs) on school

25  

Although most commentators do not recommend creating new laws in this area (e.g., Mosher, 1998), a review of social science literature was conducted to identify characteristics of laws that might be the most effective at deterring underage drinking behavior (PIRE, 1989). It was concluded that laws could be expected to be the most successful in affecting this behavior (1) when the behavior in question is obvious and public rather than private (e.g., speed law enforcement versus unlicensed driving), (2) when the law targets a relatively few rather than many individuals or is directed at organizations rather than large numbers of individuals (e.g., targeting the alcohol industry versus millions of drivers), (3) when the law is relatively simple in its prohibitions or scope (e.g., a ticket versus detention), (4) when the law’s enforcement is relatively inexpensive and mechanical (e.g., when it can be enforced by Breathalyzer tests rather than demonstrated impaired driving), (5) when the law’s sanctions are relatively cost-effective (e.g., fines, educational programs), and (6) when the existence of the law is widely known and supported.

26  

The charge associated with the preparation of this chapter was to focus on elementary and secondary schools, with college policies and responses outside the scope of the chapter.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

premises and sanctions to be imposed when violations of these policies occur. The federal government provides funds to every state and in turn every state provides funds (on a formula basis) to schools for drug abuse and prevention programs (Bill Modzeleski, Director, Safe and Drug-Free School Program, U.S. Department of Education, October 9, 2002).

State Laws

State law directs and impacts school policies on underage drinking in elementary and secondary schools in several ways. First, states have enacted laws that directly prohibit the consumption and possession of alcohol on school property and at school functions (e.g., MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 436.1904 [2002]). In some instances, states dictate the response of school officials to alcohol violations (e.g., HAW. REV. STAT. § 302A-1134.6 [2002]). State law also influences the behavior of faculty. For example, an Illinois law encourages faculty to intervene when a student appears to have an alcohol problem by providing faculty with immunity when they do intervene (e.g., 105 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/24-26 [2002]). In addition to direct influence over school policies, local school policies regarding underage drinking must comport with state law, are subject to review by state officials, and must be approved and registered with state education administrators. Finally, states are the conduit for delivering federal funds to local schools.

School Policies

Nature of School Policies

In accord with federal and state laws, all elementary and secondary schools have alcohol policies (Gottfredson et al., 2000). However, these policies vary from school to school. For example, some schools have relatively sweeping policies that allow a student to be suspended for attending any school-sponsored function, on or off campus, in an intoxicated state (e.g., HAW. REV. STAT. § 302A-1134.6 [2002]).

Prevalence of School Policy Violations

Heaviside, Rowand, Williams, and Farris (1998) conducted a nationally representative survey of 1,234 public elementary, middle, and secondary schools regarding disciplinary practices for school violence for the academic school year 1996-1997. Among other topics, principals were asked to rate the seriousness (serious, moderate, or minor) of each of 17 problem areas contained in the survey. They found that 27 percent of high school

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

principals reported that alcohol use was a serious or moderate problem in their schools. No such reports were presented for elementary and middle schools, suggesting that alcohol use was not as serious a problem in these schools.27

Zero-Tolerance Policies

Many schools are adopting zero-tolerance policies. These policies mandate predetermined consequences or punishments for specific serious student infractions. A large majority (87 percent) of public schools report having zero-tolerance policies for alcohol violations (Heaviside et al., 1998).28

Sanctions

When alcohol policies are violated, a common response is suspension or expulsion, a response that may be dictated by state law (see, e.g., HAW. REV. STAT. § 302A-1134.6 [2002]).29 Gottfredson and colleagues (2000) conducted a national survey of school principals, which among other things asked about principals’ responses to undesirable behavior. Gary Gottfredson, (Gottfredson Associates, Inc., personal communication, October 9, 2002) calculated the rates of suspension and expulsion exclusively for alcohol infractions and found some consistency across grade levels. According to elementary school principals surveyed, for alcohol policy violations, 65.4 percent of the principals reported that their students are automatically suspended or expelled, while 24.2 percent of the principals said their students receive a hearing, but this hearing usually results in suspension or expulsion. For middle schools, 74 percent of the principals said that when alcohol policy violations occur, students violating the policies are

27  

In contrast to these reports from principals, Gottfredson et al. (2000) directly surveyed students. They found that 9 percent of middle school students and 17 percent of high school students reported going to school drunk or high on drugs.

28  

Interestingly, schools with no reported violence were less likely to have a zero-tolerance policy for violence than schools with reported violence (Heaviside et al., 1998).

29  

It should be noted that for other problem behaviors, schools tend to use incentives in lieu of or in addition to sanctions (e.g., greater free time following positive behavior). Such an approach tends to be used more with younger students. In addition, schools often employ mild forms of social control in response to undesirable behavior, such as notifying parents or holding conferences with the parents, talking to or providing oral reprimand to the students, and short-term withdrawal of privileges (Gottfredson et al., 2000). There is no indication of whether or how frequently these approaches have been used in response to alcohol use or an evaluation provided of their effectiveness.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

automatically suspended or expelled, and another 23 percent of the principals said their students are usually suspended or expelled after a hearing. Finally, for high school, 67.5 percent of the principals surveyed said students violating alcohol policies are automatically suspended or expelled, and another 24 percent are usually suspended or expelled after a hearing for an alcohol policy violation. Thus, suspension or expulsion is the dominant response to alcohol violations regardless of the grade level.

Other studies that have not focused exclusively on alcohol use report similar findings. Heaviside et al. (1998) asked principals to report the number of expulsions, transfers to alternative schools, and out-of-school suspensions lasting five or more days for possession, distribution, or use of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. They found that 27 percent of all school principals surveyed reported taking a total of about 170,000 disciplinary actions for these offenses, and of these actions, 62 percent of the disciplinary actions were out-of-school suspensions lasting five days or longer, 20 percent were transfers to alternative schools or programs, and 18 percent were expulsions. Clearly, suspension was the most common response to substance-related problems in schools.

In the context of tobacco use, there is evidence that schools are much more likely to use punitive sanctions than nonpunitive responses when dealing with youth violators. Martin, Levin, and Saunders (2000) surveyed all public high school principals in South Carolina. They found that one-third of these schools employed out-of-school suspension as the sanction for first-time tobacco violations and two-thirds of them employed out-of-school suspension for second or third violations. Expulsion was rarely used at the first or second violation, but 28 percent of the schools employed expulsion for third violations of tobacco policy.

