A Return to the “World of Work”: An Analysis of California’s Prison Job
Training Programs and Statutory Barriers to Ex-Offender Employment

Julia Lipez
Professor Joan Petersilia
Crime and Punishment Policy: Reforming California Corrections
Autumn 2005
January 27, 2006

This paper seeks to propose ways in which the State of California can help
ex-offenders find employment upon their release from prison. In particular,
the paper examines California's current prison employment programs and
suggests that California should more effectively tailor them to train
prisoners for those jobs that are both practically and legally available in
California's current labor market.

1
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

Electronic copy of this paper is available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=977255

Table of Contents

I. Introduction___________________________________________________________3
II. Significance of the Issue_________________________________________________7
III. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: Current Job Programs____8
A. The Prison Industry Authority______________________________________9
B. Vocational Programming__________________________________________15
C. Joint Venture Programs___________________________________________16
IV. The California Labor Market____________________________________________19
V. Statutory Barriers to Employment_________________________________________23
A. California’s Statutory Scheme Generally______________________________25
B. Application of the Statutory Scheme to Specific Jobs____________________31
VI. Recommendations_____________________________________________________40
VII. Conclusion__________________________________________________________45
VII. Appendices
Table 1: Number of Inmates Employed in PIA Enterprises
Table 2: PIA Enterprises by Correctional Facility
Table 3: Vocational Programs by Correctional Facility
Table 4: Occupational Growth in California, 2002-2012
Table 5: Occupational Availability as a Result of Statutory Barriers

2
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

Electronic copy of this paper is available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=977255

I. Introduction
In 2003, Marc LaCloche, an inmate in the Clinton County Correctional Facility in New
York, was released upon completing his sentence for a first-degree robbery conviction. After
spending 1200 hours in prison studying barbering so that he could find a job when released, Mr.
LaCloche was no doubt surprised to find that the state had denied his application for a license as
a barber’s apprentice on the ground that he “lack[ed] of good moral character.”1 One New York
judge, appreciating what the state did not, noted, “[I]f the state offers this vocational-training
program to persons who are incarcerated, it must offer them a reasonable opportunity to use the
skills learned thereby after they are released from prison.”2
Too often ex-offenders find themselves in Mr. LaCloche’s position, having received job
training in prison and yet having no ability to find a job outside the prison walls. States that put
their inmates in this situation should be worried: a recently-released ex-felon with no job
prospects is a dangerous combination indeed.
Thirteen million Americans – 7% of the adult population and 12% of the male population
– have felony convictions. Three million of these Americans are former prisoners.3 As the
number of Americans in prison continues to grow due to policies emphasizing punishment rather
than rehabilitation, those who craft these policies have lost sight of the fact that nearly 95% of
the current 1.4 million prison inmates will eventually be released and will return to their

1

Dareh Gregorian & Pia Ackerman, Ex-Con Barber in Hair Tangle, N.Y. POST, Feb. 21, 2003, at 3.
Id.; see also Anthony C. Thompson, Navigating the Hidden Obstacles to Ex-Offender Reentry, 45 B.C. L. REV.
255, 282 (2004) [hereinafter Thompson].
3
JEREMY TRAVIS, BUT THEY ALL COME BACK: FACING THE CHALLENGES OF PRISONER REENTRY 164 (2005)
[hereinafter TRAVIS].
2

3
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

communities.4 In 2002 alone, 635,000 people were released from prison, and the United States
Department of Justice estimates that at least that many will be released in future years.5 In
California, which has one of the largest prison populations in the United States at approximately
158,3006, nearly 40% of that population will be released this year.7 Because California also has
the nation’s highest recidivism rate, 67% of those released from state prisons will be back in
prison within three years.8
Only recently have policymakers and academics begun to study the impact of these high
rates of prisoner reentry on the ex-offenders themselves and on the communities to which they
return. Research shows that among the most pressing issues for ex-offenders is their inability to
find jobs. According to a study performed in New York State by the Vera Institute of Justice, the
primary concern for the prisoners in the study was finding a job upon release.9 There is nothing
to suggest that the priorities would be any different for prisoners in California and other states.
Despite the emphasis former prisoners place on finding jobs, however, evidence suggests that
states are failing to provide prisoners with the necessary resources and training while in prison to
enable them to successfully find employment upon release. According to Jeremy Travis, “[O]ur
prisons represent a massive failure to prepare prisoners for their return to the world of work.”10
Similarly, even ex-offenders who do have the necessary skills to obtain employment are often
unable to actually find jobs because of barriers instituted by the states or by employers
themselves.
4

JOAN PETERSILIA, WHEN PRISONERS COME HOME: PAROLE AND PRISONER REENTRY i (2003) [hereinafter
PETERSILIA].
5
Id.
6
DATA ANALYSIS UNIT, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, CALIFORNIA PRISONERS AND
PAROLEES 2004 (2005), http://www.corr.ca.gov/ReportsResearch/docs/Annual/CalPris/CALPRISd2004.pdf (last
visited Jan.27, 2006).
7
Joan Petersilia, Rehabilitation: What It Is, Does It Work?, Class taught at Stanford Law School (Oct. 5, 2005).
8
Id., see also infra Part II.
9
TRAVIS, supra note 3, at 162.
10
Id. at 161.

4
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

A 2003 paper authored by Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll identifies two types of barriers to
employment for former prisoners: supply-side barriers that are indicative of ex-offenders’ own
characteristics and attitudes; and demand-side barriers that are a reflection of state and employer
policies in the labor market.11 Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll argue that ex-offenders possess a
variety of characteristics that limit their employability and earnings capacities, including: limited
education and cognitive skills; limited work experience; and substance abuse and other physical
and mental problems.12 These attributes reflect a “mismatch” between the characteristics many
ex-offenders possess and the criteria employers often use in hiring.13 On the demand side,
Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll identify two types of barriers ex-offenders face in finding
employment: those that relate to the general characteristics of ex-offenders as discussed above,
and those that are explicitly related to their status as ex-offenders.14 With regard to status, legal
barriers are among the most difficult for ex-offenders to surmount. These restrictions arise in a
number of forms, including, but not limited to: statutory prohibitions on hiring ex-offenders for
certain types of jobs, such as law enforcement or education; laws giving state licensing boards
broad discretion to deny occupational licenses to ex-offenders; and requirements that certain
categories of private employers review applicants' criminal histories before hiring them.15 These
laws, when operating in conjunction with widespread employer discrimination against applicants
with criminal records16, serve to exclude ex-offenders from myriad employment opportunities.
Although the exact impact of these legal restrictions has not thus far been quantified, it should

11

HARRY HOLZER, STEVEN RAPHAEL, & MICHAEL STOLL, EMPLOYMENT BARRIERS FACING EX-OFFENDERS, (2003)
[hereinafter HOLZER ET AL.].
12
Id. at 4-5.
13
Id. at 7.
14
Id.
15
Elena Saxonhouse, Note, Unequal Protection: Comparing Former Felons' Challenges to Disenfranchisement and
Employment Discrimination, 56 Stan. L. Rev. 1597, 1611 (2004).
16
See, e.g. HOLZER ET. AL., supra note 11, at 11 (“Employers are much more averse to hiring ex-offenders than they
are towards any other disadvantaged group, such as welfare recipients.”).

5
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

come as no surprise that nationwide, approximately two-thirds of ex-offenders remain
unemployed within three years of their release.17
This paper will seek to propose ways in which the State of California can more
successfully help ex-offenders find employment upon release, thereby eliminating the
"mismatch" identified by Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll. The potential means of addressing the
mismatch run the gamut and a discussion of each is beyond the scope of this paper. Thus, the
paper will focus specifically on the types of jobs both practically and legally available to those
with a criminal record. In other words, in which job sectors are ex-offenders likely to find both a
demand for labor and a lack of statutory bars to being hired? It is crucial that the State
coordinate efforts to increase its prison job programs with both the labor market and the present
statutory scheme to the greatest extent possible, so as not to train prisoners for jobs they cannot
get.
In pursuit of this agenda, Part II of this paper will explain why it is important that
California expands prison work programs to include more inmates and to better serve those
inmates who already participate. Part III will examine the current work programs provided by
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR): Prison Industry Authority
(PIA) enterprises, vocational training programs, and Joint Venture Programs (JVP). Specifically,
the paper will look at the types of job training these programs provide, and how many inmates
are receiving the training. Part IV will explore generally the labor market in California, and will
identify the job sectors expected to experience the most growth in the coming years. Part V of
the paper explains the scope of the legal barriers to employment for ex-offenders imposed by the
State and then analyzes how these statutory restrictions apply to the job sectors identified in Part

17

Id.; see also U.S. DEP'T OF LABOR, FROM HARD TIME TO FULL TIME: STRATEGIES TO HELP MOVE EX-OFFENDERS
FROM WELFARE TO WORK (2001), http://wtw.doleta.gov/documents/hard.asp.

