the strengthening of re-entry support so that the odds of recidivism
and return to the system are minimized. Some of this advocacy
centers on easing the restrictions
that frequently accompany a conviction such as housing bans,
placement on public registries,
and employment barriers. Less
attention has been paid to the
consequences that accompany a
juvenile conviction, but young
people also face system-imposed
obstacles to success based on a
delinquent or criminal record.
This article explores areas in
need of attention and reform so
that young people who have been
adjudicated delinquent or convicted of a crime are not punished subsequently by other systems they encounter. The
informed defense attorney is in
an ideal position to ensure that
clients are not subjected to
unwarranted collateral consequences.

Overview of
The Juvenile
Offender Population

Addressing the Collateral
Consequences of
Convictions for
Young Offenders

eople exiting the custody of the criminal justice system encounter substantial challenges in gaining
employment, finding housing, and accessing medical and mental health care. A popular area of focus
among advocates, practitioners, law enforcement, and
right-minded policymakers over the past decade has been

P

Two million juveniles are
arrested each year,1 and the collateral consequences they could face
begin at this first point of contact
with the system, regardless of
whether charges are subsequently
applied and the individuals are
convicted. Juveniles are processed
either in the juvenile court system
(66 percent) or the criminal court
system (10 percent). The remaining arrests are handled by
the enforcement agencies and formal charges are not
made. Approximately 1.6 million cases are heard in juvenile courts each year2 and about 250,000 cases are
processed in the adult court.3 Each year approximately
200,000 young people under the age of 25 exit formal custody of the juvenile justice system4 and an estimated
10,000 people under 25 leave the adult criminal justice
system.5
Juveniles and young adults who become delinquent
are handled by the system during a key developmental
phase of adolescence. Often lacking the necessary skills
to cope with adult responsibilities when they are
released, many youth face unemployment, school reenrollment challenges, and homelessness. Plans are
rarely in place to support youth as they attempt to move
past their convictions. Moreover, youth are frequently
unaware of the consequences of their actions within the
court system; a guilty plea, for instance, may be offered
to expedite the process but may be accompanied by an

BY ASHLEY NELLIS

20

W W W. N A C D L . O R G

THE CHAMPION

W W W. N A C D L . O R G

The Supreme Court ruled that criminal
defense attorneys must warn their clients
of a potential deportation if they plead
guilty and are not U.S. citizens. This case
raises the important issue of whether and
how clients should be notified of collateral consequences of a conviction.

Original Intent of the
Juvenile Justice System
The juvenile justice system was created in the late 19th century out of a societal desire to handle juvenile matters in a
separate, less formal system that could
correct misbehavior and place wayward
youth back on track. Until that time, juveniles were processed in the adult court
system and received the same sanctions as
adults. It became clear over time that
young people were not handled appropriately in the adult criminal justice system, and a separate system of justice
exclusively for juveniles was necessary.
The philosophical beginnings of the
juvenile justice system rested on the
notion that young people who become
delinquent were amenable to reform and
the system should respond by providing
ample rehabilitation services. It was also
emphasized that youth should be spared
from the stigma of involvement with the
adult criminal justice system and not be
branded as “criminals.” Proceedings in
the juvenile justice system were to be
handled in an informal, non-adversarial,
and highly confidential manner. Jane
Addams, one of the original visionaries
of the juvenile justice system, noted that
the goal of the system should be “a determination to understand the growing
child and a sincere effort to find ways for
securing his orderly development in normal society.”11 Society placed an emphasis on correcting misbehavior and minimizing disruptions in the transition to
adulthood for young people who break
the law.
In the late 1960s and 1970s, the U.S.
Supreme Court decided a series of cases
that responded to growing concerns that
the juvenile court system’s focus on informality had done more harm than good.
In 1967, the Court established that juveniles, even though they were in a different
system, were still entitled to the basic safeguards that an adult would be granted in
the courtroom. In re Gault concluded
that juveniles were protected by the constitutional right to counsel, the opportunity to confront witnesses, the right
against self-incrimination, the right to a
transcript of the hearing, and a right to
appeal the court’s decision.12 In its opinion, the Court acknowledged that apply-

