Legal Corner: Barriers to Occupational Licensing

by Leilani Ames, LSPC Summer Law Clerk, USF School of Law

Every August, people behind bars nationwide join in solidarity to “honor the lives of our fallen soldiers, practice self-care, and promote community and economic building”, citing a 2017 article published by The Medium.¹ Black August serves as a month of remembrance and resistance, first celebrated in San Quentin in 1979. In the spirit of Black August, we must remember and discuss the barriers to employment that Black people and people of color still face state and nationwide.

People of color are disproportionately represented within the carceral system: a majority of people incarcerated in California are people of color, as only 20% of California’s incarcerated population is white, according to a 2021 report published by the Prison Policy Initiative.² This excessive representation within the carceral system does not end at the prison gates, however: individuals with criminal convictions continue to face many barriers upon their release, such as access to gainful employment.

Occupational Licenses
Occupational licenses are one employment barrier often faced by people returning from imprisonment. Occupational Licenses, which include things like Barber licenses, Contracting licenses, and licenses to be Registered Nurses, are required for roughly 17% of all California jobs. For licensed jobs, it is illegal to work without first meeting state-mandated entry requirements, including minimum levels of training, payment of state fees, passing examinations, and obtaining record clearances, according to a 2023 article published by the Milken Institute.³ According to a 2016 report published by the National Employment Law Project on barriers to state occupational licensing for people with records across 39 states and Washington, D.C, “people with criminal records are only half as likely to get a callback as those without a record,” and that number drops to one-third for Black men with records.⁴ The California Legislature has enacted laws that serve as barriers to receiving certain occupational licenses, such as to work in a facility regulated by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) or to receive a “Guard Card” from the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS).⁵ Although these laws make it difficult to access licensing, they do not always serve as a blanket ban on employment.⁶ Though getting an initial denial for licensing due to a criminal record can be discouraging, denials are often appealable.

Challenging a Denial
Both agencies have similar processes for individuals to challenge denials based on their criminal records. Generally, those who choose to fight for their licenses after an initial denial must first request reviews from the respective agencies (CDSS and BSIS), both of which require written statements from the applicants regarding their conviction and rehabilitative efforts. They require additional supporting mitigating evidence such as letters of support.⁷ Once the review committees issue their responses, the applicants can request administrative hearings with the agencies to further advocate for their licenses. These proceedings must adhere to strict procedural rules that are set by the legislature, which require timely hearings and decisions.⁸ If denied at this point in the process, individuals must turn to the court system if they want an occupational license.⁹

While the appeal procedures may be similar, the departments differ in their transparency about how effective these appeals are in practice. Despite recent attempts to change the legislation to mandate CDSS to publicize their licensing statistics, CDSS does not have to disclose how many licenses are granted, denied, or appealed by the Care Provider Management Branch (CPMB), which oversees licensing for CDSS.¹⁰ However, BSIS does publish its licensing data, which shows that out of over 75,000 applicants for a Guard Card in 2021-2022, 2,613 individuals received initial denials based on their criminal record, and 172 of those individuals successfully appealed the decision to gain their license.¹¹ These numbers show that there is some hope for those who can manage the time-consuming and potentially costly undertaking of appealing an initial licensing denial.¹²

Despite the legislature’s claim that they have no racial motivation in enacting these laws, they have a deeply racialized impact by barring people with criminal convictions from accessing employment and furthering the negative impact of the carceral system on communities of color. LSPC/AOUON have led and participated in successful efforts to change the legislation on occupational licensing. Through AB1720, the state legislature changed how CDSS issues licenses to ensure the process is timely and eradicated unfair “candor trap” questions in certain contexts. The California Court of Appeals has also taken efforts to scale back the crimes for which CDSS cannot grant an exemption for, and it has ensured that exemption notifications were made in accordance with due process in the 2006 case Doe v. Saenz.¹³ Through continued legislative advocacy, judicial oversight, and community engagement, the community can continue to fight for expanding access to occupational licensing.

1.  See, Study, fast, train, fight: The roots of Black August – Liberation School; See also A Primer: Black August and Its Importance to Black Resistance and Survival | by The Lighthouse | Medium
   ↩︎
2.  race_bystate_2021.xlsx report published by Data toolbox | Prison Policy Initiative  ↩︎
3.  See Judicial Council (see “Summary of Findings” page 23); See also Do We Really Need to License Your Lawncare Guy? – Milken Institute Review for 2023 California Occupational Licensing averages (this number varies between 17-21% depending on source and year); See A Snapshot of Occupational Licensing in California for information about Occupational Licensing at large, see also Inclusive Occupational Licensing — California Law Review  ↩︎
4.  See Unlicensed-Untapped-Removing-Barriers-State-Occupational-Licenses.pdf  ↩︎
5.  HSC § 1522(b)(1)(D) “Any staff person, volunteer, or employee who has contact with the clients” is subject to criminal record checks in CDSS-licensed facilities; BPC § 480(a) “A board may deny a license regulated by this code on the grounds that the applicant has been convicted of a crime or has been subject to formal discipline” ↩︎
6.  See HSC § 1522(g)(1)(2)(A); See also Non-Exemptible Crimes List – April 2025.pdf for CDSS applicants ↩︎
7.  See CDSS Exemptions Explained Page (Process and required documents for requesting an exemption)  ↩︎
8.  See HSC § 1558 (For Administrative hearing procedures) ↩︎
9.  See CCP § 1094.5 (For Judicial review via a Writ of Mandate); See also Gov. Code § 11522 (For Petition for Reinstatement or Reduction of Penalty) ↩︎
10.  See California Proposed A Second Chance Bill For Social Workers – Backgrounds Online (Proposed AB 1720 language that would require CDSS to publish denial statistics); See also AB 1720 Press Release (Press release about AB1720 passing); See also Bill Text – AB-1720 Care facilities: criminal background checks.  ↩︎
11.  See DCA Data and Reports: Military Applicants Data – Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA)  ↩︎
12.  See CCP § 1094.5 (Applicants are meant to bear the cost of Live Scan fingerprinting, applications, and cost of creating the record if an Administrative Writ is filed) ↩︎
13.  Doe v. Saenz :: 2006 :: California Courts of Appeal Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia  ↩︎