DFPR-CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS
SB2347 would revise Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (DFPR) licensing rules for applicants with criminal records. It changes the standard the Department must use when evaluating convictions, directing DFPR to determine whether a conviction is directly related to the applicant’s ability to safely perform the duties of the occupation, and to weigh specified mitigating factors and evidence of rehabilitation. The bill also requires written explanations for adverse decisions, notice of appeal or reapplication rights, and a public website listing of state licensing restrictions that bar work in certain positions.
The bill further removes the requirement that licensed or registered professionals be of “good moral character” and bars DFPR from relying on vague terms such as “good moral character,” “moral turpitude,” or “character and fitness” when deciding whether a criminal record disqualifies an applicant. It also limits what criminal history applicants may be required to disclose or have considered, including excluding certain juvenile records, arrests not leading to conviction, nonviolent misdemeanors, older convictions, and sealed or expunged records, subject to stated exceptions for certain serious offenses and other licensing restrictions.
A separate section amends the Barber, Cosmetology, Esthetics, Hair Braiding, and Nail Technology Act of 1985. Under that change, DFPR could not automatically hold, delay, deny, or fail to process an application simply because the applicant is incarcerated. The bill also requires the Department to count supervised practice performed while incarcerated when evaluating qualifications for a license in those fields.
The bill’s impact would be to make Illinois occupational licensing more accessible to people with criminal histories, especially by narrowing discretionary barriers and creating more structured review and notice requirements. It would affect DFPR’s licensing, certification, and registration processes across regulated professions, and it would specifically expand pathways into barbering and related cosmetology occupations for incarcerated individuals and people reentering the workforce after conviction.
No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears generally reform-oriented and likely intended to reduce collateral consequences of conviction and improve reentry opportunities. The main likely point of contention is whether removing “good moral character” standards and restricting the use of criminal records could weaken consumer protection or public safety screening, versus arguments that the bill makes licensing decisions more objective, fair, and rehabilitation-focused.
SB2347 would amend the Civil Administrative Code provisions governing DFPR’s review of applicants with criminal convictions and would revise the Barber, Cosmetology, Esthetics, Hair Braiding, and Nail Technology Act of 1985. It would replace broad, discretionary moral-character screening with a more specific, factor-based assessment of whether a conviction is directly related to safe job performance, while also limiting the criminal history information that may be required or considered in licensure decisions. The bill would also impose new notice, written findings, appeal, and reapplication disclosure requirements on the Department and would require a public list of licensing restrictions that bar work in certain occupations. In the barber/cosmetology context, it would require DFPR to process applications from incarcerated people and to recognize supervised practice completed during incarceration toward licensure qualifications.
No votes or committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to summarize. The bill text suggests a generally supportive, reform-minded approach focused on occupational licensing reform, reentry, and reducing barriers for people with criminal records. Its structure indicates an intent to make licensing decisions more transparent and less subjective, which typically aligns with criminal justice and workforce reintegration policy goals.
The likely contention centers on the bill’s reduction of DFPR discretion and its elimination of vague moral-character standards. Supporters would likely argue that terms like “good moral character” and “moral turpitude” are subjective, inconsistently applied, and unnecessarily exclude rehabilitated applicants. Opponents may argue that limiting consideration of criminal history could make it harder for the Department to protect public health and safety, especially in occupations involving direct public contact or trust. A secondary point of contention is the bill’s treatment of incarcerated applicants in barbering and related fields, which could raise concerns about administrative burden, supervision standards, and whether prison-based training should count toward licensure.