Law Enforcement Involvement

Other responses to violations of school alcohol policy include involving law enforcement in some way. For example, in some states, school officials either may or must inform local law enforcement of such violations (e.g., IOWA CODE ANN. § 123.47B [2002]). Studies have not been conducted of the effectiveness of this approach.

Effectiveness of Sanctions

There is little empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of sanctions for alcohol policy violations imposed by schools. However, many school officials argue that school-imposed sanctions for smoking on school property have less deterrent effect than sanctions such as a fine imposed by some other entity (Canadian Cancer Society, 2001).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

Furthermore, some researchers argue that schools should deemphasize punitive practices such as the automatic removal of students from school following the use of alcohol, tobacco, or other substances (Gottfredson et al., 2000). It has been suggested that schools should focus instead on assisting students who demonstrate such behavior to obtain needed treatment (CDC, 1994; Gottfredson et al., 2000). There is some movement in this direction. Some schools that previously expelled youth arrested for substance offenses have begun working with other systems (e.g., JDCs) to keep these youth in school (McPhail and Wiest, 1995; Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, 1999). However, the effectiveness of this approach has not been tested. In addition, a number of influential governmental agencies believe that programs should be encouraged that increase the interaction and coordination between schools and the community in responding to youth smoking (CDC, 2000, 2001; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000).

CONCLUSIONS

In sum, the vast majority of elementary and secondary schools have alcohol-related policies and the majority of schools have adopted zero-tolerance policies. When alcohol violations are detected, suspension and expulsion are the typical responses. However, it is presently unknown what effect school sanctions have on the prevalence of underage drinking, whether schools are an appropriate venue for addressing this behavior, or, when compared to other possible venues, whether schools are better, worse, or equally effective in deterring or modifying this behavior.

Although the research on the topic is limited, there are some inferences that can be drawn about efforts to deter underage drinking. For example, all states and a number of municipalities have some type of prohibition against youth drinking, although these prohibitions vary from state to state. Relatedly, the nature and severity of the sanctions associated with violations of these prohibitions vary considerably across jurisdictions. It is also apparent that for a variety of reasons, enforcement of these laws is relatively sporadic and inconsistent. In addition, although all schools in this country have an alcohol policy, these policies also vary considerably.

A number of sanctions are being applied by a range of agents in conjunction with underage alcohol offenses. Fines and community service are common sanctions imposed by the legal system for underage drinking violations. Diversion programs continue to grow in popularity. Schools are likely to respond to alcohol policy violations with suspension or expulsion. Unfortunately, little is known about the effectiveness of these responses, and their imposition appears to be rarely guided by supporting empirical evidence regarding their effectiveness.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

There does seem to be a general consensus that if sanctions are used, they should be just one part of a constellation of responses to underage drinking violations. Researchers and advocates are calling for comprehensive approaches to underage drinking that involve the youth, their families, and their communities. Teen courts, for example, have adopted this position. Evaluation of the effectiveness of teen courts specifically in conjunction with alcohol-related offenses is needed to test this hypothesis. The suggestion also has been made that sanctions should be aimed at helping youth rather than simply punishing them for alcohol violations.

In addition, it is important to recognize that sanctions will not be equally effective for all youth. Sanctions are often used as a blunt instrument of the courts, virtually ignoring developmental differences among adolescents. However, a sanction (e.g., a fine of $100) that is perceived as particularly onerous by one youth and thus serves as an effective deterrent may be seen as trivial or as an inconvenience by another youth. In general, studies generally have failed to consider the developmental level, gender, ethnicity, and geographic location of the youth, all of which may be important considerations (PIRE, 1999; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001).

REFERENCES

Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly. (1999, September 20). Vermont city decriminalizes underage drinking. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, 111(36), 7.

American Savings Education Council. (1999). Fact sheet: 1999 youth & money survey. Student exposure to the real world: Work and savings. Available: http://www.asec.org/fact2ys.htm [accessed 06/05/03].


Belenko, S. (1999). Research on drug courts: A critical review, 1999 update. National Drug Court Institute Review, II(2), 1-58.

Belenko, S. (2001, June). Research on drug courts: A critical review, 2001 update. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Bonnie, R.J. (1979). Decriminalizing the marijuana user: A drafter’s guide. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 11(1), 3-50.

Brown, S.A., D’Amico, E.J., McCarthy, D.M., and Tapert, S.F. (2001). Four-year outcomes from adolescent alcohol and drug treatment. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 381-388.

Butts, J.A., Buck, J., and Coggeshall, M.B. (2002, April). Research report: The impact of teen court on young offenders. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.


Canadian Cancer Society. (2001, September). Youth tobacco possession laws: Policy analysis. Ottawa, Ontario: Author.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1994). Guidelines for school health programs to prevent tobacco use and addiction. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 43, (no. RR-2), 1-19.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs. Atlanta: Author.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000, February). CDC’s guidelines for school health programs: Preventing tobacco use and addiction. Atlanta: Author.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001, August 10). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report School-based tobacco use prevention programs. Highlights, 50(31).

Cismoski, J. (1994). Blinded by the light: The folly of tobacco possession laws against minors. Wisconsin Medical Journal, 93(11), 591-612.

Cooper, C.S. (2001, May). Juvenile drug court programs. Office of Justice Programs and U.S. Department of Justice Juvenile Accountability Inventive Block Grants Program (JAIBG) Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Cooper, C.S., and Bartlett, S. (1998). Juvenile and family drug courts: Profile of program characteristics and implementation. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office. Washington, DC: Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University.


Danziger, G., and Kuhn, J.A. (1999). Drug treatment courts: Evolution, evaluation, and future directions. Journal of Health Care Law and Policy, 3, 166-191.

DiFranza, J., and Godshall, W. (1996). Tobacco industry efforts hindering enforcement of the ban on tobacco sales to minors: Actions speak louder than words. Tobacco Control, 5, 127-131.


Flewelling, R.L., Paschall, M.J., and Ringwalt, C. (2002, October). The epidemiology of underage drinking in the United States: An overview. Paper presented at the Workshop on Underage Drinking: Issues and Approaches, Washington, DC.

Forster, J.L., Komro, K.A., and Wolfson, M. (1996). Survey of city ordinances and local enforcement regarding commercial availability of tobacco to minors in Minnesota, United States. Tobacco Control, 5, 46-51.


