BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 218
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 1, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 218 (Dickinson) - As Amended: April 10, 2013
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Prohibits state agencies and cities, counties, and special
districts from asking an applicant for employment to disclose
information regarding their conviction history, including on
any initial employment application, until the agency
determines that the applicant meets minimum qualifications for
the position.
2)Stipulates that (1) does not apply to positions in which a
background check is required by law or to a criminal justice
agency-defined as any entity that performs, as its principal
function, activities that either relate to the apprehension,
prosecution, adjudication, incarceration, or correction of
criminal offenders, or to the collection, storage,
dissemination or usage of criminal offender record
information.
FISCAL EFFECT
Many or most local agencies will have to adjust the hiring
processes, for positions not otherwise exempt, to conform to the
bill's requirements. This could entail revising paper and online
application forms and modifying human resource policies and
procedures. Though the bill imposes a reimbursable state
mandate, these initial costs for any single government entity
should not, on average, be significant and it is questionable
whether many local governments would submit a mandate claim for
making these modifications. Nevertheless, with 58 counties, over
400 cities, and over 5,000 special districts statewide even a
minor start-up cost for those agencies currently not in
AB 218
Page 2
compliance could exceed $150,000 in total state reimbursable
costs. This is particularly so because agencies would have only
a brief implementation period between the enacted and operative
dates of the bill. Once compliant procedures are established, it
is assumed any ongoing costs will be absorbed by the local
agencies.
State agencies will experience similar impacts as above, but
should be able to absorb any costs.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, "AB 218 will help to level
the playing field for qualified Californians seeking
employment and will promote public safety by reducing
unnecessary job barriers for the nearly seven million adult
Californians with a criminal record. Thousands of qualified
job applicants in our state are plagued by old or minor
records and discouraged from applying to employment because a
'box' on job applications requires criminal history
information that leads many employers to unfairly reject job
applications. AB 218 removes unnecessary obstacles to
employment for skilled, qualified workers who have turned
their lives around. All of California will benefit when people
with criminal records are no longer shut out of jobs and can
financially support their families and contribute to a strong
economic recovery."
The author notes that the following jurisdictions in
California have a similar policy: Alameda County, Berkeley,
City of East Palo Alto, Compton, Oakland, Richmond, Santa
Clara County, City of San Diego, and San Francisco City and
County. Likewise, the states of Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Mexico have similar laws.
2)Opposition . The California District Attorneys Association
argues that local agencies will incur wasted time and
resources involving applicants passing the initial screening
who will almost certainly be rejected once the conviction
history is made known.
The California Special Districts Association (CSDA) argues
that the exemptions are too limiting, citing their need to
hire individuals that handle sensitive personnel information,
access financial records and public funds, or enter
AB 218
Page 3
ratepayers' property as part of their job duties. The CSDA
requests amendments that (a) delay implementation by six
months and (b) allow local governments to adopt policies
allowing a criminal history inquiry at the initial stage for
positions specified by the agencies.
Los Angeles County believes the bill will create delays and
inefficiencies in its hiring process.
3)Related Legislation . AB 870 (Jones-Sawyer), also on today's
committee agenda, enacts a similar policy regarding state
contractors.
4)Prior Legislation . In 2012, AB 1831 (Dickinson), a similar
bill that only applied to cities and counties, was held in the
Senate Governance and Finance Committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081