6
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

IV. Part VI contains recommendations to the State, based on the above analysis, regarding job
sectors to which it should consider expanding its current prison job training programs.
II. Significance of the Issue
Evidence suggests that reorganizing California’s prison work programs will benefit both
inmates and the people of the State of California if the CDCR can succeed in reducing the
mismatch between the types of jobs for which ex-offenders are trained and the types of jobs they
are most likely to obtain. Prison industry programs generally are associated with reduced
recidivism and increased employment success for released inmates. Indeed, a 1995 metaanalysis conducted by Mark W. Lipsey of nearly 400 studies performed between 1950 and 1990
found that “the single most effective factor in reducing reoffending rates was employment.”18 In
addition, several studies show that work programs in prison have a significant impact on the
employment outcomes and recidivism rates of males who are over the age of twenty-six.19 The
Federal Bureau of Prisons’ 1991 analysis of its Post-Release Employment Program (PREP)
evaluated more than 7,000 federal program participants over a two-year period, and found that
offenders who received training and work experience while in prison were 24% more likely to
obtain a full-time or day-labor job upon release. One year after release, 10.1% of the comparison
group inmates had been re-arrested or had had conditional release revoked, while only 6.6% of
program participants had suffered similar fates. The study also found that 72% of the program
participants found and maintained employment during this period, while just 63% of comparison
inmates had similar luck. The study concluded, “It appears that prison employment in an

18

PETERSILIA, supra note 4, at 112.
See Shawn Bushway & Peter Reuter, Labor Markets and Crime, in CRIME: PUBLIC POLICIES FOR CRIME
CONTROL 191-224 (J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia eds., 2002); Richard Seiter & Karen Kadela, Prisoner Reentry:
What Works, What Doesn’t, and What’s Promising, 49 CRIME AND DELINQUENCY (2003).
19

7
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

industrial work setting and vocational or apprenticeship training can have both short- and longterm effects that reduce the likelihood of recidivism, particularly for men . . . .”20
The majority of the evidence thus indicates that ex-offenders who work in open-market
jobs have slower and reduced recidivism rates than releasees who do not maintain employment
after release.21 Given that California has the nation’s highest rate of recidivism, with 67% of
releasees returning to prison within three years22, it should be looking for ways to reduce the
rates of re-offending. Helping ex-offenders to more effectively find and maintain employment
would no doubt assist California in its crime control efforts.
Increasing joint ventures with the private sector would also benefit the State of California
from an economic standpoint. Those companies that have engaged in joint ventures with the
private sector have generally had a positive experience and have been able to identify an
available workforce through the partnership.23 The inmate population could be particularly
valuable to industries that will be experiencing a labor shortage in the future. Finally, some
scholars have suggested that prison industry work benefits the economy through increased output
of goods and labor.24
III. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: Current Job Programs
The CDCR currently provides job training and experience to inmates through three major
programs: the Prison Industry Authority (PIA), vocational education, and the Joint Venture
Program. Many inmates also participate in general work assignments that mainly serve an
institutional-support function, such as prison maintenance. As of July 30, 2004, 94,800 (60.9%)
20

CINDY SMITH, ET. AL., U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES PREPARING INMATES FOR RE-ENTRY:
RECIDIVISM & POST-RELEASE EMPLOYMENT 7 (2005) [hereinafter SMITH, ET AL.].
21
Id..
22
Joan Petersilia, Rehabilitation: What It Is, Does It Work?, Class taught at Stanford Law School (Oct. 5, 2005).
23
See, e.g. GEORGE SEXTON, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, WORK IN AMERICAN PRISONS: JOINT VENTURE WITH THE
PRIVATE SECTOR 9 (1995) [hereinafter SEXTON].
24
ROB ATKINSON & KNUT A. ROSTAD, CAN INMATES BECOME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE U.S. WORKFORCE? 11
(2003) [hereinafter ATKINSON & ROSTAD].

8
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

of inmates in California state prisons had either an educational or a work program assignment.
PIA employed 5,600 (3.6%) of California's state inmates, 7,900 inmates (5.1%) had vocational
education assignments, and 10,200 inmates (6.5%) were lumped into a category entitled "all
other assignments," which includes base camps, work crews, community services, forestry
training programs, substance abuse programs, and unknown program assignments. Institutional
support and work programs, which include maintenance teams and nursery crews, employed
43,100 (27.7%) of inmates.25 In addition, 35,600 (22.9%) of inmates were on program waiting
lists. Of those inmates not in a work program or on a waiting list, some were in educational
programs, some were unwilling to work, some were ineligible for programming due to
placement in administrative segregation or in a lockup unit, and some were new inmates who had
not yet been assigned.26
These numbers suggest that far too many inmates are left without programming. In
particular, PIA and the vocational programs combined serve only 8.7% of California's massive
prison population, a paltry number considering that approximately 95% of these inmates will be
released, and most will not have engaged in any job training while in prison. Although the
majority of inmates do not receive job training while in prison, this Section will examine the job
programming experienced by those inmates who are fortunate enough to receive it.
A. The Prison Industry Authority
California’s corrections system has been partnered since 1982 with the Prison Industry
Authority (PIA), a semi-autonomous agency established by the state legislature “to operate

25

BUREAU OF STATE AUDITS, CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR, , PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY: ALTHOUGH IT HAS
BROAD DISCRETION IN PURSUING ITS STATUTORY PURPOSES, IT COULD IMPROVE CERTAIN PRICING PRACTICES AND
DEVELOP PERFORMANCE MEASURES 8-9 (2004), http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/ (last visited Jan. 27, 2006) [hereinafter
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR].
26
Id.

9
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

California's prison industries in a manner similar to private industry.”27 The PIA lists as its
goals: employing inmates; assisting inmates in finding employment upon release; developing
effective work habits and occupational skills for inmates; reducing operating costs of the CDCR;
and supporting itself by generating sufficient revenue from the sale of its products and services
to cover its own expenses.28
While PIA still pursues these initial legislative objectives, the emphasis placed on some
of the goals has changed over time. Initially, PIA attempted to maximize inmate employment.
In the last ten years, however, PIA has focused more on increased productivity and improved
customer satisfaction. 29 This shift in emphasis has resulted in a decline in PIA’s inmate
participation, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the State’s correctional population.
Initially, PIA and the then-CDC (California Department of Corrections)30 (hereinafter CDCR)
agreed to a mutual goal of employing in PIA enterprises 42% of the inmates at newly built
prisons. A period of rapid growth in California’s prison population forced PIA and the CDCR to
abandon this goal, however, and now PIA does not have an inmate employment target.31 To be
sure, the percentage of inmates currently employed by PIA (3.6%) is nowhere near the initial
goal of 42% set when the legislature first established the program.
As of July 1995, PIA operated thirty-one enterprises at twenty-three of the State’s then
thirty-one prisons, and employed approximately 7,000 (5.3%) of the State’s then 131,100
inmates.32 In July 2004, PIA operated twenty-five enterprises located at twenty-two of the

27

Prison Industry Authority Mission, at http://www.pia.ca.gov/piawebdev/pia_facts.html (last visited Jan. 27, 2006).
Id.; see also CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR, supra note 25, at 5.
29
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE (LAO), REFORMING THE PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY 9 (1996),
http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/043096_pia/pb042996.html (last visited Jan. 27, 2006) [hereinafter LAO].
30
Note: The California Department of Corrections (CDC) recently changed its name to reflect its emphasis on
assisting inmates in rehabilitating themselves. It is now known as the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR).
31
LAO, supra note 29, at 9.
32
Id. at 1.
28

10
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

state’s then thirty-two prisons and employed 5,600 (3.6%) of the state’s then 155,600 inmates.33
According to the State Auditor, by 2004, PIA participation had continually declined over the last
twelve fiscal years relative to the Department’s institutional population.34 This decline was due
in part to the demise of PIA’s prison construction program, the closure or consolidation of
various enterprises, and the recent economic downturn.35 Despite the decrease in inmate
participation, PIA has not established any participation targets for the number of inmates or
percentage of the population that it would like to employ in the coming years, either overall or by
specific enterprise.36
Currently, PIA operates over sixty service, manufacturing, and agricultural industries at
twenty-two prisons. The PIA enterprises produce a variety of goods, including office furniture,
clothing, shoes, signs, binders, eye wear, gloves, and license plates. All of the PIA assignments
are voluntary, but the Department of Corrections reports that inmates are eager to participate and
that waiting lists are common for many enterprises.37 Table 1 shows the number of inmates
employed in each PIA enterprise in the 2002-03 and the 2003-04 fiscal years. In the 2003-04
fiscal year the largest numbers of inmates were employed in the fabric products, laundry, and
furniture enterprises. The optical, metal products, general fabrication, and dairy enterprises
employed over 200 inmates each, as did the support services sector of PIA, which employs
inmates to perform support service functions like maintenance and repair, warehousing of PIA
products, and office administration.38

33

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR, supra note 25, at 5.
Id. at 28.
35
Id.
36
Id.
37
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, at
http://www.pia.ca.gov (last visited Jan. 27, 2006).
38
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR, supra note 25, at 32.
34