Gallagher, M.P. (2001, July 2). Empowered to pass laws against teen drinking, towns just say no: New Jersey ordinances prohibiting underage drinking on private property. New Jersey Law Journal, 165(1), 1-4.

Gliksman, L., Douglas, R.R., Rylett, M., and Narbonne-Fortin, C. (1995). Reducing problems through municipal alcohol policies: The Canadian experiment in Ontario. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 2(2), 105-118.

Godwin, T.M., Steinhart, D.J., and Fulton, B.A. (1998). Peer justice and youth empowerment: An implementation guide for teen court programs. Washington, DC: The Council of State Governments, American Probation and Parole Association.

Gottfredson, D.C. (1997). School-based crime prevention. In L.W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising: A report to the United States Congress (pp. 56-165). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Gottfredson, G.D., Gottfredson, D.C., Czeh, E.R., Cantor, D., Crosse, S.B., and Hantman, I. (2000, November). Summary: National study of delinquency prevention in schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.


Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., and Farris, E. (1998, March). Violence and discipline problems in U.S. public schools: 1996-1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Hirschhorn, N. (2000, August). Tobacco industry tactics: How they target youth worldwide. Presentation to 11th World Conference on Tobacco or Health, Chicago, IL.

Hora, P.F., Schma, W.G., and Rosenthal, J.T.A. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74, 439.

Humphrey, T. (2000). Community volunteers in Missouri champion new alcohol-related ordinances at the local level. Available: http://www.udetc.org/success_stories/woad_missouri.htm [accessed 06/11/03].

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

Jason, L.A., Pokorny, S.B., and Schoeny, M.E. (2003). Evaluating the effects of enforcements and fines on youth smoking. Critical Public Health, 13, 33-45.

Johnson, B.G., and Rosman, D. (1997). Recent developments in nontraditional alternatives in juvenile justice. Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal, 28, 719.

Jones, N.E., Pieper, C.F., and Robertson, L.S. (1992). The effect of legal drinking age on fatal injuries of adolescents and young adults. American Journal of Public Health, 82, 112-115.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. Pub. L. 93-415, 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.


Kelder, G.E. (1997). The perils, promises and pitfalls of criminalizing youth possession of tobacco. Available: http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/tcu/3-97/YPFINAL.THM [accessed November 2002].


Little, B., and Bishop, M. (1998). Minor drinkers/major consequences: Enforcement strategies for underage alcoholic beverage law violators. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 67(6), 1-4.

Logan, W.A. (2001). The shadow criminal law of municipal governance. Ohio State Law Review, 62, 1409.


Martin, M.W., Levin, S., and Saunders, R. (2000). The association between severity of sanction imposed for violation of tobacco policy and high school drop out rates. Journal of School Health, 70(18), 327-330.

Martin, S.E. (2000). Alcohol, youth, and the justice system: Underage drinking as normative behavior, a status offense, and a risk factor for delinquency. In Susan O. White (Ed.), Handbook of youth and justice (pp. 159-189). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Mayer, R.R., Forster, J.L., Murray, D.M., and Wagenaar, A.C. (1998). Social settings and situations of underage drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59(2), 207-215.

McPhail, M.W., and Wiest, B.M. (1995). Combining alcohol and other drug abuse treatment with diversion for juveniles in the justice system. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 21. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Miller, M.L., Scocas, E.A., and O’Connell, J.P. (1998). Evaluation of the juvenile drug court diversion program. City of Wilmington Comprehensive Communities Program. Dover, DE: Statistical Analysis Center.

Miller, N.S., and Flaherty, J.A. (2000). Effectiveness of coerced addiction treatment (alternative consequences): A review of the clinical research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 9-16.

Mosher, J.F. (1998). The merchants, not the customers: Resisting the alcohol and tobacco industries’ strategy to blame young people for illegal alcohol and tobacco sales. Journal of Public Health Policy, 16, 412-432.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. (2002, September). Alcohol-related laws. Available: http://www.madd.org/laws [accessed November 2002].

Mowatt, R.M., and Chezem, L. (2002). Implementation guide for juvenile holdover programs. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.


National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2001). Drug court planning initiative: Operationalizing workshop. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Alcohol and Other Drugs Division.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1997). Youth DWI and underage enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (1999, September). Sentencing and dispositions of youth DUI and other alcohol related offenses: A guide for judges and prosecutors. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

Office of Inspector General. (1991). Youth and alcohol: Laws and enforcement: Is the 21-year-old drinking age a myth? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. (1999). Juvenile and family drug courts: An overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Program Office.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2000, October). Offenders in juvenile court, 1997 (NCJ 181204). Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Author.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2002). Statistical briefing book. Available: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/index.html [accessed April 25, 2002].

Olson, D., and Adams, S. (2002). Results of the 2000 Illinois Probation Outcome Study. Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

O’Malley, P., and Wagenaar, A.C. (1991). Effects of minimum drinking age laws on alcohol use, related behaviors, and traffic crash involvement among American youth 1976-1987. Journal of the Study of Alcohol, 52, 478-491.


Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. (1989). Effective systemwide strategies to combat youth drug and alcohol abuse: An agenda for action. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. (1999). Regulatory strategies for preventing youth access to alcohol: Best practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. (2000). A practical guide to preventing and dispersing underage drinking parties. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Panzer, C. (1997). Reducing juvenile recidivism through pre-trial diversion programs: A community’s involvement. Journal of Juvenile Law, 18, 186.

Police Executive Research Forum. (n.d.). The Tulsa Police Department—Case history. Washington, DC: Author.

Popkin, C.L., Stewart, J.R., and Lacey, J.H. (1988). A follow-up evaluation of North Carolina’s alcohol and drug education traffic schools and mandatory substance abuse assessments: Final report. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center.

President’s Commission on Model State Drug Laws. (1993, December). Drug-free families, schools, and workplaces (Model Underage Alcohol Consumption Reduction Act). Washington, DC: The White House.


Rossi, P.H., Freeman, H.E., and Lipsey, M.W. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Scribner, R., and Cohen, D. (2001). The effect of enforcement on merchant compliance with the minimum legal drinking age law. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(4), 857-866.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2002). Results from the 2001 National household survey on drug abuse: Volume I, summary of national findings. Office of Applied Statistics, NHSDA Series H-17, DHHS Publication No. SMA 02-3 758. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health.


Taxman, F.S. (1998). 12 steps to improved offender outcomes: Developing responsive systems of care for substance-abusing offenders. Corrections Today, 60(6), 114-117, 166.