ing these legal safeguards would move the
juvenile court more in the direction of
the adult court proceedings, but still
emphasized the importance of protecting
youth from the stigma of being labeled as
a criminal.
One of the important benefits
of the special juvenile court
procedures is that they avoid
classifying the juvenile as a
“criminal.” The juvenile offender is now classified as a “delinquent.” There is, of course, no
reason why this should not continue. … It is also emphasized
that, in practically all jurisdictions, statutes provide that an
adjudication of the child as
delinquent shall not operate as
a civil disability or disqualify
him for civil service appointment. There is no reason why
application of due process
requirements should interfere
with such provisions.[13]
The Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of keeping youth matters out
of the public eye in its 1971 ruling that
juveniles do not have a right to a trial by
jury. One reason for reaching this conclusion, the Court opined, is that such jury
trials might bring publicity that could
negatively affect the youth.14 Again, privacy was paramount.
The court decisions of this period
attempted to balance the competing concerns of protecting legal rights and
retaining the original intent of the juvenile court. Juvenile reform advocates
knew that publicity brings with it additional scrutiny and collateral consequences, regardless of the outcome of the
case. This mindset confirmed the
approach of the founding principles of
the juvenile justice system: youth mature
out of their misdeeds with the right
guidance. For this reason their past
should not be allowed to dictate their
chances in the future.
The late 1980s and 1990s brought a
near reversal from this perspective,
involving de-emphasis of youth privacy
and heightened interest in public
accountability. Increases in crime, community fears about public safety, dire
warnings from misguided policymakers,
and the rise of the victim’s rights movement shaped the majority belief that
increased publicity around juvenile punishments would deter potential offenders
and hold young people accountable for
their actions.
Many felt the juvenile justice system
J U LY / A U G U S T 2 0 1 1

C O L L AT E R A L C O N S E Q U E N C E S F O R Y O U N G O F F E N D E R S

assortment of problems in later years.
Youth who have been transferred to
the adult system face additional problems. Juveniles incarcerated in adult facilities are 30 percent more likely to be rearrested than those retained in the juvenile
justice system, both sooner and for more
serious offenses.6 Incarcerated juveniles
receive significantly less access to ageappropriate rehabilitative, educational, or
vocational services than they would in the
juvenile justice system. This sets them up
for failure upon release. Additionally,
programs offered in the adult system are
not structured for juveniles, and correctional officers are often not aware of
developmental differences between adults
and youth, who require specialized handling and treatment. As a result, youth
housed in adult facilities and released as
young adults exhibit more negative outcomes than if they had been held in a
juvenile facility.7
When a juvenile is transferred to the
adult court, the juvenile’s rights and protections are the same as an adult’s. The
collateral consequences of a criminal
conviction for a young person are no different than they are for adults. In addition
to the problems mentioned above, the
young offender may have a permanent
criminal record, lose the right to vote, and
face deportation.
While record expungement is possible in many cases that are retained in the
juvenile justice system, it is not an option
after a juvenile has been transferred. And,
while voting rights are not lost for juveniles adjudicated delinquent in the juvenile justice system, an adult conviction
brings with it disenfranchisement from
some state and federal elections. This
means that in some cases, a young person
might lose the right to vote — meaning a
lifetime disenfranchisement in some
states — even before reaching legal voting
age. The consequence associated with the
loss of this civil right can be viewed as the
same consequence when applied to an
adult because it is a longer period of
time.8 Finally, the criminal conviction of
an alien resident can and frequently does
result in deportation. For juvenile cases
transferred to the adult court, the individual may be deported upon conviction
regardless of age.9
The issue of requiring counsel to
advise a client about collateral consequences was recently addressed in Padilla
v. Kentucky.10 Padilla, a U.S. resident of 40
years, was not informed that he faced
deportation when he pled guilty to a drug
distribution charge. He successfully
argued on appeal that ineffective assistance of counsel was provided in his case.

21

C O L L AT E R A L C O N S E Q U E N C E S F O R Y O U N G O F F E N D E R S

22

was treating juveniles too lightly. Some
pointed to singular events of serious juvenile crimes and sought to present them as
commonplace. Legal changes that developed in this era centered on easing ways
that certain individuals or groups could
learn about one’s delinquent behavior
and impose additional sanctions. To date,
these collateral consequences have been
most apparent in the areas of education,
housing, employment, and placement on
public registries.
In the past two decades, information
sharing about adjudicated juveniles has
become easy and encouraged, and rules
surrounding youth privacy and confidentiality have loosened in the interest of
public safety. Today, agencies enter into
agreements to share delinquency data,
school data, and family data. While information sharing is a useful tool to keep
track of youth across systems, many find
that the lack of discretion with which
sensitive information is shared outweighs
this usefulness.
Schools, for instance, have been
granted unparalleled power to access
juvenile records and impose new disciplines that involve law enforcement,
arrests, convictions, and the possibility of
a record. Courts, too, have become much
more willing to reveal information; today
only four states maintain complete confidentiality for juveniles who go to court in
response to a delinquency charge. In
addition, a set of Supreme Court cases
around this time restricted the power to
sanction the media for releasing a juvenile’s name to the public as long as it was
obtained lawfully.15 And, many states now
allow media the right to release not only
the identity but also the physical images
of juveniles in court proceedings.16

