U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
ojjdp.ojp.gov
Ofce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Caren Harp, Administrator
From the Administrator
Involvement with the juvenile
justice system may result in
collateral consequences—sanctions
and disqualifications that can
place an unanticipated burden on
rehabilitated youth transitioning
back to their communities following
out-of-home placement. Collateral
consequences can negatively impact
a youth’s access to higher education,
employment, housing, and ability to
serve in the military.
Although states continue to pass
new laws and increase public
awareness efforts, expunging
juvenile records is still a
complicated process. State laws
vary widely and it is not always
clear exactly what expungement,
sealing, or confidentiality covers.
Fortunately, there are emerging
practices that are helping youth,
families, and professionals expunge
juvenile records.
Successful reentry reduces recidivism
and increases public safety. It is our
hope that the information contained
in this bulletin will help court
personnel, service providers, and
youth advocates mitigate the effects
of collateral consequences.
Balancing public safety with the
needs of juvenile offenders seeking
to lead productive lives without
unnecessary encumbrances is a
challenge. OJJDP is proud to
support states as they work to strike
this careful balance.
Expunging Juvenile Records:
Misconceptions, Collateral
Consequences, and Emerging Practices
Andrea R. Coleman
Highlights
This bulletin discusses common misconceptions surrounding expungement. It also
provides information about the collateral consequences of juvenile records as well as
federal, state, and local emerging practices.
The key information and findings include the following:
• Expungement, sealing, and confidentiality are three legally distinct methods
for destroying or limiting access to juvenile records. However, these
methods may permit police, courts, or the public access to juvenile records,
depending on state laws.
• The public and impacted youth often erroneously believe that once police
and courts expunge juvenile records they no longer exist. The handling of
expunged juvenile records varies widely from state to state.
• Youth with juvenile records frequently experience collateral consequences
of their arrest or adjudication, which may include difficulty accessing
educational services, obtaining employment, serving in the military, and
finding and maintaining housing.
• States, localities, and the federal government have implemented promising
practices to decrease collateral consequences, including “ban the box”
legislation and expungement clinics (Avery and Hernandez, 2018; Radice,
2017; Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014; Shah and Strout, 2016).
December 2020
DECEMBER 2020
2 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
• Expungement is the process of destroying
and eliminating juvenile records. The goal
of expungement is to make it as though the
records never existed. The process is not always
comprehensive in practice.
• Sealing makes juvenile records unavailable to the
public but allows some agencies and individuals to
access records.
• Confidentiality laws require that states make
juvenile records condential, allowing access to
schools, crime victims, the media, and the public
in specic instances.
TERMS TO KNOW
Expunging Juvenile Records: Misconceptions,
Collateral Consequences, and Emerging Practices
Andrea R. Coleman
In the absence of national data on the extent of juvenile
records expungement, state and local data provide an
understanding of the scope of the problem. From 2012
to 2013, 70 out of 25,000 arrested youth and 661 out
of 5,994 court cases involving youth resulted in juvenile
records being expunged in Chicago (Oberman and
Lynch, 2014). In addition, a 2016 report from the Illinois
Juvenile Justice Commission revealed that for every 1,000
juvenile arrests, the state expunged less than one-third
of 1 percent. The commission noted, “This low rate
remained relatively consistent regardless of the number of
individuals arrested in the jurisdiction” (Illinois Juvenile
Justice Commission, 2016: 51).
In 2017, Illinois passed a law automatically expunging
arrest records not resulting in a delinquency adjudication
for specific offenses after a certain amount of time has
passed. The law also restricts public access to juvenile
records. Even though Louisiana also offers expungements
for arrest records not leading to adjudication, youth
must petition to obtain an expungement. It does not
automatically occur (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2018).
In 2016, Delaware passed Senate Bill 198 (streamlining
the process for mandatory expungement) and Senate
Bill 54 (expanding eligibility criteria for expungement).
As a result, the state approved 300 juvenile record
expungement petitions. Prior to the reform effort,
Delaware only had confidentiality and sealing laws, so
youth could not petition to have their juvenile records
expunged (Juvenile Law Center, 2014; Minutola and
Shah, 2018).
Misconceptions
1. States automatically expunge, seal, or maintain
confidentiality of juvenile records when youth turn 18.
According to the research literature, a common
misconception is that states automatically expunge, seal,
or keep juvenile records confidential when youth turn 18.
In Addressing the Collateral Consequences of Convictions for
Young Offenders, Nellis stated, “A common assumption is
that individuals who are processed in the juvenile justice
system have their records destroyed (expunged) when they
turn 18. This is not the case. The laws governing whether
a juvenile record is sealed (not accessible by the public) or
expunged vary from state to state” (Nellis, 2011: 22).