11
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

Although PIA is not serving nearly as many inmates as it had hoped to when it first
received its legislative mandate, it has recently embarked on new programming to assist the
approximately 600 PIA participants who are released each year39 in improving their job
readiness. In 2000, PIA instituted the Inmate Employability Program (IEP), with the mission of
“develop[ing], implement[ing] and evaluat[ing] training and other programs that increase inmate
employability and . . . coordinat[ing] job placement activities with the Department of
Corrections.”40 In pursuit of this goal, the program documents and certifies inmates’ skills, work
experience, and positive work habits acquired while engaged in PIA work assignments. IEP also
maintains certification programs that enable qualified inmates to obtain industry-accredited
certifications from organizations such as the National Association of Institutional Linen
Management and the American Board of Opticianry.41 For example, PIA operates a dental lab
where inmates can become certified dental laboratory technicians through the Productivity
Training Corporation, which provides skills training to dental labs nationwide.42 PIA claims that
inmates earning skill certifications from industry-accredited associations have high rates of
success, although the employment rates have not been quantified.
PIA is also attempting to enhance partnerships with the private sector so that PIA
participants have better job opportunities when they are released. In an experimental program,

39

Michael Kinsman, Adjusting Isn’t Easy, but Ex-Offenders Offer Key Job Skills, THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE,
Sept. 25, 2005, http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/kinsman/20050925-9999-1b25kinsman.html (last
visited Jan. 27, 2006) [hereinafter Kinsman].
40
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, INMATE EMPLOYABILITY PROGRAM, at
http://www.pia.ca.gov/piawebdev/pia_iep/iep_3.html (last visited Jan. 27, 2006).
41
Certificates are available from the following: the National Association of Institutional Linen Management
(NAILM) – certified laundry and linen management; the American Board of Opticianry (ABO) – certified optician;
the American Welding Society (AWS) – certified welder; the National Institute for Metalworking Skills (NIMS) –
certified machinist, certified metal former/stamper; the CA Department of Food and Agriculture – licensed
pasteurizer; the Federal Emergency Management Institute - Hazmat (FEMA) – decision making/problem solving,
effective communication; the Electronics Technicians’ Association (ETA) – certified customer services specialist;
the PBS Video Training Series – GED, workplace essential skills; and Stiles Computer-Based Training Modules –
Weeke Machining Center Programming. Id.
42
Kinsman, supra note 39.

12
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

PIA is working with employers in San Diego to encourage them to hire former PIA participants.
The hope is that if employers are educated about the PIA program so they understand that PIA
graduates have sought-after job skills, then the participating employers will provide a logical
place for ex-offenders to begin their job search. In an effort to get San Diego employers
involved in the partnership, PIA held an employers forum in the city on October 20, 2005 and
beforehand it expected 150 companies to participate. One of the employers PIA hopes will begin
hiring, National Steel & Shipbuilding Co. (NASSCO), says that about 20% of its 4,200
employees have a past criminal conviction. According to the company’s hiring manager, “We
have a lot of turnover, so we’re always looking for good workers. As long as the people we hire
obey our rules and do good work, there are no problems.”43 The key for PIA if it wants to assist
its graduates in finding jobs is to ensure that they not only do “good work,” but also that they do
the right kind of work for the current labor market.
PIA is also partnering with business executives to teach inmates how to start their own
businesses. The Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP) is a non-profit corporation founded in
Texas that pairs business executives with inmates in an attempt to direct pre-existing
entrepreneurial qualities toward legal, rather than illegal, business ventures. According to PEP
founder Catherine Rohr, “Prisoners usually don’t end up in prison because they’re lazy. They
may not be the best educated, but talk about street smarts. They’re driven, passionate and very
charming. All of these traits they share with business executives.”44 PEP has already established
a partnership with PIA and once PEP raises the appropriate funds, it will begin teaching inmates
at San Quentin State Prison how to start their own businesses, with plans to expand to Folsom
State Prison next. Each inmate participating in the program will be paired with a mentor, who is
43

Id.
David M. Drucker, Prison Entrepreneurs: Pros Work with Cons, PROSPER, September 2005, at 48,
http://www.prospermag.com/default/archives/september_2005/prison_entrepreneurs1/ (last visited Jan. 27, 2006).

44

13
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

usually a successful business executive or entrepreneur. Together, they will brainstorm business
ideas and compose a business plan, and in some cases PEP helps recently released or paroled
inmates pitch their programs to investors and venture capitalists. Robert Aikens, a former
inmate in Houston, established a successful landscaping business upon release with the help of
PEP and his PEP mentor.45
Along with implementing new experimental programs, PIA is considering expanding its
current programming both to serve more inmates and to increase the number of enterprises it
offers. According to a recent report by the State Auditor, PIA “anticipates the development of a
strategic business plan . . . that will result in a marketing plan focused on markets that it can
penetrate or expand, given its strengths and limitations.”46 Given this goal, the Auditor
recommends that PIA describe the markets it plans to penetrate and the enterprises most likely to
employ a greater number of inmates as a result.47 In addition, the Auditor recommends that PIA
establish performance measures in order to evaluate the program’s impact on its participants’
post-release success. Because PIA has not historically conducted such an evaluation, the State
does not know how well it actually helps ex-offenders in finding jobs upon release. These
performance measures will be important, because without them, PIA cannot focus inmate
employability activities in sectors that actually demonstrate success. PIA has agreed to
undertake such a study and has also agreed, per the Auditor’s recommendation, to establish longrange annual inmate employability targets.48
While these goals are admirable and will no doubt lead to improvements, PIA also should
consider whether there is a strong correlation between the jobs for which it provides training, and
45

Id. at 50.
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR, supra note 25, at 30.
47
Id.
48
Id. at 65-66.
46

14
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

the jobs that will be available to ex-offenders in California in the future. For example, it would
behoove PIA not to expand to a job sector that is on the decline in California, or to train inmates
for occupations from which they are statutorily barred. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO)
has also suggested that PIA could stabilize its inmate workforce by funding vocational programs
that correspond with pre-existing PIA enterprises. After the inmates have been successfully
trained through vocational programs, they could be shifted to PIA work assignments.49 Once
again, however, neither the PIA nor the CDCR should consider expanding existing programs or
embarking on new programs unless they have determined that these programs have the potential
to translate to jobs upon release for the participants. This paper will later on recommend job
sectors PIA should consider when it is developing its strategic business plan and deciding which
new markets to penetrate.
B. Vocational Programming
Nationwide, we have little data on the number of inmates participating in vocational
programs or the types of training they do receive, and California is no exception. As Professor
Joan Petersilia notes, “It is quite telling that such little data exist about prison education and
treatment: we measure what matters most to us.”50 We do know that in 1997, 31% of state
inmates nationwide received vocational training. That same year, 27% of soon-to-be-released
inmates reported that they had participated in vocational programs, as compared with 31% who
reported such participation in 1991. Petersilia suggests that low participation rates are not an
indication of a lack of need or willingness to participate among prisoners, but rather are an

49
50

LAO, supra note 29, at 17.
PETERSILIA, supra note 4, at 94.

15
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

indication of unavailability: “Existing programs simply cannot accommodate all prisoners who
are willing to participate.”51
Table 3 lists the vocational programs offered in each of California’s thirty-two state
correctional facilities. In some cases programs have been grouped together for ease of recording.
For example, dry cleaning and janitorial services have both been accounted for in the
“Cleaning/Maintenance” category, and auto body, auto repair, and auto mechanics have all been
listed under “Auto Body/Mechanics.”
The most common vocational programs, present in twenty or more institutions, are: auto
programs, including auto body, auto mechanics, and auto repair (26 institutions); cleaning and
maintenance, including dry cleaning and janitorial services (24); electronics (23); graphic arts
and printing (20); landscaping and gardening (24); and mill and cabinetry (22). The least
common programs, present in five or less of California’s state institutions, are: audio/visual
technology (1); baking and culinary arts (1); cosmetology (1); data and word processing (3);
eyewear manufacturing (4); garment making (3); roofing (1); sheet metal (3); and x-ray
technology (1). While this data tells us which programs are most numerous, it does not tell us
which programs have the highest rates of inmate participation. Unfortunately, that data is
currently unavailable.
C. Joint Venture Programs
Currently only 6% of state prisoners nationwide work in prison industries sponsored by
the private sector.52 Many scholars and policymakers have argued that it is good public policy to
expand the range of joint venture programs so that more inmates can take advantage of these
partnerships. While California currently engages in a variety of joint venture programs, by

51
52

Id. at 95-96.
ATKINSON & ROSTAD, supra note 24.

