AB 922 adds Section 92612.3 to the Education Code to permit the University of California to require fingerprint-based criminal background checks completed by the Department of Justice for prospective staff employees, contractors, and volunteers who occupy UC‑designated "Critical Positions." The bill directs the UC to submit fingerprint images and required identifying information to the DOJ and empowers the DOJ to return state and federal conviction information in response.
The bill also imposes ongoing operational duties: the UC must promptly notify the DOJ to terminate notifications when an individual no longer occupies a position that permits notification, verify every six months that notifications remain appropriate, and inform the DOJ if it receives an arrest alert for someone unknown or whose notification was terminated. The measure clarifies that it cannot be used to override existing state limits on using conviction history for hiring decisions under Government Code Section 12952.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes the University of California to submit fingerprint images to the California Department of Justice for state and federal criminal-history checks under Penal Code Section 11105(u) and to receive responses under 11105(p). It also creates affirmative duties for the UC to terminate and verify DOJ notification subscriptions and to report mismatched notifications immediately.
Who It Affects
UC human resources, campus hiring managers, compliance and privacy teams, contractors and volunteers considered for UC Critical Positions, and the DOJ's processing unit that handles state and federal conviction checks and subsequent-arrest notification services.
Why It Matters
It provides the express statutory basis the UC says is necessary to retain federal conviction data access after a federal grace period ends on January 1, 2027, and it converts a personnel practice into a statutory program with routine verification and notification requirements that carry operational, privacy, and legal compliance consequences.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 922 creates a narrow statutory mechanism so the University of California can continue submitting fingerprints to the Department of Justice for comprehensive criminal-history checks. The bill targets UC‑designated "Critical Positions" — staff roles the university has already decided carry sensitive duties — and limits background checks to the "final stages" of recruitment, which the bill leaves to UC procedures.
It requires UC to provide fingerprint images and other identifying information the DOJ needs, and it relies on existing Penal Code provisions for how the DOJ conducts and responds to those checks.
Beyond the initial report, the bill treats the relationship as an ongoing notification service. When the DOJ issues alerts for subsequent arrests or dispositions, UC must keep that notification stream accurate: it must immediately tell the DOJ to stop notifying for any individual who no longer occupies a qualifying position, verify at least every six months that active notifications remain appropriate, and inform the DOJ if it receives an alert about someone the university does not recognize or whose notification it already terminated.
These are practical recordkeeping and systems obligations, not optional best practices.The statute expressly preserves limits in Government Code Section 12952, which constrains how employers use criminal-history information in hiring. The bill also includes legislative findings that a federal grace period allowing UC to access federal conviction records ends January 1, 2027; the sponsor frames this statute as the authorizing step required to maintain access after that date.
Finally, while the bill authorizes fingerprinting for contractors and volunteers as well as staff, it ties the authority back to UC's internal "Critical Positions" definition rather than establishing a new statewide standard.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 92612.3 lets the University of California submit fingerprint images to the DOJ for state and federal criminal-history checks during the final stages of recruiting for UC‑defined "Critical Positions.", The UC must supply fingerprint images and related identifying data to the DOJ pursuant to Penal Code Section 11105(u); the DOJ will return state and, if applicable, federal responses under Section 11105(p).
The UC must immediately notify the DOJ to terminate notification for any individual who no longer occupies a position that permits notifications and the DOJ must act on that termination upon receipt.
The UC must verify at least once every six months that active notification subscriptions remain appropriate and must tell the DOJ immediately if it gets an arrest alert for someone unknown to the university or for whom it has already terminated service.
The section explicitly states it does not authorize hiring practices inconsistent with Government Code Section 12952, preserving statutory limits on using conviction history in employment decisions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Why the Legislature placed this authorization into law
The bill opens with findings that stress two operational points: (1) the University of California treats itself as a public trust and needs tools to protect campus safety and assets; and (2) the UC previously relied on a federal "grace period" to receive federal conviction information, which will expire January 1, 2027. The findings frame the substantive section that follows as a narrowly tailored fix to preserve UC access to federal conviction data under DOJ processes.
