SB 385 amends Penal Code section 13511.1 to remove the statutory requirement that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) "approve and adopt" education criteria for peace officers based on a Chancellor-developed report. The amendment preserves the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges’ advisory process and the report’s substantive recommendations—course topics, allowances for prior experience, and suggested minimum degree paths—but eliminates the commission’s duty to convert those recommendations into mandatory statewide criteria.
The bill declares itself an urgency statute to take effect immediately, citing recruitment pressures as its rationale. Practically, the change shifts the recommendations from a legislatively mandated path to potential guidance only, increasing hiring flexibility for local agencies but also raising questions about statewide consistency, college program incentives, and the legal status of minimum education expectations for peace officer employment.
At a Glance
What It Does
Deletes the statutory deadline and duty that required POST to approve and adopt education criteria for peace officers based on a Chancellor’s report. It keeps intact the advisory process and the report’s recommended course list and allowance rules for prior experience.
Who It Affects
The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, California Community Colleges and CSU stakeholders designing policing curricula, local law enforcement agencies setting hiring standards, and applicants whose qualifications rely on education or prior experience.
Why It Matters
By removing the adoption requirement, the bill prevents the conversion of recommended minimum education standards into binding statewide criteria, trading potential uniform professional standards for greater hiring flexibility and immediate relief for recruitment pressures.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 385 edits the existing Penal Code provision that set a two-step approach: (1) the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, advised by stakeholders, produces a report recommending a modern policing degree program and related education criteria; and (2) POST had two years after the report to adopt those recommendations as education criteria for hiring peace officers. The amendment leaves the Chancellor’s advisory process and the required report content in place but removes the statutory obligation on POST to approve and adopt the recommendations.
The retained report language specifies what the Chancellor’s recommendations should look like: a curriculum focus on subjects such as psychology, communications, history, ethnic studies, and law; allowances that let prior law enforcement, work, postsecondary, or military experience satisfy parts of hiring eligibility; and the Legislature’s intent that both a modern policing degree and a bachelor’s degree be recommended as minimum education pathways. The text also includes an express expectation that allowances for prior experience be limited for those with sustained disciplinary findings, while permitting POST to grant partial allowances after weighing severity.With the commission’s adoption duty removed, those curricular recommendations lose the automatic pathway to becoming binding statewide minimums.
That means local employers and agencies retain discretion over education requirements unless POST or another entity acts under a different legal authority. The bill also includes a recommendation to pursue financial assistance for students from underserved communities who face barriers to meeting any recommended education requirements, but again, that recommendation is not converted into a mandatory statewide employment floor by this amendment.Finally, the act is declared an urgency statute, effective immediately.
The legislative finding frames the immediate effect as necessary to "alleviate pressure on law enforcement recruitment," signaling a policy choice to prioritize short-term hiring flexibility over legislatively mandated standardization of education for peace officers.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 385 amends Penal Code §13511.1 to remove the statutory requirement that POST approve and adopt education criteria derived from the Chancellor’s report.
The amendment leaves intact the advisory process led by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the required report content, including recommended course topics and degree pathways.
The report language retained by the statute recommends allowing prior law enforcement, work, postsecondary, or military experience to satisfy part of hiring eligibility, subject to exclusions for those with sustained disciplinary actions and potential partial allowances by POST.
The statute’s recommendations include both a modern policing degree program and a bachelor’s degree as minimum education pathways, but the bill prevents those recommendations from automatically becoming binding statewide requirements.
SB 385 is an urgency statute and takes effect immediately, with the legislative justification that immediate action is needed to relieve recruitment pressures.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Removes POST's duty to adopt education criteria
This amendment deletes the clause that previously required the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to approve and adopt education criteria for peace officers within two years of the Chancellor’s report. Mechanically, the change converts what had been a statutory trigger for binding statewide criteria into a provision that only requires the Chancellor’s office to convene stakeholders and prepare recommendations. The practical effect is to leave adoption discretionary rather than mandatory.
Retains advisory process and detailed recommendation content
The bill preserves the advisory role for stakeholders from law enforcement, California State University, and community organizations to help the Chancellor craft the modern policing degree program and report. It also preserves specific recommendation elements: a list of pertinent course topics (e.g., psychology, communications, ethnic studies), allowances for prior experience (including certain military specializations), the Legislature’s intent that allowances exclude those with sustained disciplinary actions except for potential partial allowances by POST, and suggestions for financial aid targeting underserved students. Those retained specifics shape what guidance might look like if adopted voluntarily, but they no longer have a statutory conversion mechanism.
Urgency declaration and immediate effect
The bill declares itself necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety and therefore takes effect immediately upon enactment. The legislative facts cite recruitment pressure as the reason for urgency. Legally, that immediate effect means the repeal of the adoption duty applies at once, altering any pending expectations about when or whether statewide education criteria would become mandatory.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice 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
- Local law enforcement agencies and departments — Gain hiring flexibility because the removal of the statutory adoption duty makes it less likely that a single statewide minimum education standard will bind local hiring decisions.
- Recruit candidates with nontraditional backgrounds (military, work experience, prior law enforcement) — Retained allowance language and the lack of a binding statewide degree floor make it easier for applicants with relevant experience to meet eligibility in many jurisdictions.
- California community colleges and program developers — Avoid the immediate pressure of producing programs that must meet a guaranteed statutory minimum, giving more time to design curricula and partnerships without a binding statewide mandate.
- Employers facing acute staffing shortages — Benefit from reduced near-term risk that a newly adopted mandatory education floor will further constrict labor supply.
Who Bears the Cost
- Advocates and organizations pushing for standardized education and professionalization — Lose a clear statutory path to make recommended education requirements uniform across the state, weakening leverage to raise baseline standards.
- Students and prospective recruits who planned around expectation of funded degree pathways — Face uncertainty because financial assistance recommendations were not converted into enforceable commitments tied to mandatory education requirements.
- Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) — Loses a legislatively mandated role to adopt minimum education criteria, which may shift political pressure, responsibilities, or expectations onto POST without clarifying its authority to act voluntarily.
- Local governments and agencies — May inherit greater legal and administrative variability as different jurisdictions set divergent hiring standards, complicating regional recruitment and reciprocity of qualifications.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between immediate recruitment flexibility and long-term professional standardization: easing statutory education mandates may help agencies hire now, but it risks undermining the creation of uniform, equity-focused education pathways for peace officers and may produce inconsistent standards across the state—trading predictability and professionalization for short-term labor-market relief.
The bill solves one problem—removing a statutory obligation that could have raised minimum education floors during a recruitment crunch—but it creates a suite of implementation and policy questions. Without the commission’s mandatory adoption step, the Chancellor’s recommendations remain advisory.
That preserves flexibility but also invites a patchwork: local employers may adopt different criteria, and colleges lose a clear demand signal that could have justified program investments or state-backed financial assistance tied to a mandated standard.
There are important unresolved legal and operational points. The amendment does not remove POST’s ability to act under other statutory authorities, so POST could still adopt standards voluntarily; the bill simply removes the specific duty and deadline.
It also leaves open how financial assistance recommendations will be funded or administered absent a binding education floor. The statute’s language about prior disciplinary actions and partial allowances gives POST discretionary authority to weigh misconduct severity if it chooses to grant exceptions, but with the adoption duty removed, the mechanism and safeguards for consistent application across jurisdictions remain unclear.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.