16
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

expanding the breadth of the programs so that more inmates and private employers can
participate, the state could help decrease some of the supply- and demand-side barriers to exoffender employment.
After decades of prohibition in response to complaints of unfair competition from
competing manufacturers and labor unions, private sector prison industries were revived
nationwide in 1979, when Congress enacted 18 U.SC. §1761(c) and 41 U.S.C. §35 in order to lift
the ban on the interstate transportation and sale of prison-made goods.53 The statutes, which
created the Private Sector/Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PS/PIEC),
authorize prisons that meet certain conditions to engage in interstate shipment of prison-made
goods for private business use. Because many businesses in the United States sell goods and
services in interstate commerce, the legislation was crucial in enabling state departments of
correction to establish partnerships with private sector companies. The law requires: (1) that
inmates working in the program are paid the local prevailing wage; (2) that local unions are
consulted before commencement of any prison industry project; and (3) that inmate employment
does not adversely affect other constituencies, such as workers employed outside the prison.54
In 1990, at the same time they rejected a $450 million bond issue for prison
construction55, the California voters passed Proposition 139, the Prison Inmate Work Incentive,
which requires the CDCR to recruit private businesses in order to establish partnerships between
these businesses and California’s prisons. The CDCR created the Joint Venture Program (JVP)
in 1991 to implement this mandate. JVP works with private businesses to set up their operations
inside state prisons. The businesses then hire California state inmates and pay them the
prevailing local wage.
53

SEXTON, supra note 23, at 3.
Id.
55
Id. at 4.
54

17
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

In pursuit of its mandate, JVP identifies the following four goals: (1) to identify
businesses with the potential to become venture partners; (2) to determine the availability of
suitable work sites and characteristics of the available inmates; (3) to develop strategies to
market the program both to potential business partners and to the general public; and (4) to
evaluate and monitor venture partners and overall program progress.56 Currently, the CDCR
operates Joint Venture Programs in over 30 of California’s prisons.57 Employers are enticed to
the program through offers of state tax incentives, no expenses for retirement, vacation, sick
leave, and medical benefits, cost-effective lease agreements on state land, discount rates for
Workers’ Compensation Insurance, and an on-call labor pool. Inmates receive benefits from the
program as well, including developing good work habits, gaining job experience, and learning
valuable job skills. The inmates’ earnings are subject to deductions for room and board, victim
compensation funds, prisoner family support, and required inmate savings to be used upon
release.58
Current Joint Venture Programs include a computerized message center owned by a
private business and employing as operators female inmates at the California Rehabilitation
Center in Norco, and a partnership between Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla
and a private company that employs approximately forty-five of the inmates in an electronics
manufacturing program.
Although this paper principally concerns California’s adult prisons, the CDCR has also
established a successful joint venture in the California Youth Authority (CYA) that might serve
as a useful model for the State’s adult prisons. Starting in 1986, Trans World Airlines (TWA)

56

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, JOINT VENTURE PROGRAM, available at
http://www.corr.ca.gov/ (last visited November 15, 2005).
57
Id.
58
Id.

18
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

began employing youth incarcerated at CYA’s Ventura Training School. As of 1995, TWA had
employed 300 inmates to work as telephone reservation agents for the airline. The school
became one of TWA’s five major reservation centers and became the only center that scheduled
the airline’s international itineraries. According to TWA, the Ventura agents were best-equipped
to handle the complexity of round-the-world reservations because the Ventura workforce was
small and could be closely monitored by TWA staff supervising the program. The program
eventually led to gainful employment for some of the incarcerated youths who participated. As
of 1995, fifty-five of the inmates who worked for TWA at the training school had continued their
employment at the company’s Los Angeles reservation center upon release.59
The successes of Joint Venture Programs have led the CDCR to solicit through its
website new partnerships with the private sector.60 In particular, the CDCR seeks to establish
joint ventures with companies that engage in various types of manufacturing, assembly work,
support services, such as clerical assistance, information scanning, and packaging and
recycling.61 As is the case with PIA, the CDCR should attempt to expand the Joint Venture
Program by partnering with companies that work within the job sectors in California expected to
experience the most growth in the future.
IV. The California Labor Market
Any effort to improve the job training received by California’s inmates must take into
account trends in the State’s labor market. If the goal is to better equip prisoners for their entry
into the open labor market upon release, then the State should be preparing inmates for jobs that
are available to them. For instance, it would be poor public policy to train California inmates to

59

SEXTON, supra note 23, at 9.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, JOINT VENTURE PROGRAM, available at
http://www.corr.ca.gov/ (last visited November 15, 2005).
61
Id.
60

19
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

drive snowplows, as snowplow drivers are unlikely to be in high demand in California. Despite
the frivolity of the example, the principle is important: we need to coordinate any expansion in
prison job programs with expected growth in California’s labor market to the best extent
possible. This will entail a careful analysis of job growth in California as it relates to the ability
of ex-offenders to obtain jobs.
Recent national economic trends have not been favorable to ex-offenders searching for
jobs. While the economy experienced rapid growth in the 1990s, which resulted in increased
earnings for many and a decrease in unemployment, most ex-offenders did not benefit from this
upswing. Historically, industries with little customer contact, such as manufacturing, have been
more willing to hire ex-offenders than service industries have been.62 Thus, most ex-offenders
worked in low-skilled, blue-collar jobs. Despite the strong economy and overall wage increases
in the 1990s, the average wages of low-skilled male workers stayed the same.63 Additionally, the
number of blue collar and manufacturing jobs has decreased over time, and this market sector is
not expected to experience an increase in the near future.64 As the jobs for which ex-offenders
could get hired decrease, the jobs from which they are generally excluded, such as health care
and customer services, are increasing.65 This nationwide increase in service sector jobs and
decrease in blue-collar jobs looks as if it will only exacerbate the already-significant mismatch
between the skills and abilities of ex-offenders and the current hiring trends in the open labor
market.
These trends do not mean that California should abandon its efforts to help ex-offenders
obtain jobs, however. According to a Hudson Institute study, “baby boomers” will leave the job
62

See HARRY HOLZER, STEVEN RAPHAEL, & MICHAEL STOLL, EMPLOYER DEMAND FOR EX-OFFENDERS: RECENT
EVIDENCE FROM LOS ANGELES 12 (2003).
63
TRAVIS, supra note 3, at 166.
64
Id. at 166-67.
65
Id. at 167.

20
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

market in significant numbers over the next twenty-five years, which will result in a tightening of
the labor market, including demand for workers in low-wage and low-skill job sectors.
According to Jeremy Travis, this means that “employers will be compelled to turn to new
sources of labor, including the ex-offender population.”66 Indeed, certain low-wage and lowskill job markets in California will even experience growth in the near future, suggesting that
there is hope for ex-felons looking for jobs.
California’s Employment Development Department’s Labor Market Information
Division (LMID) has developed two-year and ten-year employment projections. According to
this data, total employment in California is expected to grow at a 1.5% annual rate in 2005 and
2006, which would lead to a total of 475,000 new jobs by the end of 2006.67 Of this growth, the
Administrative and Support Services sector is growing at the fastest rate (7.4% over two years)
and is projected to account for 15% of the new jobs. This growth is largely due to expansion in
the Employment Services sector, which is comprised mainly of Temporary Help Services.68
Other job sectors anticipated to contribute to this growth include: Retail Trade (13% of new
jobs); Accommodation and Food Services (12%); Construction (11%); and Health and Social
Assistance (10%). Of these sectors, the construction industry, which is responding to a
residential housing boom in California, is expected to grow at a rate of 5.7%, the second fastest
rate of projected employment growth of any major industry sector.69 In addition, almost half of
the fifty fastest growing occupations in California are in construction-related industries.70

66

Id.
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LABOR MARKET INFORMATION DIVISION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY PROJECTIONS 2004-2006 (2005), at htEtp://www.calmis.ca.gov (last visited Jan. 27, 2006).
68
Id.
69
Id.
70
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LABOR MARKET INFORMATION DIVISION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL PROJECTIONS 2004-2006 (2005) available at htEtp://www.calmis.ca.gov (last visited
Jan. 27, 2006).
67

21
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

Some of these jobs will pay over $18.00 an hour: drywall installers, sheet metal workers,
and roofers are predicted to make this much, and electricians and plumbers are expected to make
over $20.00 an hour.71 The health and high tech industries also will experience rapid economic
growth through 2006. Medical Assistants will be making over $13.00 an hour while respiratory
therapists will make over $25.00 an hour. And jobs that require a bachelor’s degree, such as
Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts, Computer Software Engineers, and
Database Administrators will pay more than $30.00 an hour.72 On the other end of the hourly
pay spectrum, retail salespersons, food preparation and serving workers, cashiers, and janitors
and cleaners can expect to receive over $8.00 an hour.73
These figures demonstrate that there is room for job growth in California, some of which
might even be in areas amenable to hiring ex-offenders. A cursory glance at the data above
reveals that while some of the job growth is in service sectors, such as Administrative and
Support Services and Health and Social Assistance, areas which are least likely to hire exoffenders, there is an almost equal amount of growth in sectors that would be more willing to
hire ex-felons, including the construction industry and the food services industry. A more
detailed analysis will reveal which jobs, if any, the CDCR should focus on as it expands its
prison job programs.
In order to compare job growth with statutory barriers to employment for ex-felons, with
the hopes of identifying job sectors that are growing and are open to ex-offenders, this paper uses
the ten-year occupational growth projections, from 2002 to 2012, provided by the State
Department of Labor. Because the CDCR will likely take time to implement new programs, it
makes most sense to focus on occupations that are expected to experience the most growth over
71

