Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Licensing Residency topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board reviews licensing numbers and recommends approval for 18 California residency programs

5031094 · June 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff reported licensing activity for fiscal third quarter and the licensing committee recommended approval of 18 California postgraduate podiatric residency programs for 2025–26.

Board staff presented licensing and residency program data for the third quarter of fiscal year 2024–25 and the licensing committee’s recommendations for program approvals.

Staff said there were 29 newly licensed DPMs, 29 pending applications and three candidates who had completed their package during the quarter reported (January 1–March 31). Renewals totaled 292 with 267 licenses renewed in the third quarter. Staff also reported three residents were added to the second‑year resident rotation list, bringing a stated total of 133 residents on the list.

On residency programs, staff reported that 18 separate California postgraduate clinical training programs submitted applications for the 2025–26 academic year. The licensing committee met on May 7 and recommended all 18 programs for approval.

Board members asked clarifying questions about the applications and staff availability to review the materials; one board member noted they had not seen all applications and requested time to review before final acceptance of minutes or formal votes beyond the committee recommendation. No formal board vote adopting the committee’s residency recommendations was recorded in the transcript excerpt.

Staff also noted items labeled as wildfire‑related fee modifications and timelines affecting a small number of license renewals; staff gave counts (three licensees with one‑year renewal fee adjustments attributed to a wildfire modifier) but did not provide statutory citations during the report.