Collateral Consequences
Of a Conviction or
Delinquency Adjudication

sweeping legal changes of the 1990s
included expansion of zero tolerance laws,
spearheaded by the federal government in
the passage of the Gun-Free Schools Act
(GFSA),17 which mandates that states
receiving funds under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) establish laws regarding firearms, requires oneyear expulsion for certain weapons offenses, and provides incentives to states to
tighten their laws around weapons in
schools. A student can still be subject to
the provisions of the GFSA even if found
not guilty of the offense, and schools have
the authority to terminate all educational
services to a person who violates this
statute. In New Jersey, the scope of the
GFSA was expanded to include students
convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime even if it was off school
property, anywhere in the state. In
Missouri, schools can suspend or expel
students who were charged but not convicted of a felony.18 And in North
Carolina, a student who is charged, convicted, or adjudicated of a criminal
offense can be suspended or expelled
from school even if the offense is alleged
to have occurred off school grounds.19
Public demand for stricter gun laws
in schools grew in response to select
instances of school shootings around this
time. These events demonstrated the ease
with which guns could be brought on
campus, and schools took appropriate
measures to restrict such opportunities in
the future by installing security systems
and metal detectors. However, less
emphasis was placed on how infrequently school violence occurs. Instead, a sense
developed that schools are dangerous, but
this perception is not supported by statistical reality. In fact, school-related violence is rare and has been dropping for
more than a decade.20 Nevertheless, distinct incidents frightened parents about
the safety of their children at school, and
this fear led to many of today’s school
exclusion laws.

Zero Tolerance and Other School
Push-out Policies

Challenges to Re-enrollment

Attendance at school is a strong protective factor against delinquency; youth
who attend school are much less likely to
commit crime both in the short term and
in the long term. Emphasis on finishing
one’s education should be a high priority
for any system designed to assist youth in
their developing years. Despite the strong
connection between school truancy,
dropouts and delinquency, maintaining a
connection to school for delinquent
youth is sometimes a challenge.
The consequences of school pushout policies are numerous. Part of the

Pressure on schools to excel through
performance on standardized test scores
may have the effect of bolstering a school
district’s trend to create obstacles to reenrollment for formerly incarcerated
youth. Some schools exclude formerly
incarcerated youth because these individuals are considered difficult to manage.
And, in many instances schoolwork completed by youth in detention is not counted by the school toward credit completion.
More than half of youth in secure
placements have not completed the
eighth grade and two-thirds of those

W W W. N A C D L . O R G

leaving formal custody do not return to
school.21 In the absence of federal policy
disallowing it, some states have enacted
laws that create clear obstacles for youth
attempting to re-enroll in high school
upon re-entry from secure detention. In
2002, the Pennsylvania Legislature
amended its school code to permit
Philadelphia public schools to exclude
youth who had been in secure placement
or who were on probation from returning to the regular classroom. Instead,
these youth were to be enrolled in an
alternative education setting. However,
in 2005, the state Supreme Court in
Pennsylvania ruled this to be unconstitutional.22 Students in Pennsylvania can
now be placed in alternative schools only
after an individualized assessment of
their education needs has been conducted; they cannot be categorically excluded
from public schools.
School exclusion policies carry into
higher education as well since college
applications ask candidates about their
criminal record. While applications used
to restrict the question to whether one
had been convicted of a crime (for which
most adjudicated juveniles could respond
negatively since an adjudication is technically not a crime), many applications now
also ask whether the individual has been
arrested or been adjudicated delinquent.23
Only in an instance in which the record
has been expunged would a young person
be able to keep this information private.

Barriers to Employment
Employment status is another strong
predictor of criminal behavior.
Individuals who have a job are less likely
to commit crime, as evidenced by the
findings in numerous studies on the subject.24 Yet when youth seek employment,
they may be turned away if a criminal
conviction is revealed.
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 general public) or
expunged vary from state to state.25 All
states except Rhode Island allow for
records expungement under certain criteria. However, in 29 states and the District
of Columbia, certain permanent exclusions to expungement apply. Even when a
record is expunged, in reality sometimes
the record still exists. Records destruction
sometimes means the files are kept in a
separate file accessible by specified parties
through a court order.26 Juveniles transferred to the adult system are not protectTHE CHAMPION

W W W. N A C D L . O R G

zations at risk. Yet, criminologists who
study the impact of criminal records on
future offending find that after a crimefree period of six years, offenders display
virtually no difference in offending risk
compared to those who never committed
a crime.31
The time youth spend in out-ofhome placement is generally not spent in
preparation for employment, despite the
protection employment serves against
future offending. Some have noted that in
residential settings, vocational programming designed to prepare young people
for a job upon release is not accompanied
by any industry certification, or associated
with high-growth jobs in the communities where the youth would be returning.32
Completion of education is also
closely related to employment. The consequences of dropping out of school were
recently reinforced in the findings from a
Northeastern University study.33 The
economists found that, in 2008, 45.7 percent of the nation’s high school dropouts
were employed, versus 68.1 percent of
those who completed high school. High
school dropouts aged 16-24 were about
half as likely to be employed as those with
a college degree. The study also found
that youth who dropped out of high
school were 63 times more likely to be in
an institution (jail, prison, or juvenile
detention center) than those who had
completed college. Nearly 10 percent of
young high school dropouts were in a
correctional institution; for high school
graduates, 2.8 percent were incarcerated.

