CA: Governor Brown signs landmark legislation to remove barriers to licensing and decrease recidivism

[rootandrebound.org – press release] [Note: AB 2138 will not benefit those convicted of a sex offense]

Sacramento, CA—This past weekend, Governor Edmund “Jerry” Brown signed AB 2138, authored by Assemblymembers David Chiu and Evan Low, to remove barriers for occupational licensing for close to 8 million Californians living with criminal records.

AB 2138 was supported by a coalition of 50+ organizations, including East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC), Root & Rebound, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC), All of Us or None, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, Alameda County Public Defender, PolicyLink, the Alliance for Boys & Men of Color, the National Association of Social Workers, and many more.

AB 2138 opens pathways to family-sustaining careers to millions of Californians who have past justice system contact. The bill ensures that close to 40 licensing boards governed under the Department of Consumer Affairs cannot deny people otherwise trained and qualified for licenses due to irrelevant and dismissed convictions. Specifically, the bill creates a seven-year “washout” period after which licensing agencies cannot consider crimes that are not serious felonies, sex offenses, or relevant financial crimes. It also eliminates requirements that applicants self-disclose the details of their record prior to issuance of a California Department of Justice background check, freeing applicants from disclosing from memory alone and refocusing agencies on the facts of an applicant’s record. AB 2138 also sets out criteria for considering an applicant’s rehabilitation and bans the use of dismissed and sealed convictions, convictions for which a person received a Certificate of Rehabilitation, and non-conviction acts such as arrests that never led to conviction to deny licensure.

Studies have shown that states with more fair processes for occupational licensing have dramatically lower recidivism rates.

Many Californians are denied licenses to work in jobs they are qualified to perform due to old or irrelevant criminal records. In some cases, people are denied licenses for jobs they have performed successfully for years in the past without incident or were trained to do while incarcerated, simply because of a conviction for a minor offense unrelated to their job.

With AB 2138, Californians with criminal records will be able to access licenses for close to 40 occupations they were previously barred from or very unlikely to receive. Covered occupations range from automotive repair to psychology to cosmetology.

The signing of AB 2138 is a huge victory for all Californians.

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So, states that make it easier to get an occupational license show lower recidivism, but they exclude those on the registry that…..wait for it….have “frightful and high” recidivism. Let me get this straight: the group you would think they would lunge at the chance to reduce recidivism they actually forgo the opportunity to lift some of the hardships.

You can’t make this stuff up.

To start, in general I think it’s pretty sad that so many professions require licensing in the first place. Understand medical, but I don’t think a state license is necessary for, say, a barber or mechanic. General rule of commerce is that you hire a service provider at your own risk and simply being licensed doesn’t mean you’re going to get honest, competent, or satisfactory service.

Second, why exclude registrants? Don’t recall where, but some judge opined that additional restrictions placed on registrants can be interpreted as revisiting previous offenses rather than efforts to prevent future ones (Packingham, maybe?). AB 2138 seems a pretty good example of that.

The human race continues to boggle my mind. And they wonder why “California has the third highest rate nationally with 34 in every 10,000 people in the state experiencing homelessness.”

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/mar/27/travis-allen/has-californias-homeless-population-skyrocketed-an/

It’s almost as if the crooked politicans want “sex offenders” to reoffend. Why exclude sex offenses, as well as “serious” felonies, from being able to attain professional licenses? The seven-year “washout period” should apply to everyone — especially if “[s]tudies have shown that states with more fair processes for occupational licensing have dramatically lower recidivism rates.”

Again, it’s as if the corrupt politicans have designed a system so that once you are labeled a “sex offender” and/or “serious” felon, and using the premise of their studies, the system would much rather you recidivate so that you become a pawn to help support the Prison Industrial System.

Because if fewer people eventually recidivate, there would be less “criminals” to rationalize jobs as police officers, prison guards, prosecutors, judges, etc. There is nothing incremental about this.

Can we file a lawsuit?

This is like a friggin punishment.

