AB 667 adds Section 41 to the Business and Professions Code to force licensing boards under the Department of Consumer Affairs to start collecting applicants’ language preferences and to use that data to determine interpreter needs. The statute defines key terms (including “interpreter” and a 5% threshold for a “substantial number” of non‑English‑speaking applicants), sets deadlines for reviews and determinations, and creates short‑term reporting obligations to the Legislature and to specified committee panels.
The bill is procedural rather than prescriptive: it does not itself require boards to provide interpreters or translated exams, but it creates mandatory data collection and a statutory trigger for boards to identify whether interpreter services are needed. The measure therefore changes how boards must plan for language access and creates time‑limited reporting duties and inoperative (sunset) dates for those duties.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires each Department of Consumer Affairs board (except Division 2 boards) to add an application section asking applicants to identify preferred written, spoken, and signed languages, to annually review that data, and to determine whether at least 5% of applicants constitute a substantial number needing interpreter services. It also requires boards to report those determinations and to make ongoing annual reports to specific legislative committees for a limited period.
Who It Affects
State licensing boards under the Department of Consumer Affairs (excluding boards in Division 2), applicants for professional licenses who are non‑English speakers or signers, testing vendors and exam administrators, and interpreter/translation service providers that boards or contractors might engage.
Why It Matters
This bill creates the first uniform, statute‑level requirement for language‑preference data across most California licensing boards, enabling evidence‑based planning for language access during exams and licensing processes. For compliance officers and board executives it shifts work from ad hoc accommodations toward data collection, analysis, and near‑term legislative reporting obligations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 41 creates a short, focused framework: collect language preferences, review them annually, decide whether a 5% threshold of non‑English‑speaking applicants exists, and report the findings to the Legislature and to two standing committees. The statute defines who counts as a board (most Department of Consumer Affairs boards, excluding Division 2), what an “interpreter” is (someone fluent in English and the second language, including sign language), and sets the 5% threshold that triggers a determination of a substantial number of non‑English‑speaking applicants.
On the ground, the bill makes three operational moves. First, it requires an additional section on license applications asking applicants to identify preferred written, spoken, and signed languages.
Second, it requires boards to begin an annual review of that collected data and to determine whether interpreter services are required based on the 5% threshold. Third, it imposes near‑term reporting duties: boards must report the initial determinations to the Legislature and then begin annual reports to the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee and the Assembly Business and Professions Committee.The statute includes two separate reporting tracks with different lifespans.
The initial determination and reporting requirement must be completed and reported to the Legislature by January 1, 2028, but that subdivision becomes inoperative on January 1, 2030. The annual reporting to the two legislative committees begins January 1, 2029, and that obligation sunsets on January 1, 2033.
The bill ties its reporting mechanics to existing Government Code procedures for submitting reports (Section 9795) and cites the Government Code provision that governs inoperative reporting provisions. The text therefore builds time‑limited transparency into boards’ language‑access planning without creating a permanent statutory mandate to provide interpreters.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute requires boards to add an application question asking applicants to identify preferred written, spoken, and signed languages (the text lists both "By July 1, 2026" and "January 1, 2027" as deadlines in the provision).
The bill defines a “substantial number of non‑English‑speaking applicants” as those who do not speak English or cannot effectively communicate in English and who make up 5% or more of total applicants.
By July 1, 2027 boards must conduct an annual review of the language‑preference data and determine whether the 5% threshold is met, and boards must report those determinations to the Legislature by January 1, 2028 (that determination/reporting subdivision becomes inoperative January 1, 2030).
Beginning January 1, 2029, boards must annually report language‑preference data to the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee and the Assembly Business and Professions Committee; that annual reporting requirement sunsets January 1, 2033.
The statute defines “interpreter” to include someone fluent in English and the necessary second language who can speak/read/interpret that language, and explicitly includes sign language interpreters; it also excludes boards in Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) from these requirements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Which boards are covered
This clause limits the bill to boards under the Department of Consumer Affairs as listed in Section 101, but expressly excludes boards located in Division 2 (beginning with Section 500). Practically, most professional licensing boards — nursing, barbers, real estate, medical related boards under DCA jurisdiction — will need to comply, while the excluded Division 2 entities will not. Boards must confirm early whether they fall inside the statute’s scope to avoid unnecessary implementation work.
