The second time was the charm as a little over a year after legislation sponsored by Sacramento Assemblymember Roger Dickinson died in committee, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 218 into law.
The bill prohibits requesting criminal background information on the initial employment application for local and state government employees, with the goal of reducing unnecessary barriers to employment for the one in four adult Californians who have an arrest or conviction record. California joins nine states and over 50 cities and counties across the United States that have adopted similar legislation.
“I am proud that with this bill, the state and our cities and counties take an important step toward allowing people with a conviction history to compete fairly for employment without compromising safety and security on the job,” said Assemblymember Dickinson in a statement.
“Stable employment significantly lowers recidivism and promotes public safety – a job is the best crime prevention program. This policy will open doors for qualified workers who have turned their lives around,” he added.
Jim Evans, a spokesman for Brown, told the LA Times that the governor signed the bill, AB 218, “so that millions of Californians seeking honest work won’t be automatically rejected.”
“What this means for the state is greater public safety and opportunity for literally thousands of people to have a chance to get a job and a wiser and more efficient use of our taxpayers dollars,” the assemblymember told the Vanguard on Monday afternoon in a phone interview.
“Realignment” (AB 109) of California’s criminal justice system seeks to produce budgetary savings by reducing recidivism and promoting rehabilitation. Employment of eligible people with a conviction history is key to the success of realignment, as studies have shown that stable employment significantly lowers recidivism and promotes public safety. Not only will this increase public safety in our communities, but it is cost-effective. Reducing the prison population and increasing tax revenue from newly-employed individuals will help to fuel a strong economic recovery.
AB 218 removes any inquiry into a conviction history on an initial job application and delays any background check until the employer has determined that the applicant’s qualifications meet the job requirements. Under Governor Schwarzenegger, the State Personnel Board removed the question from job 
applications for state positions in 2010 and added a criminal history supplemental questionnaire for exempted positions.
Under the bill, criminal history information can still be requested on the initial employment application for law enforcement positions, positions working with children or the elderly or disabled, and other sensitive positions, and criminal background checks can be done at the discretion of the employer. AB 218 affects only when, not whether, employers may consider criminal conviction history for employment purposes.
What this means is that the employer would look at the qualifications for the job that they are seeking and only after that would criminal history be included in the evaluation of whether they should hired or not, Assemblymember Dickinson told the Vanguard.
“The change really means that people who didn’t have an opportunity to get their foot in the door, now will have that opportunity,” he said. From experience in Alameda County, he added, when people get their feet in the door, they often get jobs and succeed, whereas they may not have had that opportunity before.
Last year, the Governance and Finance Committee, chaired by Senator Lois Wolk, opposed the bill and refused to consider it.
Last year, in a letter, she explained that AB 1831 created an inflexible solution that required every city and county to eliminate any question related to “criminal history” from the initial application process.
“AB 1831 failed to recognize that all crimes are not the same and all jobs are not the same,” Senator Wolk wrote. “AB 1831 was another rigid top-down mandate on cities and counties at a time they can ill afford it.”
“AB 1831 deviated from the state’s own employment policy, determined by the Personnel Board, which provides flexibility for departments to determine which positions are subject to a policy of blind consideration of criminal history in the initial application,” wrote Senator Wolk.
Senator Wolk once again opposed the legislation and spoke out against AB 218 on the floor. However, this time, the legislation was allowed to move forward and pass.
“What changed is we took a slightly different approach with the proposal by expanding it to include the state of California as well as local agencies,” Assemblymember Dickinson explained. “That allowed us to make the case that this didn’t just apply to cities and counties, but it also applies to the state itself.”
There are concerns by some that this change would pose a threat to the hiring agencies or public safety in terms of who gets hired, but Assemblymember Dickinson strongly disagreed.
The measure was opposed by a number of government agencies and associations, including the League of California Cities, which said it would interfere with local officials’ ability to adequately and quickly vet job applicants.
Positions in law enforcement or positions dealing with vulnerable populations, for example, would be excluded, Assemblymember Dickinson pointed out.
But more importantly, the legislation would only impact the information on the initial application. Nothing would prevent the hiring agency from conducting a background check at a later point.
“They can still ask as the employment process goes along,” he said. “AB 218 really amounts to a bill (which determines) when you can ask, not whether you can ask about criminal history.”
“If there is due diligence exercised by an agency hiring somebody, there shouldn’t be any risk that’s any greater than it is today,” he said.
“A mistake from your past shouldn’t be a life sentence to joblessness,” said Michelle Rodriguez, staff attorney with the National Employment Law Project in Oakland, sponsor of AB 218.