Id.
Id.
73
Id.
72

22
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

the coming decade. This will give the CDCR the opportunity to develop a long-range
employment plan for its inmates. The Employment Development Department’s LMID projects
occupational growth both in absolute terms and by rate of change. Because the focus in this
paper is on identifying occupations that will be most readily available for ex-offenders, this
analysis uses statistics that represent absolute job growth in California through 2012.
Table 4 lists the twenty occupations with the largest projected occupational growth
between 2002 and 2012. The table also shows the rate of growth for each of these occupations,
although, again the emphasis is on the occupations that will have the greatest need for workers in
the coming years. The data reveals wide variety in the types of occupations that will be
experiencing significant growth. Some of the growth appears in low-skilled, low-wage jobs,
such as food prep workers, cashiers, and waiters and waitresses, while the State also expects to
see growth in occupations that pay higher wages and require more skill or education, such as
elementary school teachers and software engineers. Analyzing each of these twenty occupations
under California’s law will reveal that while ex-felons may have success in obtaining some of
these jobs, many of these occupations will be nearly impossible to obtain for someone with a
felony conviction.
V. Statutory Barriers to Employment
In many states there is a disconnect between the programs offered to prisoners as a means
of improving their job prospects upon release, and the statutory barriers these same prisoners
face when they get out and actually apply for jobs. In the 1980s, as part of a nationwide trend to
become “tough on crime,” a number of states enacted blanket restrictions denying people certain
jobs because of their status as ex-felons. According to one commentator, “Rather than focusing
on employment that might be related to an offense, these prohibitions generally assume the form

23
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

of blanket restrictions based on the individual’s status as an ex-offender as opposed to some
specific relationship to conduct.”74 This means that simply having a felony on one’s record can
be a categorical bar to some jobs, without regard to the conduct underlying the conviction.
California uses such blanket restrictions, and prohibits parolees from working in real estate,
nursing, or physical therapy.75
In addition to these statutory bars to employment, many states have occupational
licensing restrictions that subject applicants to criminal history background checks and allow
licensing boards to deny a license to someone on the grounds that he has a criminal history, or
that he does not possess “good moral character.” Because “good moral character” is rarely
defined, “licensing boards and agencies have tremendous latitude in defining the term,” which
can lead to arbitrary and inconsistent denials of licensure based on one’s criminal history.76 A
state’s power to require occupational licenses generally stems from its police powers to protect
the health, morals, and welfare of the public77 and thereby to serve the public interest by
regulating who can and cannot practice in certain occupations.78 In California, §101.6 of the
Business and Professions Code gives the boards their power, and states that they are “established
for the purpose of ensuring that those private businesses and professions deemed to engage in
activities which have potential impact upon the public health, safety, and welfare are adequately
regulated in order to protect the people of California.”79
Depending on the state, operating without a valid occupational license can lead to
penalties or fines, can constitute an administrative or criminal offense, and can leave a party with
74

Thompson, supra note 2, at 280.
Id.
76
Id. at 281.
77
See, e.g. Watson v. Maryland, 218 U.S. 173, 178 (1910) (“Regulations of a particular trade or business essential to
the public health and safety are within the legislative capacity of the state in the exercise of its police power . . . .”).
78
Bruce E. May, The Character Component of Occupational Licensing Laws: A Continuing Barrier to the ExFelon’s Employment Opportunities, 71 N.D. L. Rev. 187, 190 (1995) [hereinafter May].
79
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 101.6 (2005).
75

24
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

no recourse in the case of a breach of contract, because parties cannot enforce a contract if they
were not properly licensed at the time of the agreement. According to one commentator, “The
ability to obtain an occupational license is vital to anyone seeking to enter a regulated
occupation,” and because of restrictions and character components, many ex-felons simply do
not have this ability.80 Thus, “[s]tate occupational licensing laws can operate to reduce the
availability of employment opportunities for ex-felons.”81
A. California’s Statutory Scheme Generally
California currently employs both blanket bars and occupational licensing restrictions,
making it difficult for ex-felons to gain access to many occupations. First, the State requires
certain types of employers to conduct criminal history background checks during the hiring
process. California Business and Professions Code §144(a) mandates that the twenty-six
agencies identified in the statute shall require job applicants to furnish a full set of fingerprints to
enable the employer to conduct a criminal history record check. In addition, the statute allows
the designated agencies to obtain and receive, at their discretion, criminal history information
from the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The agencies identified
in §144(b) of the statute include the California Board of Accountancy, the California State Board
of Pharmacy, the Board of Registered Nursing, the Physical Therapy Board of California, the
State Board of Optometry, and the Contractors’ State License Board.82 Although none of these

80

May, supra note 78, at 188.
Id. at 192-93.
82
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 144 (2005). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 144(a) applies to the following agencies: (1)
California Board of Accountancy; (2) State Athletic Commission; (3) Board of Behavioral Sciences; (4) Court
Reporters Board of California; (5) State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind; (6) California State Board of Pharmacy;
(7) Board of Registered Nursing; (8) Veterinary Medical Board; (9) Registered Veterinary Technician Committee;
(10) Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians; (11) Respiratory Care Board of California; (12)
Hearing Aid Dispensers Advisory Committee; (13) Physical Therapy Board of California; (14) Physician Assistant
Committee of the Medical Board of California; (15) Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Board; (16)
Medical Board of California; (17) State Board of Optometry; (18) Acupuncture Board; (19) Cemetery and Funeral
Bureau; (20) Bureau of Security and Investigative Services; (21) Division of Investigation; (22) Board of
81

25
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

organizations places a per se bar on employing ex-offenders, each requires criminal history
checks, and research suggests that knowledge of a person’s status as a former prisoner can
significantly hinder his chances of getting hired.83
California’s Penal Code regulates the type of criminal history available to employers who
ask for it pursuant to their authority under §144(a). California Penal Code §11105 requires the
Department of Justice to maintain “state summary criminal history information,” which is a
master record of someone’s identification and criminal history. It can include name, date of
birth, a physical description, fingerprints, photographs, dates of arrest, arresting agencies and
booking numbers, charges, and dispositions. Under the statute, the Attorney General can furnish
this criminal history information to assist “any other entity in fulfilling employment,
certifications, or licensing duties.”84 In addition, the statute allows the Attorney General to
furnish the information to “any person or entity when access is expressly authorized by statute if
the criminal history information is required to implement a statute or regulation that expressly
refers to specific criminal conduct. . . .”85 Thus, the Attorney General can provide criminal
history information to the entities listed in §144(b). The State also allows local criminal justice
agencies to furnish criminal history information to entities that have statutory authority to request
such information.86
In addition to requiring certain agencies to conduct criminal history background checks,
the California Business and Professions Code allows occupational licensing boards to deny a
license to an applicant on the grounds that he or she has been convicted of a crime.87 It is

Psychology; (23) The California Board of Occupational Therapy; (24) Structural Pest Control Board; (25)
Contractors’ State License Board; (26) Bureau of Neuropathic Medicine.
83
See HOLZER, ET. AL., supra note 11.
84
CAL. PENAL CODE § 11105 (2005).
85
Id. § 11105(b)(12).
86
Id. § 13300.
87
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §480(a)(1) (2005).

26
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

important to note that the relevant statute, §480(a)(1) of the Business and Professions Code, does
not differentiate between levels or types of crimes, and thus, even a misdemeanor conviction
could be grounds upon which a board might deny an applicant a license. The statute also allows
a board to deny an applicant a license if he has “done any act involving dishonesty, fraud or
deceit with the intent to substantially benefit himself or another, or substantially injure
another”88, or if he has “done any act which if done by a licentiate of the business or profession
in question, would be grounds for suspension or revocation of license”89. Although the terms are
not defined in the statute, presumably many criminal convictions involve acts that could be
considered dishonest, fraudulent, or deceitful under (a)(2), or would be grounds for revocation or
suspension of a license under (a)(3). The statute thus provides board members with a number of
routes they could take to deny a license to an applicant who has a criminal history.
The boards generally have plenary power over their respective occupational realms.
Business and Professions Code §108 outlines board functions, which include the ability to set
standards, prepare and conduct examinations, pass upon applicants, conduct investigations of
violations of laws under the board’s jurisdiction, issue citations and hold hearings for the
revocation of licenses, and impose penalties following such hearings, if there is a statute giving
the respective board such power.90 Not only do the boards have a broad range of powers, but
also their decisions are often final. Section 109 of the Business and Professions Code states that
board decisions with respect to the functions outlined in §108 are final and are not to be
reviewed by the department director, with the exception of alleged misconduct on the part of the
board.91 The State’s statutory scheme gives broad discretion to these occupational licensing