Authority to require DOJ-completed background checks in final recruitment stages
Subdivision (a) gives the UC explicit statutory authority to require background checks to be completed by the DOJ during the final stages of recruitment for prospective staff, contractors, and volunteers. The provision leaves the exact timing and triggers (for example, whether after conditional offer) to UC practice, but it ties the authority to positions UC has labeled Critical Positions rather than to a statewide list.
Fingerprint submission and DOJ response mechanism
This subsection requires the UC to submit fingerprint images and related information to the DOJ and cites Penal Code Section 11105(u) as the procedural hook. It also requires the DOJ to deliver a state or federal response, or both, under subdivision (p) of Section 11105. Practically speaking, UC HR will transmit electronic fingerprint data and expect the DOJ to return conviction and arrest history available at the state and federal level consistent with existing DOJ processes.
Ongoing notification, termination, and verification duties
Subdivision (c) turns the background-check connection into an ongoing notification relationship: UC must immediately tell the DOJ to terminate notifications when an individual no longer occupies a qualifying position; it must verify every six months that active notifications remain appropriate; and it must inform the DOJ immediately if it receives an arrest notification for someone unknown to the university or for whom notifications were previously terminated. These are affirmative operational obligations that require records, timetables, and workflows to avoid stale or inappropriate notification streams.
Limitations tied to existing state hiring law
The final clause makes clear the new authority does not permit hiring practices that conflict with Government Code Section 12952, which constrains how employers use conviction records in employment. That places a legal boundary around the bill: UC gains access to DOJ data, but state limits on disqualification and use still apply.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education 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
- University of California administration — Gains statutory authorization to receive federal conviction records via DOJ processes, reducing legal uncertainty and preserving an information source UC cites as necessary for vetting Critical Positions.
- UC campuses and departments hiring for sensitive roles — Get a more complete criminal-history picture (state and federal) for candidates in roles UC deems high-risk, which supports campus safety and asset protection strategies.
- UC risk, compliance, and legal teams — Obtain a clearer statutory basis for existing background-check workflows, which simplifies audits and external inquiries about why and how DOJ data are used.
- Students and campus community — Indirectly benefit from a hiring process that the UC frames as improving safety for positions with substantial access or fiduciary responsibilities.
Who Bears the Cost
- University of California (HR and IT operations) — Must build and maintain processes to submit fingerprints, track DOJ notifications, perform six‑month verifications, and reconcile mismatched alerts, with associated staffing and systems costs.
- Prospective staff, contractors, and volunteers — Face fingerprinting and expanded background scrutiny when applying for UC Critical Positions, and risk adverse employment decisions based on broader federal/state conviction data.
- Department of Justice — Incurs processing load and record‑matching work to handle UC submissions and subsequent-arrest notifications, which may require resource adjustments at the DOJ unit that performs these services.
- Small contractors and volunteer programs — May experience increased onboarding friction or exclusion if their personnel face disqualification based on broader federal conviction information and UC policies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill trades a clear, statutory pathway to fuller criminal-history information (which UC and campus communities argue supports safety) for increased intrusion into applicants' records and significant operational obligations for UC and DOJ; that trade-off forces a choice between maximizing information for risk management and protecting applicants from overreach, inconsistent application, and privacy harms.
The bill solves a narrow access problem — preserving UC access to federal conviction data — by codifying a DOJ-submission pathway and layering in operational duties. That resolution, however, creates several implementation tensions.
First, the statute places heavy practical responsibilities on UC HR and IT systems: timely termination of notifications and six‑month verifications require accurate, auditable rosters and integration with DOJ subscription services. Smaller units and decentralized campuses may struggle to centralize the required workflows.
Second, the bill shifts the balance between safety and privacy without prescribing fair‑chance safeguards beyond referencing Government Code Section 12952. The measure authorizes broader data access but leaves UC policy to define "Critical Positions" and to decide how to apply conviction history in hiring.
That combination risks uneven application across campuses and potential challenges under state employment‑discrimination or fair‑chance rules. Finally, the statute relies on DOJ's federal conviction reporting practices; differences in record completeness, delays, or false‑positive matches (fingerprint misidentification) can produce inaccurate results or disproportionate consequences for applicants, and the bill does not set timelines or remedies for resolving such mismatches.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.