Juvenile Justice Bulletin 3
DECEMBER 2020
This misconception persists because youth and the public
assume confidentiality uniformly extends to all juvenile
records (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2019; Juvenile Law
Center, 2014; McMullen, 2018; Radice, 2017; Shah, Fine,
and Gullen, 2014; Shah and Rosado, 2014). Currently, 13
states and the District of Columbia have limited provisions
that expunge juvenile records; however, the juvenile court,
prosecutor, probation, or other agency such as a state
department of juvenile justice must initiate the process
(Nellis, 2011; Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014).
The laws of California, Illinois, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas require agencies to
notify youth about the process to expunge or seal their
juvenile records. South Dakota and Wyoming only allow
expungement or sealing via a petition, and after a court
finding of rehabilitation. Georgia and South Carolina also
require courts to make a finding of rehabilitation before
they seal juvenile records.
Arizona, California, and Nebraska “set aside”
1
juvenile
records, which allows youth to avoid the consequences of
delinquency findings; however, a set-aside does not seal
or prevent public access (Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014).
New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington recently added
record sealing to their set-aside provisions.
Even though all state juvenile codes require confidentiality
for juvenile court proceedings, Illinois, Montana, Nevada,
and Virginia only seal records when youth turn 18 or 21,
or if they have not committed a new offense within 5 years
of the initial offense. Further, few states seal or expunge all
juvenile records. The number of records eligible for sealing
and expungement may be limited due to how state laws
define “records.”
Some states are making efforts to include more records.
In 2017, West Virginia followed California, Idaho, and
North Dakota by allowing courts to reduce lesser felonies
to misdemeanor offenses (Love, Gaines, and Osborne,
2018). Reducing charges to misdemeanors makes more
records eligible for expungement.
The misconception that states automatically expunge, seal,
or maintain confidentiality when youth turn 18 is further
complicated by the breadth and depth of information
included in juvenile records, which is not exclusive to
juvenile court records and may include those from police
and other agencies.
2. Expunging, sealing, and maintaining confidentiality
automatically applies to all juvenile court and police
records.
Expunging, sealing, and maintaining confidentiality may
not always apply to both court and police records. Many
stakeholders assume that juvenile records only contain
court information. However, juvenile records often
include police records that may contain DNA, fingerprints,
photographs, and other personal information. For
instance, some state laws include explicit provisions that
juvenile records can contain fingerprints and DNA (Love,
Gaines, and Osborne, 2018; Radice, 2017).
Although 15 states limit expungement to juvenile court
records only, 25 states and the District of Columbia allow
youth to petition to expunge both their police and court
records under certain conditions. Idaho and Michigan
allow expungement of fingerprints and DNA in addition
to court records. Indiana youth can petition to expunge
police and court records, as well as records from other
agencies. Kansas has a similar law allowing youth to
expunge all records (Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014).
In Oregon, expungement includes a fingerprint or
photograph file, report, and any other pertinent law
enforcement or court information in a juvenile’s record
(Love, Gaines, and Osborne, 2018, Radice, 2017; Shah,
Fine, and Gullen, 2014). Although Washington permits
expungement and physical destruction of police and court
records, its law does not include photographs, fingerprints,
palm prints, sole prints, or any other identifying
information. While expunging, sealing, and keeping
juvenile records confidential may all address access to
police records (e.g., DNA, fingerprints, photographs, and
other information), agencies, youth, and the public often
erroneously assume they are legally the same.
3. Expunging, sealing, and confidentiality are the same.
Even though the terms expungement, sealing, and
confidentiality are sometimes used interchangeably, they
are three legally distinct methods for handling juvenile
records. Radice (2017: 408) says, “expungement has been
used to refer to both destroying records and sealing them.
The common perception…is that criminal records are
destroyed. But state statutes vary widely, and many use the
term expunge when in reality they are only sealing…from
public access; the records still exist.”
While Kentucky uses expungement and sealing
interchangeably in practice, Idaho’s law explicitly
permits the use of the two terms for the same process. In
California, Georgia, and Ohio, sealing has the same legal
weight as expungement.
Generally, expungement laws require states to permanently
destroy records, expunge police and court records or court
records only, expunge most juvenile offenses, and expunge
by a certain age. Only 18 states require various methods
of physically destroying juvenile records, which includes
electronic or paper form, while some require sealing
4 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
and physical destruction. For example, Oregon requires
sealing and when it does expunge the juvenile records,
they “retroactively cease to exist” (Shah, Fine, and Gullen,
2014: 24).
Sealing requires states to make juvenile records available
to specific agencies and individuals but unavailable to the
public. Thirty-one states require sealing under specific
guidelines. For example, Nebraska prevents potential
employers, landlords, and educational institutions from
accessing records; however, the law excludes police. In
Massachusetts, police cannot access records sealed for 3
years or more from the date of the initial request.