Eviction and Homelessness
In 1996 during the Clinton administration, Congress passed a federal law that
drastically broadened eviction policies
governing low income housing. The
National Affordable Housing Act in that
year required eviction for “[a]ny criminal
activity that threatens the health, safety,
or right to peaceful enjoyment of the
premises by other tenants or drug-related
criminal activity on or off such premises,
engaged in by a public housing tenant,
any member of the tenant’s household, or
any guest or other person under the tenant’s control. …”34 This policy also rendered evicted family members ineligible
for public housing for at least three years
following the eviction. In 2002, the issue
went to the Supreme Court in
Department of Housing and Urban
Development v. Rucker, in which the
Court affirmed that residents could lawfully be evicted from public housing
based on the offenses of their relatives.35
Because of this law, a juvenile conviction might result in an eviction of the

entire family. In fact, in a 2002 study of
Chicago evictions shortly after Congress
passed this law, researchers determined
that 25 percent of the “One Strike” evictions resulted from a juvenile conviction.36
The work of the defense attorney
becomes more complicated when a conviction can also affect family members, as
in the case of a potential eviction. It
might seem appropriate to turn to the
defendant’s parents for instruction on the
best interests of the child, but not if they
are influenced by potential collateral consequences imposed on them as well. The
ability of the defense attorney to understand, convey, and navigate these competing concerns is vital to the case, and the
attorney must keep allegiance foremost to
the client.37
Youth re-entering their communities
from out-of-home placement struggle to
achieve housing stability.38 Factors contributing to high mobility and residential
displacement include severe and unresolved conflicts with parents, abuse from
parents, homeless parents, overcrowding,
lack of rental history, income levels insufficient to afford market rate rent, criminal
history, and deficits in independent living
skills. Some youth return to supportive
homes while others do not.
If juvenile offenders become homeless after discharge from secure placement, they experience higher risks for
reoffending. Many times, youth are
released from confinement only to return
to families in which there is chemical
dependency, physical or sexual abuse, or
criminal activity. Unfortunately, detention facilities often fail to work with families of the detained youth. Many youth
released from detention return to families
with severe internal conflicts and communities lacking in opportunities for
positive youth development or employment. Two separate studies found that
one in four youth (25 percent) released
from foster care, a group home, or juvenile detention center spent their first
night either in a shelter or on the street.39
The communities to which youth
return are also often rife with problems.
Adults have more independence regarding their mobility upon release, but youth
may not. Family reunification is certainly
ideal, but this may not make sense in situations in which the child will be placed
at risk. Sometimes it is best to remove
youth from high-crime neighborhoods.

C O L L AT E R A L C O N S E Q U E N C E S F O R Y O U N G O F F E N D E R S

ed from any restrictions on record
expungement. Having a criminal record
leads to numerous lifelong barriers that
greatly reduce access to stabilizing life
characteristics including permanent
housing, education, and employment.
Individuals usually need to complete
an application to have their record
expunged, even if they were arrested but
found not guilty of the offense. In North
Carolina, for example, the application
process entails submitting the following:
an affidavit by the petitioner stating that
the petitioner has been out of trouble
since the adjudication and has not had
any subsequent adjudications or convictions; a verified affidavit of two adults
who are unrelated to the petitioner, substantiating that the petitioner has exhibited positive behavior; and a statement
determining whether the petitioner was
adjudicated delinquent or undisciplined.27 In cases of less serious offenses
or when the youth completed the necessary diversion program, the record can
often be expunged upon approval by the
court. In about half of the states, however, adjudication for offenses that would
be felonies if committed by an adult are
not eligible for record expungement.28
Thus, regardless of age at offense, this
offense could stay on one’s record forever.
In Pennsylvania, for example, the
records of youth 14 years of age or older
may be accessible to the public if the
offense would have been considered a
felony if committed by an adult. If the
youth was 12 or 13 years old at the time of
the offense, only certain types of adjudications would result in a record that may
be available to the public. If the juvenile
was previously adjudicated delinquent
for an offense mentioned above, and
another petition has since been filed, that
juvenile’s court record will be public
regardless of the most recent charge.29
Surveys of the post-incarceration
employment application process find
that having a criminal record places job
seekers in a very undesirable position.30
Moreover, the months or years spent out
of the labor force while in detention, jail,
or prison can place these individuals at a
distinct disadvantage in finding a job.
The Internet creates an easily accessible way to search someone’s criminal
record and draw assumptions about the
aptitude for one’s position. For a small
fee, a criminal record can be obtained
almost instantly. In addition, information
on the Internet is permanent, so even
criminal offenses that were committed
decades ago can appear. Understandably,
employers do not want to hire someone
who will put their companies or organi-