“This bill gives hope to thousands of Californians who are ready to work by helping ensure that all qualified job-seekers have the opportunity to compete fairly for employment,” said Ms. Rodriguez.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
disappointed that lois wolks seems to have been leading the way against this. it’s not a big deal, it just argues that people should not be automatically excluded because they were once a felon.
[i]There are concerns by some that this change would pose a threat to the hiring agencies or public safety in terms of who gets hired, but Assemblymember Dickinson strongly disagreed.[/i]
Sure, because he says so without any explanation. I suggest that news sources don’t post these “because I said so” quotes without having an explanation that goes along with it. Or at least write “no explanation provided.”
Again, the principles of unintended consequences will play out for this type of brain-dead feel-good legislation. Convict gets a job and someone gets hurt or dies at his/her hands.
But it will be worth it. Right.
If you think just a little deeply on this, you should be embarrassed by it. We are basically allowing the withholding information related to the history of a person’s behavior so that hiring decision will be made more ignorantly. While we are at it, lets pass a law to eliminate education credentials and GPAs from applications as those can also result in people not being hired for past bad judgement.
If a criminal deserves a second chance, then why not everyone?
Here is the other negative consequence of this. It is ANOTHER reason that a business would chose to NOT locate here. I now have no freedom to determine if a new employee candidate might pose a greater risk to my existing employees. I can’t question them about any mental health issues. I can’t ask them if they have been convicted of a crime.
And we wonder why workplace violence is on the rise.
The best way to have solved this problem would have been for the liberal Democrat controlled state to implement policy that improves the economy by attracting more business to the state so that the supply of jobs increases and candidates having a criminal record are not so easy to reject out of hand due to the large supply of candidates without a criminal record.
But that is not how a liberal Democrat thinks (or feels).
Two responses Frankly.
The easy one first, “Here is the other negative consequence of this. It is ANOTHER reason that a business would chose to NOT locate here.”
I would suggest you read more carefully as it only impacts government hiring, not private sector hiring.
Second, “If a criminal deserves a second chance, then why not everyone?”
I’m not sure exactly what this means. However, part of the problem with the “box” is that it crams a whole lot of things into a single category, felon. Not every felon is dangerous or unqualified for a given position. At some point, people need to be given a chance to get on with their lives.
If you end up excluding all “felons” from employment, what are felons going to do for a living?
[i]I would suggest you read more carefully as it only impacts government hiring, not private sector hiring[/i]
I thought is also impacted government contractors.
[i] However, part of the problem with the “box” is that it crams a whole lot of things into a single category, felon.[/i]
Well then, why not a more detailed box? Why not increase the information a hiring manager can use to make a good decision instead of causing her to have to make a decision in greater ignorance?
“Well then, why not a more detailed box? Why not increase the information a hiring manager can use to make a good decision instead of causing her to have to make a decision in greater ignorance?”
any hiring manager is going to do a background check, but they will only do it if they otherwise like the candidate because it’s costly and time consuming. what this does is stops the hiring manager from simply chucking the felon in the trash. if they like the candidate otherwise but they were a felon, those two factors now get weighed against each other.
state or local agency frankly.
“(d) As used in this section, “state agency” means any state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or agency.
(e) As used in this section, “local agency” means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, or any special district.”
no mention of government contracts
But DP, think about that. You are basically saying that hiring managers lack the ability to sufficiently vet the qualification of candidates to hire the most qualified. A felony would simply be a negative. If the hiring manager liked the candidate, then he/she would inquire more to help ensure the candidate would still be a good bet.
The problem today is that there is a large stack of qualified people… because there is an over-supply of labor from all the crappy economic policies of this liberal Democrat-controlled state and because we have allowed the flooding of job-seeking immigrants. It is not that the hiring manager just rejects candidates because of the felony box, it is that there is so much competition for jobs that everything is considered.
So, what this has basically done is to eliminate the competitive advantage that previously went to people having made better life decisions.
This is why I bring up the point about education credentials. I know good people that made mistakes getting pregnant or making other decision that prevented them form attending or completing college… or maybe even prevented them from getting a high school diploma. I don’t think it is fair that they be penalized for this. I think we should make it illegal for all government hiring managers to ask any question about education credentials.
Absurd? Well then you understand.
all you’re doing here is changing the point at which the felony factors in. there is a belief that having it on the application form up front means automatic exclusion whereas allowing the discovery later in the process opens the door.
Like clockwork, the discussion is detoured.