BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1831
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1831 (Dickinson)
As Amended May 17, 2012
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Alejo, Bradford, Campos, | | |
| |Davis, Gordon, Hueso | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Smyth, Knight | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits a city or county from inquiring into or
considering criminal history when screening an applicant for
employment, or including any inquiry about criminal history on
any initial employment application. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits a city or county from inquiring into or considering
the criminal history of an applicant or including any inquiry
about criminal history on any initial employment application.
2)Authorizes a city or county to inquire into or consider an
applicant's criminal history after the applicant's
qualifications have been screened and the city or county has
determined that the applicant meets the minimum employment
requirements.
3)Excludes from the provisions of this bill any position: a)
for which a city or county is otherwise required by law to
conduct a criminal history background check; or, b) within a
criminal justice agency, as that term is defined in Penal Code
Section 13101.
4)Provides that nothing in this measure shall be construed as
preventing a local agency from conducting a criminal history
background check after complying with the provisions of 1) and
2) above.
5)Makes legislative findings and declarations related to the
importance of reducing employment discrimination, and further
declares the matter to be of statewide concern, such that all
AB 1831
Page 2
cities and counties, including charter cities and counties,
would be subject to the provisions of the bill.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the hiring practices and promotional practices of a
city or county, as defined, to conform to the Federal Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and prohibits any city or county from, as a
part of its hiring practices or promotional practices,
employing any educational prerequisites or testing or
evaluation methods which are not job-related unless there is
no adverse effect.
2)Defines "criminal justice agencies" as those agencies at all
levels of government which perform as their principal
functions, activities which either: a) relate to the
apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, incarceration, or
correction of criminal offenders; or, b) relate to the
collection, storage, dissemination or usage of criminal
offender record information.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill is intended to reduce employment
discrimination against individuals with past criminal records by
prohibiting cities and counties from inquiring into or
considering the criminal history of an applicant before
determining whether or not the applicant has met the stated
initial employment requirements. In doing so, this bill aims to
increase employment and reduce criminal recidivism, particularly
in areas with disproportionately high numbers of individuals
with criminal records. This bill is sponsored by the American
Civil Liberties Union of California (ACLU) and the National
Employment Law Project (NELP).
This bill would prohibit all cities and counties - including
charter cities and counties, but not special districts or other
forms of local public agencies - from inquiring into or
considering the criminal history of an applicant for employment,
or including any inquiry about criminal history on any initial
employment application. A local agency would be permitted to
inquire into and consider criminal history only after
determining that the applicant otherwise meets the stated
minimum employment requirements.
AB 1831
Page 3
The bill exempts from its own provisions any position that is
otherwise required by law to conduct a criminal history
background check (such as law enforcement and those working with
children, the elderly and the disabled), and more broadly, any
position within a criminal justice agency (i.e., police and
sheriffs' departments, criminal courts and crime labs). The
bill also makes clear that it does not prevent a local agency
from conducting a criminal history background check as long as
that local agency is otherwise in compliance with this measure.
This bill is part of a larger nationwide effort to "ban the box"
- namely, to prohibit public employers from including in initial
employment applications a 'check box' or other inquiry requiring
an applicant to disclose any prior criminal history. According
to the author, the states of Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Mexico and over 30 U.S. cities and counties have
removed the conviction history inquiry from initial job
applications in public employment, including Alameda and Santa
Clara Counties and the cities of San Francisco, Berkeley, East
Palo Alto, Compton, Oakland, Richmond, and San Diego.
The author notes that "�b]ecause criminal background checks have
a disparate impact on people of color, Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 prohibits no-hire policies against people
with criminal records. An employer's consideration of a
conviction history may pass muster under Title VII if an
individualized assessment is made taking into account whether
the conviction is job-related and the time passed since the
conviction. Removing the inquiry about conviction history from
the initial job application promotes a case-by-case assessment
of the applicant, which is more consistent with Title VII."