Placement on a National or
State Sex Offender Registry
Sex offender registries are gaining in
popularity and are used widely to track
the whereabouts of persons convicted of
J U LY / A U G U S T 2 0 1 1

23

C O L L AT E R A L C O N S E Q U E N C E S F O R Y O U N G O F F E N D E R S

24

a wide range of sex offenses. Since 1996,
all states have passed some type of law
that mandates the registration of sex
offenders in a searchable database and
requires notification each time the
offender changes residence.40 This information is often publicly available and
individuals remain on the registry for the
rest of their lives in many jurisdictions.
In many states laws also exist that
require offenders to inform the community that they are a registered sex offender directly through distribution of flyers
or notices on community bulletin
boards. The high volume of sex offender
laws passed in the last 15 years was
unfortunately precipitated by highly sensationalized crimes rather than the development of specialized knowledge about
how to prevent, respond to, and reduce
repeat sex offenses. While the stated purpose of sex offender laws is to inform
interested parties of strangers in their
midst who have been convicted of a sex
offense, lawmakers remain ignorant to
the fact that over 96 percent of sex
offenses are committed by a victim’s relative,41 rendering victims unaided by
these laws.
As the knowledge base about sex
offenders develops, it has become
increasingly clear that placement on a sex
offender registry is especially harmful to
young people, ineffective at accomplishing its intended purpose, and wasteful of
taxpayer resources. Nevertheless, over
half of the states require juveniles to be
placed on the sex offender registry and
the remaining states are either silent
about the inclusion of juveniles or
include juveniles once transferred to the
adult system. New Mexico is the only
state that specifically excludes all juveniles from sex offender laws.42
The dangers of sex offender registries are especially real for juveniles
who are adjudicated delinquent for sexrelated offenses. Juveniles who engage in
sex offenses are especially amenable to
treatment and frequently exhibit low
reoffending rates, particularly in relation
to other crimes.43 In addition, some juveniles have engaged in consensual sexual
acts when they were below the age of
consent, and as a result they have been
convicted of sex offenses and must register as sex offenders. Youth who are
already under the close scrutiny of the
juvenile justice system are the most likely
to fall under this scenario.
Sex offender laws ensnare young
people in the laws they were established
to protect. Most states have adopted
strict requirements for young people
convicted of sex offenses. For instance,
W W W. N A C D L . O R G

individuals as young as 11 years old are
required to be placed on North
Carolina’s sex offender registry if convicted of committing or attempting to
commit first-degree rape, second-degree
rape, first-degree sexual offense, or second-degree sexual offense. Registry
information is circulated to various
statewide databases and retained until
the individual reaches the age of criminal majority.
In Michigan, more than eight percent of the state’s sex offender registry is
made up of juveniles, some as young as
nine years old.44 According to state law,
identified sex offenders must stay on the
registry for at least 25 years and stay for
life under some circumstances. Unlike
some states that restrict sex offender registry to particular sex-related crimes,
Michigan law dictates that all sex-related
offenses must be registered, though their
placement is on a non-public registry
only available to law enforcement. And
illogically, unless the case is transferred
to the adult court, the juvenile cannot
petition the court to avoid the sex
offender registry, putting the juvenile in a
bind about which option is worse.45
Congress enacted the Adam Walsh
Act in 2006 to strengthen the federal
response to sex offenders. It signified the
first time in U.S. history that federal law
required children 14 years old and over
who have been adjudicated delinquent
for certain sex-related offenses to be
placed on a national sex offender registry
for 25 years to life. Title I of the Act pertains to the Sex Offender Registry and
Notification System (SORNA), which
sets national standards for sex offender
registration and notification. It has
received much criticism, especially for
the mandatory inclusion of children.46
After individuals have been added
to the registry, they face strict limitations
on where they can live, attend school,
and work. Anytime registrants change
residency they must notify the authorities and update their registration; failure
to do so promptly can and frequently
does result in incarceration. The registry
is available on the Internet, but it is on a
protected website not accessible by the
general public. States that do not amend
their laws to comply with the Act face a
10 percent withholding of their federal
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funds.
Despite the law’s intent to make children and the community safer, it does the
opposite. Young people face social stigma,
branding as predators, housing bans, and
exclusion from schools as a result of
placement on the registry. Registration
may also foreclose opportunities for

