U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ojjdp.ojp.gov

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 confidential, allowing access to 

schools, crime victims, the media, and the public 

in specific 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 

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 
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 Application2 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 fingerprints 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 

finally 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 fingerprinting, such as nursing, police, 

government, or in schools, they can find 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). 
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). 
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-recsin-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-clearjuvenile-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-criminaljustice/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-forYoung-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/gota-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 exoffender’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-ForgettingCCRC-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 *NCJ~254804* PERMIT NO. G–91

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: responsecenter@ncjrs.gov

Web: www.ncjrs.gov