BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE
Senator Lois Wolk, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1831 HEARING: 6/27/12
AUTHOR: Dickinson FISCAL: No
VERSION: 6/11/12 TAX LEVY: No
CONSULTANT: Weinberger
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' HIRING PRACTICES
Prohibits a county or city from inquiring about or
considering a job applicant's criminal background history
until after determining an applicant's qualifications.
Background and Existing Law
The California Constitution gives charter counties control
over their employees' compensation and the manner of their
appointment. Of California's 58 counties, 14 are charter
counties. The Constitution allows a city, with the consent
of the local voters, to govern its "municipal affairs" by
adopting a charter. A charter city may specify the
organization and power of the city in its charter. Of
California's 482 cities, 120 are charter cities.
State law specifies procedures that all counties and cities
must follow when hiring employees. Counties and cities'
hiring practices and promotional practices must conform to
the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Counties and cities
cannot, as part of their hiring practices or promotional
practices, use any educational prerequisites, testing, or
evaluation methods which are not job-related unless there
is no adverse effect (AB 674, Brathwaite, 1972).
A job applicant with a record of arrest or criminal
conviction faces significant barriers to employment.
Citing these barriers and their disproportionate effects in
communities with a high concentration of residents with
criminal records, some stakeholders want the legislature to
require local governments to delay their consideration of a
job applicant's criminal history until after the initial
application process.
Proposed Law
AB 1831 -- 6/11/12 -- Page 2
Assembly Bill 1831 prohibits a county or city from
inquiring into or considering a job applicant's criminal
history or including any inquiry about criminal history on
an initial employment application. A county or city can
inquire into or consider an applicant's criminal history
after the applicant's qualifications have been screened and
the county or city has determined the applicant meets the
minimum employment requirements, as stated in any notice
issued for the position. After complying with these
provisions, a county or city can conduct a criminal history
background check.
AB 1831's prohibition does not apply to:
A position for which a county or city is otherwise
required by law to conduct a criminal history
background check,
Any position within a criminal justice agency, or
Any individual working on a temporary or permanent
basis for a criminal justice agency on a contract
basis or on loan from another governmental entity.
The bill specifies that criminal justice agencies are those
agencies at all levels of government which perform as their
principal functions, activities which either:
Relate to the apprehension, prosecution,
adjudication, incarceration, or correction of criminal
offenders; or
Relate to the collection, storage, dissemination or
usage of criminal offender record information.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . AB 1831 creates a more fair and
accessible job market by allowing qualified individuals to
compete for job opportunities that they otherwise might not
have applied for because of a conviction history inquiry on
a job application. The bill's provisions are similar to
policies adopted by the State Personnel Board, four other
states, and numerous cities and counties in California and
AB 1831 -- 6/11/12 -- Page 3
elsewhere. Officials in some of those jurisdictions note
that the policy saves public resources by requiring
background screenings only for qualified applicants. AB
1831 preserves local governments' discretion in selecting
employees. The bill neither prevents a local government
from determining an applicant's criminal history before
making a job offer nor requires any local government to
hire someone with a criminal history. AB 1831 protects
public safety. The bill's provisions don't apply to
positions with criminal justice agencies or to sensitive
positions that require background checks, like jobs working
with children or seniors. AB 1831 will increase employment
opportunities for people with criminal histories, which
will advance the goals of the state's criminal justice
realignment effort by decreasing recidivism.
2. Public trust . In addition to jobs that require
background checks, many other positions in local government
shouldn't be held by a person with a criminal history. For
example, building inspectors, code enforcement officers,
records clerks, and public utility workers all occupy
positions of public trust that could be compromised by
hiring a person with a criminal record. Unlike the policy
that applies to state hiring decisions, AB 1831 doesn't let
cities and counties make their own decisions about which
job openings should be exempt from the ban on criminal
history inquiries during the initial job application
screening process. As a result, AB 1831 may force counties
and cities to waste administrative resources screening
initial applications that will almost certainly be rejected
once an applicant's criminal history is disclosed. The
Committee may wish to consider whether AB 1831 makes local
governments' hiring efforts less efficient and more costly
by requiring them to consider job applicants who aren't
suitable candidates for some jobs.
3. Special districts . AB 1831 applies only to counties
and cities, but not to the more than 3,000 special
districts in California. While some special districts have
few full-time employees, others are major employers. Why
shouldn't AB 1831 ensure that a person with a criminal
history can compete for a suitable job opportunity with a
special district under the same rules that the bill applies
to counties and cities. The Committee may wish to consider
amending AB 1831 to include special districts in the
definition of local agencies that are subject to the bill's
AB 1831 -- 6/11/12 -- Page 4
provisions.