Finally, states’ confidentiality laws prevent dissemination,
access, or use of juvenile records. Statutory exceptions
allow access to specific information to assist with needed
services or to enhance public safety. For instance, North
Dakota keeps juvenile records confidential except if a
youth escapes from a secure facility or if there is a threat to
national security. Alaska’s law has a public safety exception
that says local and state police may disclose information
in the interest of public safety, but the law does not define
or specify who determines public safety (Shah, Fine, and
Gullen, 2014).
Because all state laws require confidentiality throughout
juvenile justice processing with some exceptions (e.g.,
youth adjudicated in the criminal justice system), it is
logical to believe juvenile records remain confidential
even though many states can allow access under certain
conditions.
4. All juvenile records remain confidential.
Generally, the public believes that juvenile records remain
confidential due to the juvenile justice system’s historical
goal of rehabilitation and removing the stigma of a
criminal record (Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014). However,
33 states and the District of Columbia allow schools to
access police and court records, as statutory provisions do
not afford complete confidentiality.
Shah and Strout (2016) suggested that even though
most state laws require the juvenile justice system to keep
records confidential, these laws have several exceptions
that limit confidentiality based on the offense, the number
of adjudicated offenses, or the youth’s age. For instance,
Vermont requires schools to get permission from the court
before they can access juvenile records. In Indiana, police
and courts can release juvenile records to superintendents
or school administrators if written requests specify the
school needs them for educational purposes or public
safety. In Louisiana and New Mexico, schools can only
get essential information to facilitate services or fulfill
educational needs for youth and their families.
Some states only allow schools to access information
related to the type of offense a youth commits. For
example, in Maryland, police can notify a school if they
arrested a young person who was a gang member. In
Connecticut, police must notify the school superintendent
if they arrest a youth for a Class A misdemeanor or felony
(Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014).
Other variations in state laws permit victims of juvenile
crime and the public to access specific information.
Massachusetts allows limited public access to the records
of youth ages 14 to 18 who were previously adjudicated as
adults at least twice (Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission,
2016; Jacobs, 2013; McMullen, 2018; Radice, 2017;
Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014; Shah and Rosado, 2014).
Similarly, Nevada allows a public broadcast of youth’s
names and felony charges in cases that resulted in bodily
harm or death. Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Montana, Oregon, and Washington allow public access
with some exceptions. For instance, while Oregon and
Washington do not allow the public to access youth’s
medical history (i.e., psychological evaluations and medical
records), they can obtain their name, date of birth, and
charges. Tennessee permits public access based on the
“A common assumption is that a juvenile’s record is expunged when he or
she turn 18. This is not the case. The laws vary from state to state.”
Juvenile Justice Bulletin 5
seriousness of the charges (e.g., second-degree murder,
aggravated robbery, and kidnapping), and Minnesota
grants public access for youth age 16 and older charged
with a felony (Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014). Delaware
allows the media to obtain juvenile records automatically
or for specific cases via a court order. For example, law
enforcement must release the names of youth charged with
a particular felony or Class A misdemeanors upon media
request (Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014).
The advent of technology also allows the public to
easily view news coverage about youth charged with
more serious offenses. Internet searches can result in
a “hit” revealing juvenile records (Radice, 2017: 404;
McMullen, 2018). Kansas allows the public to access
juvenile records via an online database for youth age
14 and older (Radice, 2017; Shah, Fine, and Gullen,
2014). Wisconsin’s Consolidated Court Automation
Program (CCAP) provides, in part, arrests and felony and
misdemeanor charges. The site includes misdemeanor
and felony cases that the public can access for up to five
decades (McMullen, 2018; Desmond, 2016). Although
CCAP added a disclaimer explaining that an arrest does
not mean the court filed charges or adjudicated the youth
as delinquent and does not post mugshots, the public still
may not understand how the juvenile justice system works.
As a result, the public may access and disseminate this
information, and it may result in negative consequences for
youth with arrest records (Lageson, 2016; Radice, 2017).
A few states have information-sharing agreements with
private companies that sell juvenile records online for a
nominal fee. State laws permitting public access to juvenile
records or selling information to private companies,
including credit-reporting agencies, can have collateral
consequences that make it difficult for youth involved with
the juvenile justice system to transition successfully into
adulthood (Shah and Strout, 2016).
Collateral Consequences
Youth with juvenile records frequently experience
collateral consequences of their arrest or adjudication.
These consequences are in addition to any fines or
sentences handed down by juvenile courts. According
to the National Institute of Justice (Berson, 2016: 25),
collateral consequences are a “host of sanctions and
disqualifications that can place an unanticipated burden
on individuals trying to re-enter society and lead lives as
productive citizens.” Significant consequences noted in
the literature are difficulties accessing educational services
such as student loans, obtaining employment, finding
and maintaining housing, and entering and serving in the
military (Henning, 2004; Jacobs, 2013; McMullen, 2018;
Radice, 2017; Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014; Shah and
Rosado, 2014; Shah and Strout, 2016).
Because of these collateral consequences, advocacy groups,
media outlets, and scholars continue to emphasize how
the handling of juvenile records can disrupt the successful
transition into adulthood. This bulletin outlines the most
significant consequences below.