Teenage Research Unlimited. (2001, January 25). Teens spend $155 billion in 2000. Available: http://www.teenresearch.com/PRview.cfm?edit_id=75 [accessed June 2003, originally November 2002].

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Reducing tobacco use: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services; and National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Mental Health.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1987). Drinking-age laws: An evaluation synthesis of their impact on highway safety. Washington, DC: Author.


Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. (2002, January). Report to Virginia Tobacco Settlement Foundation. Richmond, VA: Bureau of Law Enforcement Operations.


Wagenaar, A.C., and Wolfson, M. (1994). Enforcement of the legal minimum drinking age in the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy, 15(1), 37-53.

Wolfson, M., and Hourigan, M. (1997). Unintended consequences and professional ethics: Criminalization of alcohol and tobacco use by youth and young adults. Addiction, 92(9), 1159-1164.

Wolfson, M., Wagenaar, A.C., and Hornseth, G.W. (1995). Law officers’ views on enforcement of the minimum drinking age: A four-state study. Public Health Reports, 110 (July/August), 428-438.


Zimring, F.J., and Hawkins, G.J. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

APPENDIX 8-A

At least 33 states30 plus the District of Columbia have specific statutory provisions pertaining to the suspension, revocation, or denial of the driver’s licenses of underage drinkers for alcohol offenses that did not involve the use of a motor vehicle.31 A number of variations are manifested in these statutory provisions.

For example, in 24 states and the District of Columbia, the suspension, revocation, or denial of a license is mandatory (e.g., Delaware), in eight states it is left to the discretion of the court or agency presiding over the

30  

In addition, Wyoming continues to have a statute in its code that requires that driver’s licenses be suspended for the possession of alcohol by youth under the age of 19, (WYO. STAT. § 31-7-128 [2002]), but the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that this provision violated the Wyoming state constitution in Johnson v. State Hearing Examiner’s Office, 838 P.2d 158 (Wyo. 1992).

31  

These are distinct from provisions that provide for the suspension or revocation of driver’s licenses for driving while under the influence of alcohol, many of which employ a zero-tolerance policy that stipulates that such suspension or revocation shall occur regardless of the quantity of alcohol in a youth’s blood or breath at the time of the offense (see, e.g., OKLA. STAT. tit. 47, §§ 754, 756 [2002]).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

matter (e.g., Arizona), and in Utah it is discretionary for first offenses and mandatory for second or subsequent offenses. Some states permit the suspension, revocation, or denial of a youth’s driver’s license for the full range of underage drinking offenses in that state (e.g., Michigan), while in other states it is limited to only certain specific offenses, such as using false identification in an attempt to obtain alcohol (e.g., Minnesota).32 Most states assign the imposition of this sanction to the judge presiding over the underage drinking offense (e.g., North Carolina), but some states have the court refer the matter to an administrative agency (e.g., New Hampshire).

Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia make this sanction available for a first-time offender (e.g., Kansas), while four states limit its availability to repeat offenders (e.g., Iowa). Some states make distinctions based on the age of the offender, limiting the imposition of this sanction to youth under a specified age (e.g., 18 in Utah) or over a specified age (e.g., 12 in California), or providing for a different range of suspensions depending on the age of the youth (e.g., Louisiana).

Some states dictate that suspension, revocation, or denial be for a specified period of time (e.g., Massachusetts), some states provide a range of times (e.g., Montana), some states provide only a maximum length of time (e.g., Iowa), and some states do not dictate the length of time, but leave that determination to the judge presiding over the matter (e.g., Tennessee).

When the length of time is specified, states also differ in the length of suspension, revocation, or denial that can be imposed. The length of sanction ranges from thirty days (e.g., Kansas) to two years (e.g., Idaho for repeat offenders). However, New Mexico requires that licenses be suspended for two years or until the age of 21, whichever is greater, for youth who have committed three or more such offenses, while Pennsylvania, which imposes a two-year suspension for third and subsequent offenses, stipulates that any multiple suspensions be served consecutively.

In some states, the sanction is the same regardless of whether the youth is a first-time or repeat offender (e.g., New Jersey), while in other states the severity of the sanction is increased for repeat offenders (e.g., New Mexico). Among the latter, some only distinguish between first-time and second-time

32  

In addition, although not targeting specifically underage drinking and thus not reviewed here, some states provide for the suspension of driving privileges when a person has fraudulently used a license or identification card, which would encompass youth who attempt to obtain alcohol by using false identification (see, e.g., N.D. CENT. CODE § 39-06-32[3]) (Matthew Bender, personal communication, 2001).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

offenders (e.g., Georgia), while others distinguish among first-, second-, and third-time offenders (e.g., New York).

Some states require that a driver’s license suspension, revocation, or denial must accompany the imposition of other sanctions such as a fine (e.g., Idaho), while in other states the inclusion of license suspension, revocation, or denial in addition to other sanctions is optional (Kansas). Alternatively, in Mississippi license suspension can be used in lieu of other sanctions. In Mississippi, a youth whose license is suspended is placed on probation for 90 days subject to such conditions as the judge deems appropriate. If the youth successfully completes this probation, the suspension does not constitute a “conviction.” If the youth violates any of the conditions, the court revokes the youth’s driver’s license and imposes any fines or penalties that the judge would otherwise have assigned, and designates the disposition as a “conviction.”

Some states apply this sanction only to offenders with a current driver’s license (e.g., Tennessee), while other states also encompass youth who may subsequently apply for a license by postponing eligibility or delaying the issuance of a license or a permit for a given period of time (e.g., Texas). Some states permit youth to obtain or retain restricted driving privileges (e.g., Oregon), although in some states the youth must establish a “hardship” to qualify for this option (e.g., Virginia). Finally, a few states dictate that the suspension shall not affect the insurance premiums of the offender (e.g., Louisiana) or that any subsequent reinstatement of the youth’s license shall be without further expense to the youth (e.g., Rhode Island).

Constitutional Validity of Statutes That Suspend Driver’s Licenses

Because the loss or denial of driving privileges can be of considerable importance to a youth, a number of lawsuits have challenged legislative efforts to suspend, revoke, or deny driver’s licenses for underage drinking when the youth’s activity did not involve the use or operation of a motor vehicle. These challenges can be divided into two groups, although both may appear in the same lawsuit. The first group consists of substantive attacks on the legislation, that is, that the substance of the legislation exceeded the legislature’s authority and thereby violated either the federal or state constitutional rights of the youth being sanctioned. The second group encompasses procedural claims that assert that the procedures used were inadequate to protect the due process rights of the youth under either the federal or a state constitution.