The Drug Policy Alliance contends that employment discrimination
based on prior criminal history is rampant, especially in
minority communities: "�a] wide body of research has
demonstrated that the consequences of a criminal conviction on
opportunities for employment are particularly severe. A major
study of actual hiring practices, for example, shows that in
nearly 50% of cases, employers were unwilling to consider
equally qualified applicants on the basis of their criminal
record. Additionally, people of color with criminal convictions
face additional discrimination and are even less likely to be
considered for employment than white applicants with criminal
convictions. Another survey of employer attitudes reflected
that 40% of employers will not even consider a job applicant for
AB 1831
Page 4
employment once they are aware that the individual has a
criminal record." �Emphasis removed]
According to the author, NELP "estimates that there are almost 7
million adults in California with criminal records on file with
the state. One prominent researcher has found that a criminal
record reduces the likelihood of a job callback or offer by
nearly 50 percent, an effect even more pronounced for African
American men than for white men. The stigma of a past criminal
record also discourages otherwise qualified individuals from
applying for work because of a conviction history inquiry on the
job application."
According to NELP, "�e]mployment of eligible people with a
conviction history is key to the success of realignment at the
local level, as studies have shown that stable employment
significantly lowers recidivism and promotes public safety."
Similarly, the author contends that "�r]esearch has shown that
people who are employed after release from prison are less
likely to return. One study found that only 8% of those who
were employed for a year committed another crime compared to
that state's 54% average recidivism rate. Increased employment
and increased wages are also associated with lower crime rates."
Beginning in March 2007, the Alameda County Human Resource
Service Department removed questions about conviction histories
from the initial job application and delayed criminal background
screening of applicants. According to the Interim Director, the
Department "has not found that removing the question about
conviction histories from the job application?is a waste of the
County resources; in fact?this practice saves the County
resources. The County's �modification of the initial
application] was a simple process and was not
resource-intensive?The County has not had any problems with this
policy?In fact, the County has benefitted from hiring dedicated
and hardworking County employees because of the policy change."
The City of Oakland also reports similar results with the same
policy, stating "�t]he new processes have not required
additional resources and have instead shifted the timing of when
background checks are conducted. There are no new costs
associated with the change in policy and we have not encountered
new problems since changing our practices."
AB 1831
Page 5
The California District Attorneys Association opposes the bill
on the grounds that it would only extend the inevitable: "?all
this bill will do is ensure that local agencies waste public
time and resources screening initial applications for minimum
eligibility that will almost certainly be rejected once an
applicant's criminal history is made known. Certainly, there
are positions in state and local government for which a criminal
background check is not required but into which it is
inappropriate to hire a person with specific criminal
histories?The only sure outcome is unnecessary delay and
increased costs in hiring procedures. At a time when local
governments are just as, if not more than, cash-strapped as the
state, it seems unwise to guarantee the pointless expenditure of
public time and resources toward no discernible public benefit."
The California Police Chiefs Association opposes the bill on
similar grounds: "AB 1831 would seriously add to the yoke of
already fiscally overburdened agencies. Moreover, there are
entire classes of employees whose criminal history could cause
public harm: building inspectors, code enforcement officers,
records clerks, public utility workers all occupy positions of
public trust and the citizens of a jurisdiction are ill-served
if the persons occupying those positions have the types of
criminal records that could endanger the public."
It should be noted that the provisions of this bill do not apply
to special districts (or other local agencies aside from cities
and counties). In 2002, California counted more than 3,400
special districts which expend more than $26 billion per year -
agencies that likely account for a substantial share of the
public employees at the local level. The author's office has
offered no rationale for the exclusion of special districts from
the provisions of this bill.
The Legislature may wish to ask the author why the provisions of
this bill should be applied to public employees of cities and
counties - including charter cities and counties - but not to
all local government agencies.
Analysis Prepared by : Hank Dempsey / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
AB 1831
Page 6
FN: 0003655