Accessing Educational Services
Youth with juvenile records often have difficulty enrolling
in college, accessing vocational training, and obtaining
licensure from certain programs such as nursing. For
example, Colorado can deny occupational licenses to
youth if they have juvenile records. Childcare facilities in
Colorado may not receive funding if they have employees
who were adjudicated delinquent for certain offenses.
Further, some state licensing agencies ask about juvenile
adjudications, which can automatically prevent youth
from getting occupational licenses and jobs at other state
agencies (Shah and Strout, 2016; Radice, 2017).
Historically, more than half of universities collected
criminal justice history as a component of their admission
process. Starting in 2006, many institutions of higher
learning used the Common Application
2
to ask applicants
“A common assumption is that a juvenile’s record is expunged when he or
she turn 18. This is not the case. The laws vary from state to state.”
6 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
to disclose previous criminal convictions and delinquency
adjudications. About 20 percent of the institutions of
higher learning that ask applicants about juvenile records
denied admission to those who disclosed their records
(Shah and Strout, 2016). More than 30 percent of these
institutions have an unfavorable view of youth who
have juvenile records (Shah and Strout, 2016). Colleges
and universities deny admission assuming that keeping
applicants with juvenile records from attending will make
campuses safer (Center for Community Alternatives, 2010,
2015; Radice, 2017; Shah and Strout, 2016).
After pressure from advocacy groups, some colleges and
universities voluntarily removed the criminal history
question. As of the 2019–20 college application year, the
Common Application removed the section that collected
criminal history information (Davis, 2018).
Because colleges and universities might require applicants
to disclose or explain a delinquency adjudication, potential
applicants may not complete the application process.
A study of the State University of New York found that
almost two-third of applicants who started the Common
Application online failed to finish and submit the
application if they answered “yes” to questions about prior
delinquency adjudications (Radice, 2017).
The Lawyer’s Committee on Civil Rights opened an
investigation into colleges’ practices of inquiring about
arrests and criminal and juvenile records. The organization
suggested that these types of admission practices could
contribute to the underrepresentation of minority youth
in college (Shah and Strout, 2016). In addition to barriers
with the application process, some states permanently
or temporarily deny state financial aid based on specific
offenses (e.g., drug offenses) that result in delinquency
adjudications (Nellis, 2011: 23).
Obtaining Employment
Youth with juvenile records may encounter significant
barriers to obtaining gainful employment. One of the
biggest obstacles is employers who ask about records. For
example, an application that asks about prior arrests could
lead to employers accessing arrest records. Youth may
not be able to answer “no” to questions about arrests,
but could answer “no” if asked about an adjudication
or conviction. If youth answer “yes” to questions about
arrest, they might feel obligated to explain the reason for
the arrest (Radice, 2017; Shah and Strout, 2016).
Private employers asking youth about their juvenile
record is especially problematic because they may conflate
criminal convictions and delinquency adjudications. The
Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission (2016: 43) said
“… A youth hoping to begin a new job with a showing of
honesty might unnecessarily disclose a past adjudication
“State laws permitting public access to juvenile records or selling
information to private companies, including credit-reporting agencies,
can result in collateral consequences for youth.”
DINA’S STORY
“At 15, I stole my neighbor’s car and found out I was
pregnant. A judge sentenced me to six months in a residential
facility for pregnant juvenile delinquents. I didn’t understand
that my ngerprints were being transmitted to the FBI
database because I had committed a felony. After returning
home, I got back on track. I got my GED and then completed
an associate’s of science degree. But after getting accepted
into a nursing program, I discovered that my juvenile record
could stop me from going to school after all…. At that point it
nally hit me just how much of an impact my juvenile record
would have on my life. Anytime I apply for a job that requires a
background check with ngerprinting, such as nursing, police,
government, or in schools, they can nd my juvenile arrest, no
matter my age.”
Source: Pettinelli, 2015.
Juvenile Justice Bulletin 7
when prompted to disclose his convictions, and an
employer might not distinguish between the two.”
Even in states that do not permit employers to access
expunged, sealed, or confidential juvenile records, they can
still ask youth to disclose the information. For example,
the Employment Screening 2015: Background Screening
Trends & Practice found that 53 percent of employers
continued to ask applicants about criminal records on
employment applications despite the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission’s recommendations to eliminate
these questions about past convictions, and local and
state laws and policies that “ban the box” (Shah and
Strout, 2016). “Ban the box” is a national effort to
remove questions about prior arrests and convictions from
employment applications.
More than 10 percent of employers reported that minor
criminal lawbreaking would prevent them from hiring a
prospective applicant (Shah and Strout, 2016). Rodriguez
and Emsellem (2011) also found that employers were
more than half as likely to call back or offer jobs to
applicants with a criminal record, which disproportionately
affects racial and ethnic minorities. In addition, Holzer,
Raphael, and Stoll (2002) found that more than 40
percent of employers reported they would definitely or
probably not hire an applicant with a criminal record for a
job that did not require a college degree.