88

Id. § 480(a)(2).
Id. § 480(a)(3).
90
Id. § 108.
91
Id. § 109.
89

27
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

boards, and there is often little chance that an ex-offender who is denied an occupational license
will get review of that decision.
The statute, however, does place two qualifications on the power of the boards. First, a
board may only deny a license to someone on the grounds that he has been convicted of a crime
or committed a dishonest, fraudulent, or deceitful act “if the crime or act is substantially related
to the qualifications, functions or duties of the business or profession for which the application is
made.”92 This standard is ambiguous at best, however, as the statute allows each board to
develop its own criteria to aid it in determining whether a crime is “substantially related” to the
business or profession it regulates.93 Indeed, on the occasions when the California courts have
reviewed a board decision, they seem to have interpreted this standard liberally. For example,
the Court of Appeal in the case of Golde v. Fox held that the conviction of possession of
marijuana for sale was substantially related to the business of a real estate broker, as it showed a
lack of honesty and integrity.94 On the other hand, the California courts do require some sort of
connection between the crime, its underlying conduct, and the qualifications required for the job.
In the 1979 case of Brandt v. Fox, the California Court of Appeal chided the Attorney General
and the Real Estate Commissioner for arguing that Mr. Brandt should be denied a real estate
license because he had once been convicted of distributing cocaine. According to the court:
[O]nly by indulging in the sort of abstract characterization which has been condemned by
the California courts, can the connection between this plaintiff’s one instance of
misbehavior and his qualifications to act as a real estate salesman be established. The
Attorney General’s argument that, having once violated the law to make a quick profit,
plaintiff might be tempted to engage in overreaching and dishonest conduct as a real
estate salesman, is not convincing.95

92

Id. §480(a) (emphasis added).
Id. §481.
94
98 Cal.App.3d 167 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979).
95
Brandt v. Fox, 90 Cal.App.3d 737, 747 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979).
93

28
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

The courts also ensure that licensing boards that operate under §480 implement proper
procedures to comply with the statute’s mandate to find a substantial relationship between the
crime and the qualifications for the license being sought. For example, an agency cannot enact
regulations that automatically deny an applicant a license on the grounds that he or she has been
convicted of a crime without an initial board finding that the substantial relationship element of
the statute has been satisfied. Thus, in the 1980 case of Selby v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, the
Court of Appeal held that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) could not pass a regulation
that automatically denied an applicant a school bus driver’s license because of a past
conviction.96 Rather, the DMV had to consider whether the “conviction [was] substantially
related to [the applicant’s] qualifications to be a school bus driver and, if so, whether she has
been rehabilitated,” pursuant to the mandate of §480.97
In addition to requiring a connection between the crime and the type of license sought,
the statute ensures that ex-offenders who have been rehabilitated in the eyes of the State will not
continue to be haunted by their criminal pasts in the job application process. Under the statute,
no person shall be denied a license solely on the basis of a criminal conviction if he or she has
obtained a state-issued certificate of rehabilitation (in the case of a felony), or has met the
particular board’s criteria for rehabilitation (in the case of a misdemeanor).98 In the case of a
misdemeanor, under §482 of the Business and Professions Code, each board is required to
develop criteria to evaluate the rehabilitation of the applicant. The statute does not give much

96

Selby v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 110 Cal.App.3d 470 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).
Id. at 475.
98
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 480(b) (2005). See also CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 482 (2005) (mandating that each
board shall develop criteria to evaluate the rehabilitation of a person and shall take into account all competent
evidence of rehabilitation furnished by the applicant).
97

29
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

guidance for boards in the development of these criteria beyond instructing the board to “take
into account all competent evidence of rehabilitation furnished by the applicant or licensee.”99
In the case of a felony, the applicant must go through a rigorous process to obtain a
certificate of rehabilitation pursuant to §4852.01 of the California Penal Code. Ex-offenders
cannot even apply for certificates of rehabilitation until they have completed a waiting period,
which consists of five years of California residence after release from incarceration, and can
include an additional waiting period depending on the crime of conviction. For example, anyone
convicted of an offense that carries a life sentence must wait four additional years on top of the
five years of residency, for a total of nine years.100 Once the waiting period has elapsed, the
applicant must follow a number of steps, including: calling the county Superior Court clerk to
ask for an application for a Certificate of Rehabilitation and Pardon; filling out the application,
which may include a statement that the applicant is seeking to be rehabilitated for employment
purposes; giving a copy of the application to the District Attorney and giving him or her a chance
to object to the request for a certificate and to prepare a report for the court; and attending a court
hearing to determine whether the applicant has been rehabilitated, at which point the court has
the option of granting or denying the petition.101
Even if an ex-offender is able to complete this rigorous process and obtain a certificate of
rehabilitation, he is still by no means assured a job. The statute forbids a board from denying a
license to someone solely on the basis of a criminal conviction if he has been rehabilitated. The
licensing agency is still entitled to deny the license on other grounds. As the board will have
information about the applicant’s criminal history even if he has been rehabilitated, it is
99

Id. § 482.
LEGAL ACTION CENTER, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT: A GUIDE FOR CALIFORNIA
COUNSELORS OF INDIVIDUALS WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS OR IN RECOVERY FROM DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
28-29 (2002), http://www.hirenetwork.org/pdfs/050542_ca_disc.pdf (last visited Jan. 27, 2006).
101
Id. at 29.
100

30
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

conceivable that a board could deny a license to someone with a criminal history without
explicitly stating the grounds for denial, and thereby circumvent the statute’s prohibitions.
Furthermore, with the exception of a general nondiscrimination law barring consideration of
judicially expunged offenses or misdemeanors by employers102, no standards currently exist in
California prohibiting employment discrimination by public or private employers or occupational
licensing agencies based on a conviction record103. Thus, although a statutory bar may no longer
apply after an ex-offender has obtained a certificate of rehabilitation, there is no antidiscrimination statute preventing a licensing board from refusing to license the applicant.
Because we know that ex-felons as a group are least likely to be hired by employers104, a
certificate of rehabilitation alone will not assist ex-offenders in obtaining relief from the de facto
discrimination practiced by many employers. Nonetheless, while the statute certainly imposes
significant barriers on ex-offenders seeking to obtain licenses to practice in a variety of
professions, none of the exclusions are absolute.
B. Application of the Statutory Scheme to Specific Jobs
This Section will refer back to Table 4 listing the top twenty occupations in California
expected to experience the most growth through 2012, will analyze each of these job sectors as
they are affected by the general statutory scheme discussed above, and will also discuss whether
any of these occupations are also subject to more specific legal restrictions applied to exoffenders. This analysis will identify which of these rapidly-growing occupations are most likely
to be available to ex-offenders and which are likely to be unavailable, at least from a legal
102

MARGARET COLGATE LOVE, RELIEF FROM THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF A CRIMINAL CONVICTION: A
STATE-BY-STATE RESOURCE GUIDE Table # 6 (2005), at http://www.sentencingproject.org/rights-restoration.cfm
(last visited Jan. 27, 2006).
103
See LEGAL ACTION CENTER, AFTER PRISON: ROADBLOCKS TO REENTRY – A REPORT ON STATE LEGAL BARRIERS
FACING PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL (2004), http://www.hirenetwork.org/pdfs/LAC_PrintReport.pdf (last visited Jan. 27,
2006).
104
See HOLZER ET. AL., supra note 11, at 11.

31
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

standpoint. This knowledge should help the CDCR in determining what type of job training will
be most effective for California’s inmates. For ease of reference, the occupations are listed in the
same order as in Table 4, with those expected to experience the most job growth discussed first.
1. Retail Salespersons
The category of retail salespersons is obviously quite broad. Although it is difficult to
analyze every potential retail job for which an ex-felon might apply, some general observations
based on the statutory scheme can be made. First, §144, which mandates criminal history
checks, does not apply to any entity that might regulate retail. In addition, it would seem that
basic retail jobs, such as those in the areas of clothing or sports equipment, would not require
licensure, and are legally available to ex-offenders.
More specific and specialized retail positions, however, could be subject to legal barriers.
For instance, California requires licensure of all salespersons selling manufactured homes,
mobile homes, or commercial modular structures. The Department of Housing and Community
Development, which regulates these licenses, has statutory authority pursuant to the Health and
Safety Code to require fingerprint cards and a personal history from all applicants, and the
Department states explicitly that “any felony convictions and all crimes involving moral
turpitude issues may be used to deny or revoke a license.”105 Thus, depending on the type of
sales job for which the ex-offender is applying, his criminal history could be a legal hindrance to
getting hired.
2. Food Prep/Service Workers
Food preparation is not an industry that seems to be regulated, at least at the lowest
levels. Thus, there are no explicit legal barriers to an ex-offender who is applying to work as a
food preparation or service worker.
105

See CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 18045, available at http://www.acinet.org (last visited Jan. 27, 2006).

32
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

3. Cashiers
Similar to food preparation and service laborers, cashiers are not subject to any formal
licensing restrictions. Ex-offenders would not face any legal barriers in getting these jobs,
although one could imagine that many employers might be reluctant to put someone with certain
types of criminal convictions in the position of handling money.
4. Registered Nurses
Because of the nature of the work, including close contact with patients and responsibility
for their health and safety, registered nurses are subject to a bevy of regulations that would likely
make it difficult for an ex-offender to obtain a registered nurse’s license. In California,
practicing a “healing art” without a proper license or certificate is prohibited by law. Registered
nurses are among those persons required to be licensed or registered in order to practice a healing
art.106
Any applicant for a nursing license will be required to submit fingerprints, as the Board
of Registered Nursing is covered by §144, which mandates that it conduct criminal history
background checks. With fingerprints, the Board would have access to all of the applicant’s
criminal history information, and would have discretion under §480 to deny the applicant a
license because of a criminal conviction. This discretion under §480 is strengthened by another
statute directly on point, Business and Professions Code §2736(a)(3), which states that an
applicant for licensure as a registered nursed cannot be licensed if he or she is subject to denial of
licensure under §480, in other words, for a past criminal conviction.107 This statute seems to
remove all discretion from the board in the case of an applicant with a criminal history, which
would make it difficult, if not impossible, for an ex-offender to practice as a registered nurse.