obtaining much-needed treatment. It is
widely established that one’s attachment
to the community, engagement in school,
and stable housing are predictors of
delinquency; those who are presented
with these sorts of challenges may thus be
more inclined to continue delinquent
behavior. In addition, the entire family
may be treated like pariahs if it is revealed
that a child in the family is on the federal
sex offender registry.
Sex offender laws exemplify how the
treatment of juveniles has drifted off
course from the founding vision for juvenile justice. The original aim of the juvenile justice system was to create a system
whereby delinquent acts would not disrupt the pathway to adulthood by placing barriers in the youth’s way that made
it difficult or impossible to succeed.
Instead, the system’s focus on rehabilitation stressed the belief in reformation.
Registries and community notification
laws represent departures from this line
of thinking by labeling the young person
as a danger to society — a predator —
sometimes for the rest of the person’s life.

Conclusion
Today juveniles experience consequences that go well beyond their initial
encounters with the law. The formalization of the juvenile court proceedings
through the legal protections established
in the Supreme Court rulings of the late
1960s and early 1970s was necessary, but
also led to a reduced ability for the defendant to comprehend the court proceedings and consider long-term consequences of actions taken in court.47
Research now shows that the adolescent
brain is not fully formed until the early
20s. Until this time, a young person’s prefrontal cortex — the location for executive functioning and long-term planning
— is not yet matured. It is well-established in medical science that young people fail to consider and appreciate the
importance of the future and instead
focus on the short-term gains of their
decisions.48 Defense attorneys should be
mindful that their clients may not understand the process and will need to be
provided with age-appropriate explanations to calculate the impact of their
decisions in the court proceeding. For
this reason, the role of a competent juvenile defender to translate the potential
consequences of a conviction so that the
young person can understand has
become critical. The collateral consequences of a juvenile conviction should
Continued on page 26

THE CHAMPION

~

Please Photocopy and Distribute Broadly

~

In a time when everyone is looking surgically at their budget, NACDL is the
best value around: Connect, learn, save, and support the profession of
criminal defense. For more on member benefits, see www.nacdl.org/join.

Membership Application
C O L L AT E R A L C O N S E Q U E N C E S F O R Y O U N G O F F E N D E R S

SPECIAL INTRODUCTORY OFFER:
15 months of NACDL membership for
the price of 12! (New members only)
___ YES! Sign me up as a new member of NACDL and
start my subscription to The Champion today!
I qualify for the following membership category (Please check one)
Membership
Categories:

Annual Dues:

o Regular
o New Lawyer*
o Law Professor
o Public Defender**
o Judge
o Military

$290
$165
$150
$125
$175
$150

Membership
Categories:

Annual Dues:

o Law Student
o Associate
o International
o Sustaining
o President’s Club
o Life Member***

$55
$175
$165
$425
$625
$5,000

* New Lawyer Membership -- for members of the bar for less than 3 years
** Public Defender Membership – for full-time, salaried employees
of non-profit or government agency
*** Life Membership – a one-time contribution; or 5 installments of
$1000 each over 5 consecutive years

Applicant Name: ________________________________________________
Referred By: ___________________________________________________
Firm Name:_____________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________
City: _______________________________State: _________Zip: _________
Date of Birth:______________________Gender: ______________________
Phone: ________________________________________________________
Fax: __________________________________________________________
E-mail: ________________________________________________________
State Bar(s) & Admission Date(s): ___________________________________
Bar Number(s): _________________________________________________
Credit Card #:___________________________________________________
Expiration Date: _____________________Card Type:___________________
Billing Address: _________________________________________________
Name on Card: ____________________Signature: ____________________

Return by FAX to: (202) 872-8690
Attn: NACDL Membership Director
Or Mail with Check Payable to NACDL:
1660 L St. NW, 12th Fl. Washington, DC 20036

www.nacdl.org / assist@nacdl.org

Membership Hotline: 202-872-4001
* To get this great deal use the promotion code KA154, and please include the
name of the person who gave you this application on the "Referred by" line above.