Similarly, the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission (2016)
found that nearly 70 percent of employers from more
than 50 corporations with online employment applications
asked youth to disclose arrests or convictions, or required
criminal background checks. The applications did not
distinguish between youth and adult arrests or convictions.
They also did not clearly state that applicants did not
have to disclose their records if the offenses occurred
when they were minors. Illinois allows some employers
to obtain juvenile records and ask about prior offending
on applications or in interviews. Employers conducting
background checks can also retrieve delinquency
adjudications from private databases not subject to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
To illustrate the difficulty of obtaining employment with
a juvenile record, the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission
(2016: 43) quoted a probation officer who said, “I
absolutely believe that juvenile records affect employment.
We advise our youth not to divulge their history, but
I have had that hurt them. One youth said ‘no’ on his
application and somehow his employer found out he
had an arrest, and he was fired because he ‘lied’ on his
application.”
Youth with juvenile records also experience challenges
when attempting to find employment at local and state
agencies. Because these agencies are public entities, they
often are able to access juvenile records (Radice, 2017;
Shah and Strout, 2016).
Serving in the Military
The challenges that youth offenders face in finding
employment also extend to the U.S. military. Per federal
requirements, the military has full access and extensively
reviews criminal and juvenile records for admission to the
Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps (Illinois Juvenile
Justice Commission, 2016; Radice, 2017; Shah, Fine, and
Gullen, 2014; Shah and Strout, 2016). Using juvenile
records as a criterion for military service often conflicts
with the state expungement, sealing, or confidentiality
provisions discussed previously.
The military has a “moral qualification” for admission, so
even if youth manage to expunge their juvenile records,
they must disclose the information when they enlist.
Although youth can request a “moral waiver” if they have
a juvenile record, it would not apply to certain offenses
such as assault and battery (Shah and Strout, 2016).
“State laws permitting public access to juvenile records or selling
information to private companies, including credit-reporting agencies,
can result in collateral consequences for youth.”
8 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
Sex Offenses as Barriers to Employment
and Military Service
Unlike other offenses, sex offenses and subsequent
placement on sex offender registries are not subject to
expungement, sealing, and confidentiality laws in most
states, so the military and other potential employers can
easily retrieve this information (Radice, 2017). Moreover,
states can adjudicate youth for transmitting child
pornography to their peers when they are engaging in a
practice commonly known as “sexting” (e.g., electronically
transmitting photos showing them wearing little or no
clothing). Because states can adjudicate youth as sex
offenders and put them on sex offender registries, these
offenses can exist on records for the rest of an individual’s
life and can prevent them from serving in the military or
finding and maintaining employment (Radice, 2017).
Finding and Maintaining Housing
Another potential lifelong consequence of arrest and/or
adjudication is difficulty finding or maintaining housing.
Guaranteeing stable housing for youth with juvenile
records is a vital component of successful reentry. If
youth cannot find or keep stable housing, the likelihood
of reoffending increases and they may find themselves in
the “cycle of incarceration” (Toro, Dworsky, and Fowler,
2007: 17).
For example, while the Public Housing Authorities
(PHAs) cannot legally obtain juvenile records, they often
access and use them as a criterion to determine housing
eligibility. This is due to the 2002 Supreme Court decision
that allowed PHAs to ask families about prior criminal
and delinquent offenses and adjudications pursuant to the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of
1990 (Henning, 2004; Shah and Strout, 2016).
PHAs also frequently use informal methods to obtain
information about juvenile records. These informal
methods often include information-sharing agreements
between law enforcement and PHAs, as Henning (2004:
563) noted: “When PHAs do not have direct knowledge
of delinquent conduct, they may obtain that information
from informal, and potentially unlawful, collaboration
between public housing police and local law enforcement
agencies…”
Furthermore, like employers, PHAs search public online
databases and may ask youth and their families to disclose
juvenile records as part of the prescreening processes.
For instance, the Boston Housing Authority required
applicants age 13 and older to sign a release allowing
access to juvenile records and looked for various offenses
such as crimes against property, fraud, violence, larceny,
and drug and alcohol-related offenses. They screened for
these offenses to determine if they “interfere with the
health, safety, or peaceful enjoyment of the premises by
other residents” (Henning, 2004: 570).
In addition to working informally with law enforcement,
landlords also frequently solicit information from residents
who might know or have some familiarity with youth
and their families. Because private landlords have broad
discretion, they can evict youth and their families even if
courts dismiss charges.
The Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission (2016: 45)
quoted an assistant public defender, who said, “I had a
case where the kid was kicked out of his housing pretrial—
the landlord knew about the charges because the offense
happened in the building. The kid was later found not
guilty… He had never had a prior case. We are creating a
whole class of people who can live nowhere!”
The Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission (2016) also
learned that private landlords ask about juvenile and
criminal records to alleviate chronic property nuisances
that can carry fines if law enforcement repeatedly responds
to complaints. Landlords justify asking about juvenile
records because they say the information protects them
from liability. However, they often use information from
juvenile records as an excuse to evict youth and their
families (Shah and Strout, 2016; Watstein, 2009).
“Most states require juvenile records to be kept confidential. However,
there are several exceptions that limit confidentiality based on the offense,
the number of adjudicated offenses, or the youth’s age.”
Juvenile Justice Bulletin 9
Housing authorities may not understand juvenile justice
processing. As a result, they could decide to evict youth
and their families even if the court dismissed charges.
Juvenile records can also “trigger a public housing denial
when the juvenile is an adult,” according to Radice (2017:
388). This action could permanently affect an individual’s
ability to access and maintain housing.
Emerging Practices
This section discusses promising practices implemented by
states, localities, and the federal government to decrease
collateral consequences.
Ban the Box
Ban the box legislation seeks to remove questions
about criminal history from employment applications.
Specifically, it seeks to eliminate the checkbox that asks if
applicants have been convicted of a crime. “Fair chance”
policies are designed to increase the chances that job
candidates with juvenile records will get interviews because
applicants will not be required to disclose their records.
To date, 31 states, the District of Columbia, more than
150 countries, and nearly 200 jurisdictions have passed
some form of ban the box legislation or fair chance policy
(Avery and Hernandez, 2018; Radice, 2017; Shah,
Fine, and Gullen, 2014; Shah and Strout, 2016). Eleven
states also require private employers to remove questions
from job applications that ask about previous criminal
convictions.
For example, Fulton County, Georgia, issued a policy
in 2014 directing its personnel department to remove
questions about past convictions and criminal history from
job applications and to refrain from asking these questions
before or during a first interview. Applicants also do not
have to disclose arrests that did not result in a criminal
conviction or juvenile adjudication. The county must
notify applicants if an unfavorable action occurred during
a background check for sensitive job positions (Avery and
Hernandez, 2018).
Strengthening State Laws
The Juvenile Law Center’s (2014) report, Failed Policies,
Forfeited Futures: A Nationwide Scorecard on Juvenile
Records, scores how states and the District of Columbia
handle juvenile records (Love, Gaines, and Osborne,
2018; Radice, 2017; Shah, Fine, and Gullen, 2014;
Shah and Rosado, 2014). No states received 5 stars, 8
states received 4 stars, 28 states received 3 stars, 14 states
received 2 stars, and 1 state received no stars.
3
The Juvenile
Law Center (2014) ranked Indiana, Maryland, Missouri,
Oregon, and Wisconsin as the best states for limiting
access to juvenile records. These states expunge and seal
all law enforcement and court records without exception,
all juvenile offenses are eligible for expungement without
exception, and they automatically notify youth of their
eligibility. These states also discharged and disposed of
cases regardless of a youth’s age and did not charge fees to
start the expungement or sealing process.
Rating states’ confidentiality provisions only, Radice
(2017) ranked Louisiana, New Hampshire, New York,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming
as the most robust because they explicitly prohibited
the public from accessing juvenile records that included
arrests, probation, and court information. Similarly, the
Juvenile Law Center (2014) rated New York, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Wyoming as having the most
substantial confidentiality provisions. While the Juvenile
Law Center (2014) did not identify states with sanctioning
provisions imposing fines for violations, they argued that
states should add them as an accountability measure.
Further, the research widely held that states should amend
their laws to include the physical destruction of juvenile
records to mitigate further collateral consequences, as is
done in Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Oregon.
Local, State, and Federal Initiatives
Various federal, state, and local initiatives aim to curtail
the collateral consequences of juvenile records via
workshops, expungement clinics, and funding programs.
For example, Palm Beach County, FL; Chicago, IL;
and other jurisdictions sponsored workshops that gave
“Most states require juvenile records to be kept confidential. However,
there are several exceptions that limit confidentiality based on the offense,
the number of adjudicated offenses, or the youth’s age.”
10 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
youth information and resources (e.g., applications, filing
fees, and applicable state laws) to help expunge their
juvenile records (Oberman and Lynch, 2014; Palm Beach
County, Florida Office of the State Attorney, 2018).
Also in Chicago, the former Legal Assistance Foundation
of Metropolitan Chicago and Cabrini Green Legal Aid
collaborated to operate the Juvenile Records Expungement
Helpdesk. At the Helpdesk, youth met with attorneys
who reviewed juvenile arrest and court records, helped
them complete applications for expungement and other
paperwork, and represented them in court when needed
(Legal Aid Chicago, 2019).
The Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice
funded a juvenile expungement clinic starting in October
2018. Utah’s juvenile expungement clinic is unique
because participants older than age 18 receive waivers
for fingerprint paperwork, background checks, and
court filings, which served as barriers to starting the
expungement process (Coalition for Juvenile Justice,
2019; Stilson, 2019).