106
107

See CAL. JUR. 3D HEALING ARTS AND INSTITUTIONS §171 (2005).
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 2736 (2005).

33
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

5. Waiters and Waitresses
Because waiters and waitresses as a group are not subject to specific licensure
requirement or regulations, there do not appear to be any legal barriers in place that would
prevent ex-offenders from being hired for these jobs.
6. Customer Service Representatives
Generally, customer service representatives are not subject to specific legal barriers. That
said, we know generally that ex-offenders are less likely to be hired for jobs requiring significant
customer contact. While there may be few legal barriers in place, jobs as customer service
representatives still might be difficult for ex-offenders to obtain.
7. General Office Clerks
Like cashiers, waitresses, and customer service representatives, office clerks are not
subject to state regulation or the discretion of licensing boards. Thus, there are no formal legal
restrictions preventing ex-offenders from obtain these jobs.
8. General and Operations Managers
The category of “general and operations managers” encompasses a wide range of jobs. It
is thus difficult to do an analysis of every potential job in this category for which an ex-offender
might apply. For illustrative purposes, this section will examine two jobs that fit into this
category: cemetery managers and nursing home administrators.
Cemetery managers are subject to strict licensing requirements. The Cemetery and
Funeral Bureau is regulated by §144 and is required to obtain fingerprints from every applicant
in order to run a criminal history background check. With this information, the board is likely to
deny anyone with a criminal history a license because of both its discretion to do so under §480
and because of separate statutory authority to do under Business and Professions Code §9702.1.

34
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

This statute mandates that the board must investigate the qualifications of applicants and cannot
issue a license if the applicant has committed an act or crime constituting grounds for denial of
licensure under §480.108 Because of these prohibitions, someone with a criminal record is
unlikely to be hired as a cemetery manager.
Nursing home administrator licenses will also be difficult for ex-offenders to obtain.
Under §480 the Board of Nursing Home Administrators has the discretion to deny a license to
someone who has committed a crime, and as discussed above, such denials are difficult to
review. It should also be noted that in addition to legal barriers, there are a number of practical
barriers for ex-felons who may wish to pursue a job in nursing home administration. In order to
be licensed, an applicant must satisfy a host of stringent requirements, including a master’s
degree in nursing home administration or a related health administration field, or some type of
related experience, such as ten years full-time experience as a registered nurse in a nursing
home.109 Most ex-offenders are unlikely to have either the education or prior job experience
necessary to obtain this sort of position.
9. Teacher Assistants
While teaching assistants may not need to be credentialed in the same way as the teachers
themselves, they are still subject to stringent legal regulation. Section 45125.01 of the California
Education Code disqualifies from non-certified public school employment anyone who has been
convicted of a serious or violent felony. When someone applies for a non-certified job, such as
that of a teacher assistant, at a school, he or she must submit fingerprints so that the district can
conduct a criminal history background check. Upon finding that an applicant has been convicted

108

See id. § 9702.1.
See id. §§ 3901-50; see also CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 16, §§ 3100-80 (2005), available at http://www.acinet.org (last
visited Jan. 27, 2006).

109

35
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

of a serious or violent felony, the school district must eliminate the applicant from employment
eligibility. The district has no discretion to decide otherwise.110
10. Janitors/Cleaners
Janitors and cleaners are not generally regulated by the state, and thus there may be few
legal barriers to ex-offenders wishing to obtain a position as a custodian. Depending on where
the applicant wishes to work, however, he may experience difficulty in getting hired. For
example, §45125.1 of California’s Education Code requires any school janitorial applicant to
submit fingerprints so that the Department of Justice can conduct a background check. The
Department will then notify the school district of any applicant who has been convicted of a
felony or is the subject of pending felony charges. Although the school district has discretion in
deciding whether or not to hire that applicant, it seems unlikely that most schools will risk hiring
an ex-offender if applicants without criminal records are available.
11. Sales Representatives
There is no specific state statute prohibiting ex-offenders from working as sales
representatives generally. Still, specific types of sales may be regulated. For example, insurance
sales agents are regulated and subject to licensing requirements by the Department of Insurance
Producer Licensing Bureau. As we have seen, any time a license is required, the regulations
make it difficult for ex-offenders to receive licenses. Thus, ex-offenders could in some
circumstances face barriers in working as sales representatives.
12. Security Guards
As might be expected, ex-offenders face great legal difficulties in obtaining employment
as security guards. First, §144 requires the Board of Security and Investigative Services to
obtain fingerprints from every applicant for the purposes of conducting a criminal history record
110

CAL. EDUC. CODE § 45125.01 (2005).

36
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

check. As we know, once a board discovers the presence of a past conviction, it has discretion
under §480 to deny that applicant a license to practice unless the applicant has been sufficiently
rehabilitated, which is a difficult process rarely used by ex-offenders.
Business and Professions Code §7582.8 also states that before an application for a license
to be a security guard is granted, the applicant shall “not have committed acts or crimes
constituting grounds for denial of a license under Section 480.”111 The director of the board has
discretion to deny a license to an applicant unless the applicant can make a satisfactory showing
that he has not committed any act constituting dishonesty or fraud or committed any act or crime
constituting grounds for denial of licensure under Section 480, including illegally using,
carrying, or possessing a deadly weapon.112 Given the extensive legal barriers as well as the
practical concerns of hiring someone with a criminal record to work in security and carry a
weapon, ex-offenders are highly unlikely to be hired as security guards.
13. Receptionists and Information Clerks
Receptionists and information clerks are not regulated by the state and are not subject to
formal legal restrictions. Ex-offenders applying to these jobs only have to get past the employer,
not the state as well.
14. Carpenters
Some carpenters are subject to state licensing requirements, depending on the specific
type of carpentry they perform. For example, carpenters who specialize in siding and decking or
in suspended ceilings must be licensed by the Contractors State License Board. As discussed
above, this boards has discretion under §480 to deny a license to ex-offenders, although the
board must determine that there is a substantial relationship between the crime and the license

111
112

CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 7582.8 (2005).
Id. § 7582.24.

37
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

being sought. While some ex-offenders wishing to work in carpentry will face legal barriers and
potential difficulty in becoming licensed, there are no categorical bars to ex-felons working as
carpenters.
15. Landscaping/Groundskeeping Workers
With the exception of highly specialized work, such as tree services specialties,
landscapers and groundskeepers are not subject to formal legal barriers. This is a field that might
be open to ex-offenders.
16. Elementary School Teachers
Along with becoming licensed to be a police officer or a doctor, obtaining certification as
an elementary school teacher is among the hardest things an ex-offender can do. Because there
are a multitude of statutory barriers to ex-offenders wishing to become teachers, only the most
pertinent here are discussed here. First, the Education Commission must deny a teaching
credential to any applicant who: (1) has been determined to be a sexual psychopath; (2) has been
convicted of any sex offense; or (3) has been convicted of a controlled substance offense.113
Second, the Commission must deny a credential to any applicant who has been convicted of a
violent or serious felony or crime set forth in §44424, which include murder, manslaughter, and
lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor.114 Finally, the school district shall not employ any
person who has been convicted of most sex offenses or controlled substance offenses.115 These
statutory restrictions working together operate to place a categorical bar on anyone with a serious
criminal conviction working as an elementary school teacher.

113

CAL. EDUC. CODE § 44346 (2005).
Id. §§ 44346.1, 44424.
115
Id. § 45123.
114

38
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

17. Computer Software Engineers
Computer software engineers are not heavily regulated by the state. However, practical
considerations like a lack of skill and education do not make this a likely job prospect for most
ex-offenders.
18. Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers
Laborers and movers of the type described in this category are not generally subject to
stringent legal regulations. Ex-offenders do not face significant legal barriers when applying for
jobs in this field.
19. Construction Laborers
While low-level construction workers are not subject to statutory employment
restrictions, anyone who must obtain a state license, which includes officers, directors, partners,
associates, and responsible managing employees of contractor businesses, faces significant legal
hurdles. Section 7069 of the Business and Professions Code requires those applying for a
contractor’s license to furnish a full set of fingerprints for the purposes of conducting a criminal
history record check. The statute also states that an applicant shall not have committed an act or
crime that is a grounds for denial of licensure under §480. As discussed above, under §480 the
board still has to find a substantial relationship between the crime and the license being sought.
In its instructions to applicants, the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) explains that in
making a §480 determination CSLB staff will consider “whether the crime shows the present or
potential unfitness of an applicant . . . to perform the functions authorized by the license in a
manner consistent with public health, safety, or welfare.”116 Pursuant to §480, the CSLB will
also take into account evidence of rehabilitation, including counseling, gainful employment, and

116

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD, at
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/applicants/FingerprintQA.asp (last visited Jan. 27, 2006).