Both groups of lawsuits have been relatively unsuccessful, although the procedural claims have had somewhat more success than the substantive claims. The courts that have ruled on these claims, however, have indicated some concern that there is insufficient linkage between these sanctions and goals that legislatures were purportedly attempting to accomplish with

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

these sanctions. From this it may be implied that there are some limits on their use, particularly if lengthy suspensions are imposed on first-time offenders for relatively innocuous acts.

Substantive attacks generally have involved one or more of three basic claims. These three claims are that a statute authorizing the loss or denial of a driver’s license for underage drinking for behavior that did not involve the operation of a motor vehicle violated (1) substantive due process, (2) equal protection, or (3) prohibitions of cruel and unusual punishment.

The substantive due process claims typically consist of an argument that there is no obvious connection between underage drinking that was not associated with the operation of a motor vehicle and dangerous driving. Proponents of this argument assert that the loss of a driver’s license should only occur when there has been a demonstration of dangerous driving or there is at least a relatively strong indication that it is likely to occur. The Wyoming Supreme Court found this argument sufficiently convincing to strike down a statute suspending a youth’s driver’s license for underage drinking, but it did so only under what it characterized as the broader and more protective Wyoming state constitution rather than the federal constitution.33

Other courts that have considered this argument have rejected it.34 They typically begin their analyses by noting that obtaining a driver’s license is a privilege and not a right, a position that has been widely accepted in a range of contexts involving obtaining or losing a driver’s license. As a result, the courts’ rationale typically continues, legislation imposing the loss or denial of a driver’s license as a sanction is not subject to a relatively rigorous “strict scrutiny” review. Instead, there need only be a “rational basis” for the legislation.35 Furthermore, under this test, the legislation is generally entitled to a presumption of constitutionality, the burden to es-

33  

Johnson v. State Hearing Examiner’s Office, 838 P.2d 158 (Wyo. 1992).

34  

State v. Niedermeyer, 14 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2000); People v. Valenzuela, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1991); Freed v. Ryan, 704 N.E.2d 746 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998); Frantz v. Commonwealth, 649 A.2d 148 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994); Commonwealth v. Strunk, 582 A.2d 1326 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990). See also In re Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action, 770 P.2d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (mandatory suspension of driver’s license of juvenile for selling marijuana); People v. Zinn, 843 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1993) (revocation of driver’s license after selling cocaine); Quiller v. Bowman, 425 S.E.2d 641 (Ga. 1993) (suspension of driver’s license for possession of marijuana); Plowman v. Commonwealth, 635 A.2d 124 (Pa. 1993) (suspension of license for possession of small amount of marijuana at license holder’s residence).

35  

The exact wording of this test varies somewhat, but a typical example was provided by the Alaska Supreme Court when it defined it (the test) as “allow[ing] a law to pass muster as long as it bears any rational relation to a legitimate legislative goal.” State v. Niedermeyer, 14 P.3d 264, 267 (Alaska 2000).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

tablish that it is unconstitutional is placed on the person attacking it, and the legislature may not be required to provide empirical proof of the validity of its rationale, but can instead rely on rational speculation.36 The bases for the legislation that are typically asserted and accepted are (1) that youth who drink alcohol are likely to drink while driving at some point and that drinking while driving endangers the public safety, or (2) that the ingestion of alcohol by youth endangers their health and safety and that the loss or threatened loss of driving privileges will deter this ingestion. At the same time, courts have noted that these chains of inference “may be tenuous.”37 Nevertheless, absent empirical evidence that directly refutes these inferences, the courts, with the exception of the Supreme Court of Wyoming, have concluded that these inferences are sufficient to provide a rational basis for this legislation.38

A second attack that may be raised focuses on the Equal Protection Clause of either the federal or a relevant state constitution. Some youth offenders have attempted to argue that their equal protection rights are violated when they are subjected to the loss or denial of a driver’s license for alcohol use, but adults do not face the same sanction. This argument has been widely rejected.39 Courts have responded that age is not a pro-

36  

Freed v. Ryan, 704 N.E.2d 746, 748 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).

37  

State v. Niedermeyer, 14 P.3d 264, 268 (Alaska 2000).

38  

The Supreme Court of Wyoming responded by stating, “the driving force behind enactments such as presented here is to enforce non-use of alcoholic beverages by persons under the age of 19 …. Fines or jail are not deemed adequate punishment; therefore, driver’s license suspension is added to the inflicted deterrent. Realists know that the practical result is more frequent violations of driving without a driver’s license and likely no significant reduction in drinking occurrences.” Johnson v. State Hearing Examiner’s Office, 838 P.2d 158, 166, n.9 (Wyo. 1992). It also noted that “[a] casual acceptance in the cases that a right to drive in this American society is not ‘fundamental’ lacks both economic and logical application to this present real world.” Id. at 175, n.12. See also Commonwealth v. Strunk, 582 A.2d 1326, 1333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (Popovich, J., dissenting) (irrational to apply sanction of suspending driver’s licenses only for underage drinking and not for other behaviors, particularly when already a significant penalty associated with driving while intoxicated, which presumably serves a considerable deterrent function). See generally People v. Lindner, 535 N.E.2d 829, 832 (Ill. 1989) (in rejecting suspension of driver’s licenses of convicted sex offenders, “[k]eeping off the roads drivers who have committed offenses not involving vehicles is not a reasonable means of ensuring that the roads are free of drivers who operate vehicles unsafely or illegally.”).

39  

Carney v. State, 808 S.W.2d 755 (Ark. 1991); People v. Valenzuela, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1991); Frantz v. Commonwealth, 649 A.2d 148 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994); State v. Shawn P., 859 P.2d 1220 (Wash. 1993). See generally In re Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action, 770 P.2d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (mandatory suspension of driver’s license of juveniles but not adults for drug offenses is permissible); Davis v. State, 977 P.2d 554 (Wash. 1999) (upholding statute authorizing suspension of driver’s licenses of youth under the age of 21 after conviction of certain drug offenses).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

tected class under the Equal Protection Clause and the legislature thus need only provide a rational basis for imposing different sanctions on youth than it does for adults for the same behavior. They note that drinking by youth is generally prohibited and assert that the risk of individuals under the age of 21 abusing alcohol and demonstrating a dangerous disregard for the safe operation of motor vehicles is particularly acute. Thus they have concluded that it is permissible to apply this sanction only to youth under the age of 21.

