Abstract：
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
摘要：
背景：在医疗保健方面，许可无处不在。对有犯罪记录的申请人的限制可能会对历史上被边缘化的群体产生不同的影响。两党都有兴趣评估职业许可要求是否过于严格。
方法：我们分析了十二个具有代表性的州（加利福尼亚州，科罗拉多,康涅狄格州,特拉华州,佛罗里达,伊利诺伊州,密苏里州,纽约,俄亥俄州,宾夕法尼亚,南达科他州,和德克萨斯州)处理有犯罪记录的申请人到五个入门级专职医疗专业(牙科卫生师，职业治疗助理，理疗助理,放射技师,和呼吸治疗师)。
结果：除了一个层次分析法，所有州都要求其许可委员会考虑过去的严重刑事定罪。大多数州要求定罪与专业职责的范围密切相关，以便为取消资格提供依据。大多数州使申请人难以确定他们是否可以获得许可证。
结论：州许可委员会在处理有犯罪记录的申请人方面拥有相当大的自由裁量权。趋势是减少限制，但是可以做更多的工作来提高州许可委员会指导方针的透明度，实践,和程序-特别是在仍然依赖“良好道德品质”测试的州。
方法：我们分析了十二个具有代表性的州（加利福尼亚州，科罗拉多,康涅狄格州,特拉华州,佛罗里达,伊利诺伊州,密苏里州,纽约,俄亥俄州,宾夕法尼亚,南达科他州,和德克萨斯州)处理有犯罪记录的申请人到五个入门级专职医疗专业(牙科卫生师，职业治疗助理，理疗助理,放射技师,和呼吸治疗师)。
结果：除了一个层次分析法，所有州都要求其许可委员会考虑过去的严重刑事定罪。大多数州要求定罪与专业职责的范围密切相关，以便为取消资格提供依据。大多数州使申请人难以确定他们是否可以获得许可证。
结论：州许可委员会在处理有犯罪记录的申请人方面拥有相当大的自由裁量权。趋势是减少限制，但是可以做更多的工作来提高州许可委员会指导方针的透明度，实践,和程序-特别是在仍然依赖“良好道德品质”测试的州。