26

W W W. N A C D L . O R G

COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES
Continued from page 24

not be an afterthought.
A juvenile adjudication of guilt
has far more drastic consequences than existed just 10
years ago, and both lawyers and
their juvenile clients need to be
aware of these effects — even if
the disposition consists only of
probation and includes no
active period of incarceration.
Some of these consequences
may not be apparent for a number of years, but their possibility should be anticipated, fully
considered, and planned for,
wherever possible.[49]
Defense attorneys also must be
aware of possible conflicts of interest
between family members and clients if
the conviction could impact family
members as well. Matters pertaining to
housing, education, employment, and
offender registry and community notification laws should be discussed early and
comprehensively so that the client proceeds with the best knowledge of his or
her choices. Navigating the legal maze of
collateral consequences of a conviction
might be assisted through consulting
state resources or national initiatives
such as the American Bar Association’s
Collateral Consequences Project.50
Every effort should be made to keep
youth off sex offender registries, criminal
record checks, and community notification systems. While the prospects for
society’s return to the vision for the juvenile justice system of the early 20th century have diminished, efforts can be
made at the courtroom level to mitigate
some of the harms inflicted as a result of
the recent shifts in juvenile justice laws
and practices. Informed defense attorneys should be aware of the collateral
consequences and stay abreast of legal
developments that might worsen the
outcomes for youth.
The United States must establish a
policy agenda that supports juvenile
justice systems focused on rehabilitation and re-entry services to connect
youth with meaningful opportunities
for self-sufficiency and community
integration. At the same time, greater
emphasis must be placed on keeping
delinquency matters confined to the
justice system so that outside systems
and agencies do not impose additional
punishments for delinquent and criminally convicted youth.
THE CHAMPION

Notes

W W W. N A C D L . O R G

879 A.2d 408 (2005).
23. Robert E. Schwartz, supra note 8.
24. Christopher Uggen & Melissa
Thompson, The Socioeconomic Determinants
of Ill-Gotten Gains: Within-Person Changes in
Drug Use and Illegal Earnings, 109 AM. J. SOC.
146 (2003); Shawn Bushway & Peter Reuter,
Labor Markets and Crime, in CRIME: PUBLIC
POLICIES FOR CRIME CONTROL 3D ED. (James Q.
Wilson & Joan Petersilia eds., 2001).
25. Sealing typically refers to placing
court records in a separate repository that is
not available to the public. Expungement
refers to the process of destroying the court
records and any history of court involvement
in a particular case.
26. LYNN A. SZYMANSKI, NATIONAL CENTER FOR
JUVENILE
JUSTICE,
SEALING/EXPUNGEMENT/
DESTRUCTION OF JUVENILE COURT RECORDS: SEALED
RECORDS THAT CAN BE UNSEALED OR INSPECTED
(2006).
27. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 7B-3200(c).
28. Robert E. Schwartz, supra note 8; S.
SIMKINS, WHEN KIDS GET ARRESTED: WHAT EVERY
ADULT SHOULD KNOW (2009).
29. RIYA SHAH, JUVENILE LAW CENTER, JUVENILE
RECORDS EXPUNGEMENT: A GUIDE FOR DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS IN PENNSYLVANIA (2007).
30. JEREMY TRAVIS, BUT THEY ALL COME BACK:
FACING THE CHALLENGES OF PRISONER RE-ENTRY
(2005).
31. Megan Kurleychek, Robert Brame &
Shawn Bushway, Scarlet Letters and
Recidivism: Does an Old Criminal Record Predict
Future Offending? 5 CRIMINOLOGY & PUB. POL’Y
483 (2006).
32. Robert Schwartz, Keynote Address at
the Symposium on the Intersection of
Juvenile Justice and Poverty (March 26, 2009).
33. A. SUM, I. KHATIWADA, J. MCLAUGHLIN & S.
PALMA, CENTER FOR LABOR MARKET STUDIES, THE
CONSEQUENCES OF DROPPING OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL:
JOBLESSNESS AND JAILING FOR HIGH SCHOOL
DROPOUTS AND THE HIGH COST FOR TAXPAYERS
(2009).
34. National Affordable Housing Act,
Pub. L. No. 104-120, § 9(a)(2), 110 Stat. 836
(1996).
35. Department of Housing and Urban
Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002).
36. Wendy Kaplan & David Rossman,
Called ‘out’ at Home: The One Strike Eviction
Policy and Juvenile Court, DUKE FORUM FOR LAW &
SOC. CHANGE (2011); available at http://works.
bepress.com/david_rossman/3.
37. Id.
38. J. Hagan & B. McCarthy, Homeless
Youth and the Perilous Passage to Adulthood, in
ON YOUR OWN WITHOUT A NET: THE TRANSITION TO
ADULTHOOD FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS (D.
Wayne Osgood, E. Michael Foster, C. Flanagan
& G. R. Ruth eds., 2005).
39. R. CLARK & M.J. ROBERTSON, ALCOHOL
RESEARCH GROUP, SURVIVING FOR THE MOMENT: A
REPORT ON HOMELESS YOUTH IN SAN FRANCISCO

