Abstract
Context: In health care, licensing is pervasive. Restrictions on applicants with criminal records may have a disparate impact on historically marginalized groups. There is bipartisan interest in evaluating whether occupational licensing requirements are too strict.
Methods: The authors analyze how 12 representative states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Texas) respond when people with criminal records apply for a license for five entry-level allied health professions (dental hygienist, occupational therapy assistant, physical therapy assistant, radiologic technologist, and respiratory therapist).
Findings: With one exception for one allied health profession, all states require their licensing boards to consider past serious criminal convictions. A majority of states require the conviction to be substantially related to the scope of professional duties for it to provide a basis for disqualification. Most states make it difficult for applicants with criminal records to determine whether they may obtain a license.
Conclusions: State licensing boards have considerable discretion in handling applicants with a criminal record. The trend is toward fewer restrictions, but more could be done to increase the transparency of state licensing board guidelines, practices, and procedures—particularly in the states that still rely on a “good moral character” test.