An equal protection argument that has had more success focuses on statutory provisions that expose only youth below a certain age to suspension, and not those youth who are older.40 For example, Utah, Washington, and New Hampshire provide for the loss or denial of a driver’s license if the youth is under the age of 18 at the time of the offense, but not if the youth is 18, 19, or 20. The Supreme Court of Wyoming struck down a similar statutory provision because it did not find a rational basis for a distinction by age group among underage drinkers.41 In criticizing the imposition of suspensions only on youth below age 18, it has been argued that studies show that youth of ages 18 through 20 are more likely to use alcohol, to drive more often, and to harm the public through drunk driving. One judge concluded, “it is difficult to conceive what rational basis the Legislature would have for excluding those aged 18 and older.”42

However, the Supreme Court of Washington upheld this age distinction and found several ways in which the law treats youth under the age of 18 differently from youth of ages 18 through 20.43 The court noted that youth under the age of 18 are subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court where the aim of sentencing is both punishment and rehabilitation; that certain restrictions are placed on their ability to obtain a driver’s license, including obtaining the approval of their parents or guardians and successfully completing an approved safety education course; and that they cannot own a car, vote, hold office, independently decide to marry, make a will, or

40  

However, equal protection arguments have failed that have challenged the decision of some states to limit these suspensions to youth above a minimum age, such as 13. State v. Shawn P., 859 P.2d 1220 (Wash. 1993). But see Id. at 1229-30 (Madsen, J., dissenting).

41  

Johnson v. State Hearing Examiner’s Office, 838 P.2d 158 (Wyo. 1992).

42  

Id. at 1228-30 (Madsen, J., dissenting).

43  

State v. Shawn P., 859 P.2d 1220, 1225-26 (Wash. 1993). See also Carney v. State, 808 S.W.2d 755, 758 (Ark. 1991) (“[T]he state’s authority to supervise children is broader than that over similar actions by adults …. [T]he General Assembly had to draw the age line with accompanying penalties somewhere.”); State v. Preston, 832 P.2d 513 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992) (upholding age classification because youth under 18 can be considered less responsible than those who are 18 and older as demonstrated by the fact that in several states the legal drinking age is 18).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

serve on a jury. In contrast, the court ascertained, none of these applied to youth 18 and older. In addition, the court determined that youth 18 and older have a greater dependence on a driver’s license for education, employment, or family needs and would be significantly harmed by its suspension.

The third substantive attack on the loss or denial of a driver’s license for underage drinking unrelated to the operation of a motor vehicle has asserted that such a sanction constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of either the federal or a state constitution because the sanction is disproportionately severe in comparison to the nature of the offense. Typically this argument asserts that the youth’s consumption or possession of alcohol was a relatively innocuous or isolated event, such as the drinking of a single can of beer on private property that caused no one any harm. The argument continues that the suspension of a youth’s driver’s license for a year, for example, causes an extreme hardship for the youth in today’s society, where the operation of a motor vehicle is vital to the youth’s opportunities to work or pursue other opportunities and the youth’s well-being.44

This set of assertions, however, also has been generally rejected by the courts. Courts have tended to assert either that (1) these are serious offenses because of the link between underage alcohol consumption and highway fatalities, notwithstanding a lack of empirical evidence establishing this link,45 or (2) these sanctions are remedial measures intended to ensure public safety on the streets and highways and are not imposed as punishment.46 In one case, however, the suspension of youth driver’s licenses was struck down as disproportionate when the sanction was imposed on youth under age 19, but not on youth ages 19 and 20.47

Procedural attacks on the imposition of these sanctions have been somewhat more successful. For example, the Supreme Court of Alaska struck down a driver’s license revocation after finding that the administrative

44  

Commonwealth v. Strunk, 582 A.2d 1326, 1330 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (“Their social status, their psychological and physical independence, and their ability fully to participate in peer group activity may all be implicated if this privilege is suspended. Furthermore, a driver’s license suspension may affect a youth’s economic welfare by limiting his ability to travel to and from a place of employment.”).

45  

Commonwealth v. Strunk, 582 A.2d 1326, 1332 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (90-day driver’s license suspension is not an excessive penalty).

46  

People v. Valenzuela, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 492, 493 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1991) (suspension of driving privilege for one year upheld). But see State v. Niedermeyer, 14 P.3d 264, 270-71 (Alaska 2000) (license revocation is not a remedial measure).

47  

Johnson v. State Hearing Examiner’s Office, 838 P.2d 158, 177-78 (Wyo. 1992) (suspension of license for 90 days for first conviction, 12 months for subsequent offenses).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

agency responsible for such revocations had acted without providing sufficient procedural safeguards.48 In Alaska, notice was given to the youth at the time of arrest that the youth’s driving privileges were revoked, although a review hearing by telephone could be requested. A conviction on the underlying offense was not required prior to revocation and, indeed, in this case the state ended up not prosecuting the youth for his underage drinking offense (consumption of alcohol). The court concluded that this administrative license revocation constituted a punishment of criminal conduct and necessitated the procedural protections generally accorded criminal prosecutions. The court rejected the state’s argument that this was the mere removal of the license of someone who was not fit to be licensed. The court determined that although the youth’s alcohol offense placed him in the class of minors who tend to drive more carelessly (thereby satisfying the requirements of substantive due process), the removal of the license should not occur automatically, but required an individualized determination with appropriate procedural safeguards. At the same time, the court distinguished the Alaska procedure from other states where a conviction preceded license removal.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania concluded that the loss of driving privileges for underage drinking was a civil collateral consequence of a youth’s conviction and thus the youth was not required to be informed of this consequence at the time of his or her submission of a guilty plea.49 The court noted that although a criminal defendant ordinarily must be informed of the consequences of submitting a guilty plea, Pennsylvania courts had routinely recognized that suspension of a driver’s license is a collateral civil consequence of a criminal conviction and that it was not required that the defendant know that it would be imposed at the time of his or her guilty plea. The court rejected the youth’s argument that driver’s license suspension should be considered a criminal penalty because the statute imposing it was found in the criminal code, asserting that its placement in the legislative code was not determinative. The court also rejected the youth’s argument that it was a criminal penalty because it was imposed by the sentencing court. The court acknowledged that under the relevant statute, the judge was required to order a license suspension and to transmit this order to the Department of Transportation for execution. However, the court concluded that the judge’s role was “more ministerial in nature than one involving ‘control’ or ‘responsibility’” in that the judge had no control over whether the sentence was actually imposed and the department calculated the period of suspension based on any prior incidents. The

48  

State v. Niedermeyer, 14 P.3d 264, 268 (Alaska 2000).