(1996); M.J. ROBERTSON, ALCOHOL RESEARCH GROUP,
HOMELESS YOUTH IN HOLLYWOOD: PATTERNS OF
ALCOHOL USE (1989).
40. Elizabeth Garfinkle, Coming of Age in
America: The Misapplication of Sex-Offender
Registration and Community Notification of
Juveniles. 91 CAL. L. REV. 163 (2003).
41. Id.
42. Id.
43. Id.; FRANK ZIMRING, AN AMERICAN TRAVESTY:
LEGAL RESPONSES TO ADOLESCENT SEXUAL OFFENDING
(2006).
44. David Alire Garcia, Juveniles Crowd
Michigan Sex Offender Registry, MICH.
MESSENGER, Feb. 10, 2010, available at
http://michiganmessenger.com/34538/juveniles-well-represented-on-mich-sex-offender-registry.
45. Garcia, supra note 44.
46. Pub. L. 109-248.
47. Michael Pinard, supra note 20.
48. Kristin Henning, supra note 15;
Elizabeth Scott & Thomas Grisso, The Evolution
of Adolescence: A Developmental Perspective
on Juvenile Justice Reform, 88 J. CRIM. L. &
CRIMINOLOGY 137 (1997).
49. Robert E. Shepherd, Pleading Guilty in
Delinquency Cases, 16 CRIMINAL JUSTICE MAGAZINE
(2001).
50. With funding from the National
Institutes of Justice, the American Bar
Association is developing a comprehensive
online, searchable database of state statutes
surrounding collateral consequences. This
database, which currently lists more than
38,000 statues, can be accessed at http://isrweb.isr.temple.edu/projects/accproject. n

About the Author
Dr. Ashley Nellis leads The Sentencing
Project’s research
and legislative activities in juvenile
justice reform and
serves as the cochair of the National Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency
Prevention Coalition. She has an academic and professional background in analyzing criminal
justice policies and practice, and is actively engaged in efforts to eliminate life
without parole sentences for juveniles.

C O L L AT E R A L C O N S E Q U E N C E S F O R Y O U N G O F F E N D E R S

1. CHARLES PUZZANCHERA, OFFICE OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY, JUVENILE ARRESTS 2008
(2009).
2. Charles Puzzanchera & Wei Kang, Easy
Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1985-2007,
available at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/
ezajcs.
3. NEELUM ARYA, CAMPAIGN FOR YOUTH JUSTICE,
STATE TRENDS: LEGISLATIVE VICTORIES FROM 2005 TO
2010: REMOVING YOUTH FROM THE ADULT CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM (2011).
4. Howard N. Snyder, An Empirical Portrait
of the Youth Re-entry Population, 2 YOUTH
VIOLENCE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE 39 (2004).
5. Neelum Arya, supra note 3.
6. Donna Bishop, Charles Frazier, Lonn
Lanza-Kaduce & Larry Winner, The Transfer of
Juveniles to Criminal Court: Does It Make a
Difference? 42 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 171 (1996);
Jeffrey Fagan, Separating the Men From the
Boys: The Comparative Impact of Juvenile and
Criminal Court Sanctions on Recidivism of
Adolescent Felony Offenders, in A Sourcebook
on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offenders 238260 (J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg & D.J. Hawkins
eds., 1995).
7. Liz Ryan, Campaign for Youth Justice
Testimony Before Washington, D.C. City
Council, hearing on Bill 17-913, the
Juvenile Justice Improvement Act of 2008
(October 20).
8. Robert E. Schwartz, Collateral
Consequences of Juvenile Proceedings: Part II,
15 CRIMINAL JUSTICE MAGAZINE (2000).
9. Morasch v. Immigration and
Naturalization Service, 363 F.2d 30 (9th Cir.
1966).
10. Padilla v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1473
(2010).
11. FRANKLIN E. ZIMRING, AMERICAN JUVENILE
JUSTICE (2005).
12. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1428 (1967).
13. Id.
14. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528
(1971).
15.
Kristin
Henning,
Eroding
Confidentiality in Delinquency Proceedings:
Should Schools and Public Housing Authorities
Be Notified? 79 N.Y.U. L. REV. 520 (2004).
16. HOWARD SNYDER & MELISSA SICKMUND,
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY
PREVENTION, JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND VICTIMS
(1999).
17. 20 U.S.C. Chapter 70, § 8924.
18. MO. REV. STAT. § 167.115, 164 (2000).
19. N.C.G.S. § 7B-3101 (a)(2); (a)(3); (a)(5).
20. Michael Pinard, The Logistical and
Ethical Difficulties of Informing Juveniles About
the Collateral Consequences of Adjudications, 6
NEV. L.J. 1111 (2006).
21. C. ROY-STEVENS, OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION, OVERCOMING
BARRIERS TO SCHOOL RE-ENTRY (2004).
22. D.C. v. School District of Philadelphia,

Ashley Nellis, Ph.D.
The Sentencing Project
1705 DeSales Street NW
8th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
202- 628-0871
Fax 202-628-1091
E- MAIL
anellis@sentencingproject.org

J U LY / A U G U S T 2 0 1 1

27