So, if you are convicted of a non-serious FELONY, then you are benefited. But if you are convicted of a MISDEMEANOR that triggers registration, then you cannot be benefited by this?????

Is it just me, or is this a serious Equal Protection violation??????

I may have read this wrong but I read it like 8 times.

“Specifically, the bill creates a seven-year “washout” period after which licensing agencies cannot consider crimes that are not serious felonies, sex offenses, or relevant financial crimes.”

Doesn’t this mean registrants Can get licensed? Like they can’t look at the crimes after 7 years?

Two things: One of the orgs that support this calls itself “All of Us or None”. It should be call “some of us are more deserving than others”.
The “Anti Recidivism Coalition” should stop and think. Who do you want to recidivate less, someone who raped or someone who stole a shirt from Target? Which already has the easier time getting work?

For those who have lost their licensing and still want to work in their profession, consider other countries.
The U.S. , and California specifically is very strict and can be difficult in certain areas concerning licensing. As a healthcare professional, I experienced this 1st hand.
But many countries are much more “forgiving” when it comes to this. They put more value on the service and not on one mistake.
Obviously finding a country of choice, a company (or establishing a business), and family needs come into play, but these are the same problems we face here.
I have investigated this route, and it is encouraging. I am single, so that does help.
It is all political and will always be. Things will only get worse here.
The “good ole’ days” of being able to start anew or move forward are gone. Don’t accept this and live with false hopes, or realize reality and find places that will allow you to be who you are.

Like yourself, I had to read the Bill multiple times. What’s considered a Serious Felony? Then, I read the remark regarding registration (290 PC). If you are required to register, the 7 year wait doesn’t apply to you! Yet, another comment addressed PC 1203.4 (expungement). I believe it stated they couldn’t use a conviction/or plea against you if your offense was expunged and 7 years have elapsed? What if your offense (misdemeanor) was expunged and your still required to register? It’s rather difficult to fully understand. In conclusion, it basically required the Boards/Licensing Agencies to re address their licensing requirements. In my Case (unless I’m interpreting this incorrectly/I lost a professional license and my misdemeanor was expunged), I would need to get my registration requirement pursuant to SB 384 granted? Please advise

The signing of AB 2138 is a huge victory for all Californians. Just not those with a sex offense.. Come on attorneys can we wake up and bring up a solid case?
Everyone else can improve their lives but hey those of a sex related charge can’t? Right. It’s okay. Lets just keep going in circles until non-voting years.

This is just one more token on the pile to show that the registry is indeed additional punishment after sentencing. It clearly discriminates against a certain class. How is a CP offense, for example, more risky than a person who sells drugs to children? Why am I denied a second chance even though my SO evaluations said I was a low risk, yet we know drug dealers and gang members have a very high rate of recidivism.

I’m really not sure what to say. Would you want someone convicted of child molestation your licensed kidnegarden teacher? It’s a fine line.

Will, you have some great points, but no one is going to let a registered citizen become a teacher unless their offense is expunged and they are no longer required to register. Joe, you have some good points. I can see someone obtaining a CPA license etc. it’s truly unfortunate, but hopefully things will change. FYI: yet, we have Medical Doctors still practicing medicine after being convicted of Felony Sex Offenses!

@rosebud –

As a starting point, you seem to gloss over the fact that the Static-99R/Scam-99R lacks sample representativeness. The Static-99R lumps all types of offenses, as well as human beings, together into the same sample. Nor does the Scam-99R make alleged “prediction” to the type and/or severity of future offense.

* This should be enough to discredit the Scam-99R. You don’t need a Karl Hanson statistically manipulative study — and/or any of the “experts” that prosthelytize “doctor” Hanson’s gospel — to apply common sense to reality. *

But if you insist, I’m sure others can add on to the many flaws to the Static-99R / Scam-99R / “SARATSO Tool.”

Can someone explain the part where it refers to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 290 of the Penal Code. What exactly is that part of 290? This is what directly relates to the licensing law, I guess. Thanks!

To some one who cares:

Paragraph (2) and (3) refers to tier 2 and tier 3 offenders.