How the bill defines an interpreter
The statute defines “interpreter” by function and fluency: a person fluent in English and the second language who can accurately speak, read, and interpret, and it separately recognizes sign language competence. That language sets a functional standard but leaves open operational specifics (certification, credentialing, use of certified versus ad hoc interpreters) that boards will need to resolve in policy or contract terms.
The 5% threshold for a “substantial number”
The bill adopts a simple numeric trigger: non‑English‑speaking applicants count as a substantial cohort when they comprise 5% or more of all applicants. The threshold is binary and easy to compute from application data, but it does not differentiate by language (a single language could be 5% or multiple small language groups could combine to reach 5%), which affects decisions about which interpreter languages to provide.
Application question and annual review
Subdivision (b) requires boards to add an application section that captures preferred written, spoken, and signed languages; subdivision (c) requires boards to review that data annually starting on the date the statute specifies. Boards will need to incorporate the new fields into online and paper applications, update vendor forms, and establish data collection, storage, and reporting workflows so the annual reviews produce reliable counts.
Determination, reporting, and sunsets
Subdivision (d) requires boards to determine by July 1, 2027 whether the 5% threshold is met and to report that determination to the Legislature by January 1, 2028; that specific duty becomes inoperative on January 1, 2030. Subdivision (e) requires annual reporting to two legislative committees beginning January 1, 2029, and that committee‑reporting duty sunsets January 1, 2033. Both reporting paths must comply with Government Code Section 9795, so reports follow existing formatting and submission rules; boards should plan for the separate timing, content, and duration of these reports.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Non‑English‑speaking and Deaf/hard‑of‑hearing applicants — They gain a formal way to register language preferences, which informs boards’ planning and could improve access during exams and licensure interactions when boards or test vendors act on the data.
- Consumers who rely on licensed professionals — Better data can lead to more linguistically appropriate licensing exams and credentialing, which may increase the supply of licensed practitioners able to serve limited‑English‑proficiency communities.
- Interpreter and translation service providers — Statutory data on language demand creates clearer procurement signals that could increase contracting opportunities for qualified interpreters and translation vendors.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Consumer Affairs boards (particularly small boards) — They must modify application forms, update IT systems, train staff, and run annual analyses; these are real administrative and vendor costs that the bill does not fund.
- Exam vendors and test administrators — If boards act on the data, vendors may need to provide interpreters, translated materials, or alternate formats, increasing operational complexity and cost.
- State and local taxpayers — If boards choose to provide interpreters or translate exams, some costs may fall to the state; the bill itself creates reporting duties that consume staff time and resources without an appropriation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the goal of equitable language access (collecting data so that boards can identify and respond to non‑English‑speaking applicants) and the practical burden of implementing accommodations (cost, test security, staffing, and vendor complexity) without clear funding or operational direction; the statute forces visibility but leaves the hard choices about who pays and how accommodations are delivered.
The bill creates useful data obligations but leaves several implementation gaps. It establishes what to collect (preferred written, spoken, and signed languages) and a bright‑line 5% trigger, but it does not specify how boards must verify, validate, or secure that data, nor how they should translate a 5% flag into concrete accommodations (live interpreters for exam sittings, translated test content, extended time, or other measures).
Boards must decide whether to use certified interpreters, how to account for dialects or multiple sign languages, and how to protect applicants’ privacy when collecting sensitive demographic and language information.
There are also practical tensions between the statute’s timelines and operational realities. The text lists two dates for the application change ("By July 1, 2026, January 1, 2027"), which introduces ambiguity about the effective deadline; boards and CIO/vendor teams will need to resolve that while preserving chain‑of‑custody and test security.
The two reporting tracks have different sunset dates, which can limit long‑term planning: the initial determination reporting becomes inoperative in 2030, while annual committee reporting continues until 2033. If boards use the short reporting window to design long‑term language access programs without additional statutory authority or funding, those programs may be unsustainable once the statutory reporting ends.
Finally, the 5% threshold is easy to measure but arbitrary; small language populations spread across many languages could be disadvantaged if boards interpret the threshold too mechanically.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.