4. Constitutional questions . The California Constitution
allows cities that adopt charters to control their own
"municipal affairs." In all other matters, charter cities
must follow the general, statewide laws. Because the
Constitution doesn't define "municipal affairs," the courts
determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or whether
it's an issue of statewide concern. AB 1831 says that it
applies to all cities, including charter cities. To
support this assertion, the bill includes a legislative
finding and declaration that reducing barriers to
employment for people who have previously offended, and
decreasing unemployment in communities with concentrated
numbers of people who have previously offended, are matters
of statewide concern. The Constitution also gives charter
counties control over the appointment and number of county
employees and the manner of their appointment. One line of
court decisions suggests that AB 1831's requirement that
counties and cities must evaluate applicants'
qualifications is merely a procedural requirement, which
might not conflict with local governments' powers under the
Constitution. Ultimately, the courts may decide whether AB
1831 applies to charter cities and charter counties.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government Committee: 6-2
Assembly Floor: 41-34
Support and Opposition (6/21/12)
Support : National Employment Law Project; American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) of California; Legal Services for
Prisoners With Children; California National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); California
Labor Federation; American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME); SEIU 1000; City of Oakland;
Alameda County; City of Richmond;
City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors;
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors; Oakland City
Councilmember Nancy Nadel; California Public Defender's
AB 1831 -- 6/11/12 -- Page 5
Association; City of Berkeley; Ronald L. Davis, East Palo
Alto Police Chief; San Francisco Chief Probation Officer
Wendy Still; Long Beach City Councilmember Steven Neal;
Long Beach City Councilmember Dee Andrews; Richmond Police
Chief Chris Magnus; Los Angeles County Federation of Labor,
AFL-CIO; California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; San
Francisco District Attorney George Gasc�n; Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area;
National Council of La Raza; Western Center on Law &
Poverty; All Of Us Or None (AOUON); A New Way of Life
Reentry Project; The Legal Aid Society-Employment Law
Center; Rubicon Programs; Crossroad Bible Institute; Youth
Justice Coalition; Fair Chance Coalition to Ban the Box
Campaign; A.R.R.O. (Advocacy, Re-entry, Resources,
Outreach); The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights;
Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB); The
Sentencing Project; California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice; Acacia Adult Day Services; Sanmina-SCI
Corporation; The South Bay Veterans Employment Committee;
California Prison Moratorium Project; Congregations
Organizing for Renewal; California Drug Counseling, Inc.;
Fresh Start Ministries and Community Services, Inc.; The
Equal Justice Society; East Bay Community Law Center;
Center for Living and Learning; All Of Us Or None (AOUON)
Riverside Chapter; Starting Over Inc.; Time for Change
Foundation; Oakland Community Organizations;
The National H.I.R.E. (Helping Individuals with criminal
records Reenter through Employment) Network; The Drug
Policy Alliance; The Women's Council of the California
Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers;
Saffron Strand, Inc.; New Start L.A. Reentry Program; Asian
Communities for Reproductive Justice; Inland Action
Coalition; LA Voice PICO; Equal Rights Advocates; The
Homeless Outreach Program Integrated Care System; The
Ripple Effects; FYI Trilogy; Los Angeles Alliance for New
Economy (LAANE); The Pacific Institute; The Richmond
Progressive Alliance; UNITE HERE Local 2; California
Teamsters Public Affairs Council; California Conference
Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union; United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council; Engineers
and Scientists of California; UNITE HERE; California
Employment Lawyers Association; Professional & Technical
Engineers, Local 21; International Longshore & Warehouse
Union; The Gamble Institute; Families to Amend California's
Three Strikes (FACTS); The National Center for Youth Law;
PolicyLink; San Jose District 2 City Councilmember Ash
AB 1831 -- 6/11/12 -- Page 6
Kalra; Critical Resistance; Justice Now; City of Carson
Mayor Jim Dear; Inner City Law Center; National Association
of Social Workers, California Chapter; Center for Training
and Careers; Safe Return Project; Richmond City
Councilmember Jovanka Beckles; Public Defender of the City
and County of San Francisco, Jeff Adachi; BOCA-Berkeley
Organizing Congregations for Action; PICO California;
Watsonville Law Center; LA Voice; LA Black Worker Center;
Contra Costa Interfaith Supporting Community Organization;
Youth Uprising; Sacramento Area Congregations Together
(ACT); Friends Committee on Legislation of California;
Community Works; Chinese for Affirmative Action; Los
Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership; more than 60
individuals.
Opposition : Association of California Cities - Orange
County; California District Attorneys Association;
California State Association of Counties; City of Visalia;
City of Salinas; County of Los Angeles; El Monte/South El
Monte Chamber of Commerce; League of California Cities;
Regional Council of Rural Counties; San Gabriel Valley
Coalition of Chambers; Solid Waste Association of North
America.