49  

Commonwealth v. Duffey, 639 A.2d 1174 (Pa. 1994).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

court characterized the judge’s role as merely guaranteeing that the department receive timely notice of the conviction requiring license suspension. Thus, unlike the Supreme Court of Alaska, this court found that license suspension for underage drinking was not a criminal penalty, but rather a collateral civil consequence of the criminal conviction. It thereby concluded that its imposition required fewer procedural protections than are associated with criminal sanctions in general and the failure to inform the youth of this consequence at the time of the guilty plea did not invalidate the suspension.50

STATES THAT SUSPEND, REVOKE, OR DENY DRIVER’S LICENSES FOR UNDERAGE DRINKING OFFENSES NOT INVOLVING OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

Alaska (consume/possess): For second offense, may revoke for three months or take possession of the driver’s license (ALASKA STAT. § 04.16.050(c)(2),(3) [2001]); habitual offender (three or more offenses or on probation at time), may revoke for six months or take possession of license (ALASKA STAT. § 04.16.050(d)(2),(4) [2001]); if requested by Department of Motor Vehicles, court may require driver to complete alcohol information course (ALASKA STAT. § 28.15.253 [2001]).

Arizona (use fraudulent identification): May suspend driver’s license or deny right to apply for license (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 4-241[F] [2002]).

California (attempt to purchase/consume/possess/use false identification): If age 13 or over, shall suspend driver’s license for one year or, if does not have license, delay application for license by one year (CAL. VEH. CODE § 13202.5 [West 2003]).

Delaware (possess/consume): First offense, shall have driver’s license revoked for 30 days; second and subsequent offenses, shall revoke for no less than 90 days and no more than 180 days (DEL. CODE. ANN. tit. 4 § 904[f] [2002]).

District of Columbia (purchase/attempt to purchase/possess/drink/ falsely represent age/possess or present fraudulent identification): First offense, shall suspend license for 90 days; second offense, shall suspend for 180 days; third or subsequent offense, shall suspend for one year (D.C. CODE ANN. § 25-1002[d][1]-[3] [2002]).

Florida (possess): In addition to any other penalty, for first offense shall withhold, suspend, or revoke license for not less than six months and not more than one year, for second or subsequent offense shall withhold, sus-

50  

See also Rexford v. State, 941 P.2d 906 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997) (administrative revocation not “punishment” for double jeopardy purposes).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

pend, or revoke license for two years; court may direct the issuance of a restricted license that limits driving to business or employment purposes (FLA. STAT. ANN. §§ 562.111, 322.056 [West 2002]).

Georgia (attempt to purchase): First offense, shall suspend license for six months; second and subsequent offenses, shall suspend for one year (GA. CODE ANN. § 3-3-23.1[b][3] [2002]).

Idaho (possess/use/procure/attempt to procure): First offense, shall suspend license for not more than one year, though restricted privileges may be allowed if person shows by preponderance of evidence that privileges are “necessary” (IDAHO CODE § 18-1502[d][1] [2002]); second offense, shall suspend license for not more than two years, though restricted privileges may be allowed if person shows by preponderance of evidence that privileges are “necessary” (IDAHO CODE § 18-1502[d][2] [2002]).

Illinois (purchase/possess): May suspend or revoke license or permit (235 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/6-20, 625 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/6-206[a][38] [West 2002]).

Indiana (use of fraudulent identification): Shall suspend license for maximum of one year (IND. CODE § 7.1-5-7-1 [West 2002]).

Iowa (purchase/attempt to purchase/possess): Second or subsequent offense, shall suspend license for period not to exceed one year (IOWA CODE § 123.47[3] [2002]).

Kansas (possess/consume/obtain/purchase/attempt to obtain or purchase): Shall suspend license for 30 days or shall not be permitted to obtain a license for 30 days (KAN. STAT. ANN. § 41-727[d][2] [2001]).

Louisiana (possess/use/abuse): For a first offense for a person over 12 and under 19, shall deny driving privileges for not less than 90 days but not more than one year or until the person reaches the age of 18, whichever is longer; for a first offense for a person over 18, shall deny driving privileges for not less than 90 days but not more than one year; for a second or subsequent offense, shall deny driving privileges for one year or until the person reaches the age of 19, whichever is longer; may issue restricted driver’s license after first 30 days of suspension if shown that hardship would result from being unable to commute to school or work; no insurer may increase premium rates unless offense directly related to operation of a motor vehicle (LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 430 [West 2002]).

Massachusetts (purchase/attempt to purchase/misrepresent age): Shall suspend license for 180 days (MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 138, § 34A [West 2002]).

Michigan (purchase/attempt to purchase/consume/attempt to consume/ possess or attempt to possess/use fraudulent identification to purchase): Shall suspend license (MICH. COMP. LAWS § 436.1703[4] [2002]).

Minnesota (purchase/attempt to purchase using false identification): Shall suspend license for 90 days (MINN. STAT. § 171.171 [2002]).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

Mississippi (purchase/possess in a “public place”): Shall suspend license for not more than 90 days and may place on probation; license suspension shall not constitute a “conviction”; if probation violated, license shall be returned, fines or penalties that would otherwise have been imposed shall be imposed, and action shall constitute a conviction (MISS. CODE ANN. § 67-1-81[4] [West 2002]).

Montana (consume/possess): May suspend license for not less than 60 days or more than one year, although restricted license may be made available after 30 days of suspension period (MONT. CODE ANN. § 45-5-624[2][b] [2001]).

New Hampshire (sell/possess/use/abuse): For person 15 years or older but not yet 18, court may suspend or deny license and must notify director [of motor vehicles], and director must suspend or deny application for license for no less than 90 days or more than one year for first offense and no less than six months or more than two years for subsequent offenses, although director must first provide opportunity for hearing [similar provisions not provided for youth 18 or older] (N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 263:56-b[I] [West 2002]).

New Jersey (possess/consume in motor vehicle): Shall suspend or postpone obtaining of license for six months (N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:33-15[b] [West 2002]); purchase/attempt to purchase/consume on premises licensed for retail sale of alcohol/misrepresent age: shall suspend or postpone obtaining of license for six months (N.J. STAT. ANN. § 33:1-81 [West 2002]).