At the federal level, the U.S. Departments of Justice
and Labor funded and developed the online Clean Slate
Clearinghouse (www.cleanslateclearinghouse.org), which
helps support clearing and expunging criminal and juvenile
justice records. Support includes disseminating accurate
and current record clearance and mitigation information,
as well as contact information for legal service providers
in all U.S. states and territories. The clearinghouse also
provides various tools and resources to legal service
providers and equips policymakers with information they
need to compare their state’s policies to other states and
learn about best practices. The clearinghouse includes
an interactive nationwide map, publications, podcasts,
training, and other resources.
In addition, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention funded youth reentry projects with legal
service components to help youth expunge and seal their
records when they return to their communities from
secure confinement or out-of-home placement. The
program, a component of the Office’s Enhancing Youth
Access to Justice Initiative, also helps youth address
barriers to public housing, employment, and education.
Conclusion
Research identified a variety of misconceptions regarding
expunging juvenile records that persist—leading to an
array of unintended consequences for youth with arrest
and/or court records. Most prominently, the public
continues to believe that all states automatically expunge
juvenile records when juveniles turn 18 and that all
records remain confidential. This is simply not true.
Many youth face collateral consequences from arrests or
adjudications that follow them throughout their lives.
The most significant collateral consequences—including
difficulty finding employment, serving in the military, and
accessing educational services and housing—can thwart
youth’s ability to lead productive lives.
To lessen the impact of collateral consequences, states,
localities, and the federal government have implemented
various promising practices. Efforts like ban the box are
strengthening state laws. Federal programs and online
resources are educating employers, landlords, and the public;
most importantly, they are helping youth and their families.
However, criminal and juvenile justice systems, educational
institutions, employers, landlords, and the public all have an
ongoing role to play in ensuring that youthful transgressions
do not lead to permanent collateral consequences.
Endnotes
1. Generally, a youth can petition a court to hold juvenile
records in abeyance (or temporarily place them on hold)
to offset the consequences of a delinquency adjudication
and limit public access.
2. The Common Application is a single online college
application form used by more than 800 colleges and
universities.
3. The rating methodology measured the degree to which
states kept records confidential before expungement and
how readily available expunging and sealing were in each
state. The Juvenile Law Center then compared each state’s
results to its rating methodology to obtain a final score. States
received rankings as follows: 80 to 100 percent—five stars, 60
to 79 percent—four stars, 40 to 59 percent—three stars, 20
to 39 percent—two stars, and 0 to 19 percent—one star.
References
Avery, B., and Hernandez, P. 2018. Ban the Box: US Cities,
Counties, and States Adopt Fair-Chance Policies To Advance
Employment Opportunities for People With Past Convictions.
New York, NY: National Employment Law Project.
Berson, S.B. 2016. Beyond the Sentence: Understanding Collateral
Consequences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/241927.pdf.
Center for Community Alternatives. 2010. The Use of Criminal
History Records in College Admissions Reconsidered. Syracuse,
NY: Center for Community Alternatives. Available at www.
communityalternatives.org/pdf/Reconsidered-criminal-hist-recs-
in-college-admissions.pdf.
Center for Community Alternatives. 2015. Boxed Out:
Criminal History Screening and College Application Attrition.
Juvenile Justice Bulletin 11
contributors/2018/04/23/delaware-makes-too-hard-clear-
juvenile-record-heres-what-were-doing-fix/542956002.
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2018. Sealing and
expungement of juvenile records. Juvenile Justice 2017 Year-End
Report. Available at www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-
justice/juvenile-justice-2017-year-end-report.aspx#3.
Nellis, A. 2011. Addressing the collateral consequences of
convictions for young offenders. The Champion. Available at
www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/
Addressing-the-Collateral-Consequences-of-Convictions-for-
Young-Offenders.pdf.
Oberman, L., and Lynch, L.R. 2014. Efforts underway to boost
low juvenile expungement numbers. Juvenile Justice Information
Exchange. Available at https://jjie.org/2014/04/25/
efforts-underway-to-boost-low-juvenile-expungement-numbers.
Palm Beach County, Florida Office of the State Attorney. 2018.
Youth Arrest Expungement Workshops. Available at www.sa15.state.
fl.us/stateattorney/_images/homepage/sealexpunge2018.pdf.
Pettinelli, D. November 3, 2015. “How do you convince
someone that who you were at 15 is not who you are today?”
Fusion.net. Available at http://fusion.net/story/225379/
life-after-juveniledelinquency-dina-lexine-sarver.
Radice, J. 2017. The juvenile record myth. Georgetown Law
Journal 106(365).
Rodriguez, M.N., and Emsellem, M. 2011. 65 Million “Need Not
Apply”: The Case for Reforming Criminal Background Checks for
Employment. New York, NY: National Employment Law Project.