39
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

completion of an appropriate rehabilitation program.117 While it is therefore not impossible to
become licensed, ex-offenders who do wish to obtain a contractor’s license may encounter
significant legal difficulties in doing so. Lower-level workers who do not need to be licensed
will likely have an easier time finding employment in the industry.
20. Truck Drivers (Heavy and Tractor-Trailer)
Those who wish to drive a heavy truck or tractor trailer in California must obtain a
commercial drivers license (CDL) from the state. While there are no categorical bars restricting
ex-offenders from obtaining a CDL, certain classes of offenders are barred. Those who have
been convicted of driving with or causing injury because of an excessive blood alcohol level
content in any vehicle (not just a truck) cannot obtain a CDL. Similarly, anyone who has used a
motor vehicle in the commission of a felony cannot obtain a CDL.118 While some ex-offenders
will be eligible for a CDL, others will face absolute bars.
VI. Recommendations
The above statutory analysis reveals, all other factors being equal, where ex-felons will
face significant legal hurdles in the job application process. Similarly, the analysis indicates
which occupations are least subject to statutory regulation and therefore most available to exoffenders looking for work. Table 5 uses the statutory analysis to divide the occupations studied
into those that are more likely to be available to ex-offenders, and those that are more likely to be
unavailable. This information can help the CDCR as it expands its job programs to
accommodate more inmates.
A number of trends emerge from the statutory analysis. First and foremost, occupations
that require the employee to exercise personal responsibility over the health, safety, or welfare of
117

Id.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE INFORMATION, at
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/commercial/commercial.htm (last visited Jan. 27, 2006).
118

40
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

another human being are subject to the most legal regulation and are not welcoming to those with
criminal records. Ex-offenders will almost never be hired as nurses, security guards, teachers, or
teacher assistants. Fortunately, the CDCR is without a doubt aware of the unlikelihood that an
ex-offender would be hired as a security guard, a nurse, or a teacher, and currently does not train
its inmates for any of these occupations. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the State rarely
regulates menial, low-level workers like cashiers or waiters. These types of positions are
available to ex-offenders, at least from a legal standpoint. Neither of these outcomes is
particularly surprising, although both are somewhat troubling. As things stand, the positions
most readily available to ex-offenders are by their very nature dead-end, unstable jobs. Although
a job working at McDonald’s is better than nothing, it is less likely to provide an ex-offender
with the resources, stability, and sense of accomplishment he needs to get his life on track.
Although the overall trends are discouraging, the CDCR can work within the present
statutory scheme to improve job prospects for ex-offenders. It appears that ex-offenders will be
statutorily barred from any of the higher-level, better-paying jobs in California that will be
experiencing the most growth in the next decade. Conversely, the growing job sectors that are
most readily available to ex-offenders involve little skill and pay low wages. This makes it
somewhat difficult for the CDCR as it looks to expand its job training programs. While exoffenders could probably get hired as cashiers, waitresses, and food prep workers, the CDCR
cannot play much role in training inmates for these jobs, beyond giving them general workplace
skills, which every inmate should receive. There are some occupations, however, that are both
potentially attainable for ex-offenders and that require training of the sort the CDCR could
provide.

41
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

Specifically, the CDCR should expand its programming to train inmates to work as office
clerks, receptionists and information clerks, carpenters, landscapers, and construction laborers.
Each of these occupations is among those growing fastest in California, is not subject to
restrictive statutory barriers that would bar ex-offenders, and requires specialized skill training.
First, office clerks likely need computer, and perhaps accounting skills, both of which are
areas in which the CDCR could provide training. Office clerks are also likely to get paid more
and experience more job stability than cashiers or waitresses, attributes that are important to exoffenders in finding employment.
Second, receptionists and information clerks also likely need computer training, as well
as training in appropriate and helpful personal interaction. The CDCR has already experienced
positive results when training inmates to work at call centers. As discussed above in Part IIIC,
the CYA and TWA established a successful call-reservation center, and many CYA inmates
continued to work for TWA upon release. The CDCR should consider emulating this successful
joint venture in its adult prisons.
Third, the CDCR should continue to focus on carpentry programs. As Tables 2 and 3
show, PIA already has a wood products enterprise, and over twenty of the state prisons train
inmates in mill work and cabinetry. These programs should be expanded both in the number of
inmates they serve and in the breadth of carpentry skills they teach. Carpentry is not generally
subject to stringent legal regulations and could be a strong potential source of jobs for exoffenders.
Fourth, inmates could be effectively trained to work as groundskeepers and landscapers.
While some inmates currently work as landscapers for the prison grounds, the CDCR should
attempt to increase the number of inmates receiving this type of training.

42
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

Finally, although PIA recently closed its prison-construction program, the CDCR as a
whole should seriously consider reviving construction-related job programming in some
capacity. The construction industry is flourishing in California due to the housing boom and the
demand for construction laborers will continue to grow. While statutes might bar ex-offenders
from obtaining licenses to practice as contractors and managers, there appear to be no statutory
restrictions that would prevent an ex-offender from working on a construction crew. Many of
these crew members will still need specialized training – something the CDCR should provide
for its inmates.
By expanding into these five job sectors, the CDCR can help pave the way for exoffenders attempting to turn their lives around. The CDCR should also develop performance
measures to track inmate employability upon release. As discussed above, PIA, for example,
currently does not evaluate its participants’ post-release success. If the CDCR expands
programming to encompass the jobs sectors identified above, it must evaluate the impact of the
expanded programs on released prisoners to ensure that the programs are actually correlating to
job success on the outside.
This paper has focused on evaluating job prospects for ex-offenders as they appear within
the State’s present statutory scheme. While it is most realistic for the CDCR to work within this
statutory scheme at the moment, legislators and policymakers who truly want to increase
employment prospects for ex-felons should also consider more drastic steps.
First, the State should help facilitate and streamline the process of obtaining a Certificate
of Rehabilitation. Under §480 of the Business and Professions Code, a board cannot deny a
license to an applicant based solely on the fact that he committed a crime if he has been properly
rehabilitated. If we increase the number of ex-felons who are rehabilitated in the eyes of the

43
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

State, then we can increase the number of formerly incarcerated persons who can obtain
occupational licenses and thereby improve their employment prospects. In order to make
certificates more accessible, the State should provide information about the rehabilitation process
to all offenders upon their release, and should make the process more user-friendly so as to
encourage more ex-offenders to participate.
Second, the State should revisit the present statutory scheme. While the CDCR can make
strides towards improving job prospects for inmates by re-designing its job programming, the
Department is still hampered to a great degree by the State’s statutory restrictions. As the above
analysis reveals, many of the higher-paying and higher-skilled jobs are simply off-limits to
someone with a criminal conviction. The State does not signal a desire to assist ex-offenders in
establishing a productive life if the only jobs they can get are menial and low-wage. If the State
truly believes in the concept of “rehabilitation” as embodied in the Department’s new title, then
the legislature should consider relaxing some of the statutory barriers so that those ex-offenders
who want high-quality jobs can get them. In particular, the legislature should define the contours
of the “substantial relationship” requirement embodied in §480. Currently, the courts have given
the phrase a broad interpretation, due in part to little legislative guidance. If the legislature made
clear that an extremely close nexus is required between the crime of conviction and the qualities
required for the license being sought, then fewer ex-offenders would be denied occupational
licenses because of their criminal records.
Finally, discrimination against ex-offenders by employers is widespread and needs to be
diminished. Wisconsin, Hawaii, and New York have all succeeded in passing antidiscrimination statutes that prohibit employment and licensing discrimination based on criminal

44
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.

convictions.119 California should consider doing the same if it wants to assist ex-offenders in
getting jobs, and thereby work on reducing the State’s incredibly high rate of recidivism.
VII. Conclusion
By expanding its job programming to train inmates as office clerks, receptionists and
information clerks, landscapers, carpenters, and construction laborers, the CDCR can begin to
address the supply and demand mismatch identified by Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll. If exoffenders are able to perform jobs for which there is both a need for labor and a legal ability to
employ those with a criminal record, then one might see an increase in the number of ex-felons
in California who find steady, paying work. This will help the CDCR achieve its goal of
rehabilitating its prisoners and will potentially assist the State of California in reducing its high
rate of recidivism. Policymakers should also consider revamping the present statutory scheme to
increase the attainability of certificates of rehabilitation, to relax the occupational licensing
restrictions as they apply to ex-offenders, and to include an anti-discrimination component.
Research suggests that employment is the single most effective factor in reducing
reoffending rates. A prison job program can only be truly successful if it assists offenders in
finding the employment that will keep them from returning to prison. By following the
recommendations outlined in this paper and by carefully studying the subsequent results of
changes to prison job programming, the State of California might never be forced to tell someone
like Mr. LaCloche that he is unemployable in his chosen profession by virtue of his criminal
record.

119

May, supra note 78, at 208.

45
California Sentencing & Corrections Policy Series Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working
Papers. Distributed for Review and Comment only. Do not cite without author's permission.