New Mexico (purchase/attempt to purchase/receive/possess/permit self to be served): First offense, shall perform 30 hours of community service related to reducing the incidence of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (N.M. STAT. ANN. § 60-7B-1[G][1] [2002]); second offense, suspend license for 90 days or add 90 days to date would otherwise become eligible to obtain license and shall perform 40 hours of community service related to reducing the incidence of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (N.M. STAT. ANN. § 60-7B-1[G][2] [2002]); third or subsequent offense, suspend license for two years or until reaches age of 21, whichever is greater, and shall perform 60 hours of community service related to reducing the incidence of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (N.M. STAT. ANN. § 60-7B-1[G][3] [2002]).

New York (use license to purchase/attempt to purchase): First offense, may suspend or deny application for license for three months (N.Y. ALCO. BEV. CONT. LAW § 65-b[6][a] [West 2002]); second offense, may suspend or deny application for license for six months (N.Y. ALCO. BEV. CONT. LAW § 65-b[6][b] [West 2002]); third or subsequent offense, may suspend or deny application for license for one year or until reaches age of 21, whichever is greater (N.Y. ALCO. BEV. CONT. LAW § 65-b[6][c] [West 2002]).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

North Carolina (fraudulent use of identification/assist another person who is underage/purchase/attempt to purchase): Court shall file conviction report with Division of Motor Vehicles and Division shall suspend (pursuant to G.S. 20-17.3) (N.C. GEN. STAT. § 18B-302 [West 2002]).

Ohio (use fraudulent identification): Shall suspend license for one year (OHIO REV. CODE § 4507.163 [West 2002]).

Oregon (misrepresent age in attempt to purchase or acquire): Shall suspend license or right to apply for license for maximum of one year, though may withdraw upon petition and may recommend to Department of Transportation that hardship permit be granted (OR. REV. STAT. § 471.430[5] [2001]).

Pennsylvania (misrepresent age to obtain/purchase/consume/possess/ carry false identification): First offense, shall suspend for 90 days; second offense, shall suspend for one year; third or subsequent offense, shall suspend for two years; any multiple suspensions shall be imposed consecutively; if without license at time, time periods come into force when application for license submitted; if under age 16 at time, eligibility to apply for license delayed by these periods of time (18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6310.4 [West 2002]).

Rhode Island (consume in retail outlet/purchase/attempt to purchase/ have another purchase for/misrepresent age): First offense, may suspend for not more than three months; second offense, may suspend for not more than six months; third or subsequent offense, may suspend for not more than one year (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 3-8-6d][1] [Matthew Bender 2001]); No suspension shall affect insurance rating of offender and license shall be reinstated without further expense (R.I. GEN. LAWS § 3-8-6[d][2] [Matthew Bender 2001]).

Tennessee (purchase/attempt to purchase/possess/misrepresent age/use false identification): Shall suspend license (TENN. CODE ANN. § 57-4-203 [West 2002]).

Texas (purchase/attempt to purchase/consume/possess): First offense, suspend or deny issuance of license or permit for 30 days; second offense, suspend or deny issuance of license or permit for 60 days; third or subsequent offense, suspend or deny issuance of license or permit for 180 days (TEX. ALCO. BEV. CODE ANN. § 106.071[d][2][A]-[C] [West 2001]).

Utah (purchase/attempt to purchase/solicit another person to purchase/ possess/consume): If at least 13 but under 18, first offense may suspend license, second offense shall suspend driver’s license (UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 32A-12-209, 78-3a-506 [Matthew Bender 2002]).

Vermont (falsely represent age/possess for purpose of consumption/ consume): Second offense, shall suspend license for 120 days (VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 7 § 657[d][2] [2002]).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×

Virginia (purchase/possess/attempt to purchase or possess): May suspend license for not more than one year, although court may upon demonstration of hardship authorize restricted use (VA. CODE ANN. § 4.1-305[C][ii] [West 2002]).

Washington (possess/consume/acquire): If age 13 or older and under 18, for first offense, shall suspend license for one year or until reaches age of 17, whichever is longer; for second offense, shall suspend for two years or until reaches age of 18, whichever is longer (WASH. REV. CODE ANN. §§ 66.44.270[2][a], 66.44.365, 46.20.265 [West 2002]).

Wisconsin (procure/attempt to procure/possess or consume on licensed premises/presence in retail outlet/falsely represent age/possess/consume): First offense, may suspend license; second or subsequent offense within 12 months, may suspend license, unless involved motor vehicle then shall suspend license (WIS. STAT. § 125.07[4][bs],[c] [West 2002]).

Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 490
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 491
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 492
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 493
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 494
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 495
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 496
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 497
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 498
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 499
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 500
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 501
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 502
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 503
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 504
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 505
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 506
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 507
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 508
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 509
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 510
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 511
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 512
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 513
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 514
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 515
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 516
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 517
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 518
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 519
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 520
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 521
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 522
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 523
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 524
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 525
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 526
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 527
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 528
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 529
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 530
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 531
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 532
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 533
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 534
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 535
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 536
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 537
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 538
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 539
Suggested Citation:"8 Effectiveness of Sanctions and Law Enforcement Practices Targeted at Underage Drinking Not Involving Operation of a Motor Vehicle--Thomas L. Hafemeister and Shelly L. Jackson." National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2004. Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10729.
×
Page 540
Next: 9 The Effects of Price on Alcohol Use, Abuse, and Their Consequences--Frank J. Chaloupka »
Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $49.95 Buy Ebook | $39.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Alcohol use by young people is extremely dangerous - both to themselves and society at large. Underage alcohol use is associated with traffic fatalities, violence, unsafe sex, suicide, educational failure, and other problem behaviors that diminish the prospects of future success, as well as health risks – and the earlier teens start drinking, the greater the danger. Despite these serious concerns, the media continues to make drinking look attractive to youth, and it remains possible and even easy for teenagers to get access to alcohol.

Why is this dangerous behavior so pervasive? What can be done to prevent it? What will work and who is responsible for making sure it happens? Reducing Underage Drinking addresses these questions and proposes a new way to combat underage alcohol use. It explores the ways in which may different individuals and groups contribute to the problem and how they can be enlisted to prevent it. Reducing Underage Drinking will serve as both a game plan and a call to arms for anyone with an investment in youth health and safety.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!