Shah, R.S., Fine, L., and Gullen, J. 2014. Juvenile Records: A
National Review of State Laws on Confidentiality, Sealing and
Expungement. Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law Center.
Shah, R.S., and Rosado, L.M. 2014. Overcoming obstacles to
success: Notifying youth of their juvenile record expungement
rights and eligibility. Criminal Law Practitioner 2(59).
Shah, R.S., and Strout, J. 2016. Future Interrupted: The
Collateral Damage Caused by Proliferation of Juvenile
Records. Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law Center. Available at
https://juvenilerecords.jlc.org/juvenilerecords/documents/
publications/future-interrupted.pdf.
Stilson, A. April 27, 2019. Got a juvenile criminal record?
Head to an expungement clinic. Daily Herald. Available at
www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/got-
a-juvenile-criminal-record-head-to-an-expungement-clinic/
article_3483d00d-387d-55fa-b198-005877486c70.html.
Toro, P.A., Dworsky, A., and Fowler, P.J. 2007. Homeless youth
in the United States: Recent research findings and intervention
approaches. Paper presented at the National Symposium on
Homelessness Research, Washington, DC, March 1–2, 2007.
Watstein, R.D. 2009. Out of jail and out of luck: The effect of
negligent hiring liability and the criminal record revolution on an ex-
offender’s employment prospects.Florida Law Review61: 581–610.
Syracuse, NY: Center for Community Alternatives. Available at
www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/publications/BoxedOut_
FullReport.pdf.
Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 2019. Member Spotlight: Utah
Juvenile Record Expungement Clinics. Juvenile Justice Monitor.
Davis, Jen. Change to Criminal History Question for 2019-2020
Application Year. Available at https://www.commonapp.org/blog/
change-criminal-history-question-2019-2020-application-year.
Desmond, M. 2016.Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American
City. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Henning, K. 2004. Eroding confidentiality in delinquency
proceedings: Should schools and public housing authorities be
notified.New York University Law Review79:520–611.
Holzer, J., Raphael, S., and Stoll, M.A. 2002. How Willing Are
Employers to Hire Ex-Offenders? Available at www.irp.wisc.edu/
publications/focus/pdfs/foc232h.pdf.
Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission. 2016. Burdened for Life:
The Myth of Record Confidentiality and Expungement in Illinois.
Chicago, IL: Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission. Available
at www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/cfjc/documents/
Commission-Report-4-27-16-web.pdf.
Jacobs, J.B. 2013. Juvenile criminal record confidentiality. In
Choosing the Future of Criminal Justice, edited by D. Tanenhaus
and F. Zimring. New York, NY: New York University School
of Law. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=2274871.
Juvenile Law Center. 2014. Failed Policies, Forfeited Futures:
A Nationwide Scorecard on Juvenile Records. Philadelphia, PA:
Juvenile Law Center.
Lageson, S.E. 2016. Found out and opting out: The
consequences of online criminal records for families. The
ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
665(1):127–141.
Legal Aid Chicago. 2019. The Juvenile Expungement Help
Desk offers free legal advice and assistance for people who want
to expunge their juvenile records in Cook County. Available
at www.govserv.org/US/Chicago/292792974193849/
Juvenile-Expungement-Help-Desk.
Love, M., Gaines, J. and Osborne, J. 2018. Forgiving and
Forgetting in American Justice: A 50-State Guide to Expungement
and Restoration of Rights. Available at http://ccresourcecenter.
org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Forgiving-Forgetting-
CCRC-Apr-2018.pdf.
McMullen, J.G. 2018. Invisible stripes: The problem of youth
criminal records. Southern California Review of Law and Social
Justice 27(1).
Minutola, L., and Shah, R.S. April 23, 2018. Delaware made it
too hard to expunge juvenile records. We’re fixing that. Delaware
Online. Available at www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/
Points of view or opinions expressed in this
document are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the official position or
policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department
of Justice.
Acknowledgments
Andrea R. Coleman, Ph.D., is a Senior Policy Advisor at the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
Stock photographs used within this bulletin are © Shutterstock 2020.
NCJ 254804
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Washington, DC 20531
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/OJJDP
PERMIT NO. G–91
*NCJ~254804*
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention is a component of the Office of
Justice Programs, which also includes the
Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of
Justice Statistics; the National Institute of
Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime; and the
Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,
Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking.
Share With Your Colleagues
Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications
are not copyright protected. We encourage you
to reproduce this document, share it with your
colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter
or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite
OJJDP and the author of this bulletin. We are
also interested in your feedback, such as how
you received a copy, how you intend to use
the information, and how OJJDP materials
meet your individual or agency needs.
Please direct comments
and/or questions to:
National Criminal Justice
Reference Service
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849–6000
800–851–3420
301–240–5830 (fax)
E-mail: r[email protected]ov
Web: www.ncjrs.gov