SB 775 bundles a wide set of changes to the Psychology Licensing Law and the Board of Behavioral Sciences’ statutes. It extends both boards’ statutory operation to January 1, 2030; creates detailed conditions for out-of-state clinicians to provide up-to-30‑day care in California; tightens credential-review rules for foreign‑trained doctoral applicants; and adds new, mandatory training and continuing‑education expectations for several practitioner classes, including research psychoanalysts.
The bill also makes permanent several supervision and telehealth accommodations (notably two‑way, real‑time videoconferencing for direct supervisor contact with required assessment and documentation), revises suspension and reinstatement mechanics (including automatic suspension during incarceration and board discretion on setting aside suspensions), expands permitted degree fields for psychological testing technicians, and adjusts fees and fingerprint processing rules. These changes affect mobility, workforce pipelines, board administration, and disciplinary practice across multiple behavioral‑health professions.
At a Glance
What It Does
Extends the Board of Psychology and Board of Behavioral Sciences to January 1, 2030; allows short‑term practice by out‑of‑state licensees under specified notification and attestation requirements; imposes new mandatory training (human sexuality, child/elder abuse reporting, suicide intervention, aging, substance dependency) for various license types; and clarifies supervision and tele‑supervision mechanics.
Who It Affects
Psychologists, registered psychological associates, psychological testing technicians, research psychoanalysts, marriage and family therapists, licensed clinical social workers, licensed professional clinical counselors, educational psychologists, supervisors, and training programs — and state boards that license and enforce those professions.
Why It Matters
The bill reshapes temporary clinical mobility, raises minimum training and credential verification standards (especially for foreign‑trained applicants), cements remote supervision practices, and broadens enforcement authority — all of which alter hiring, compliance, and education plans for employers and regulators.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 775 is a package of substantive licensing, training, supervision, and enforcement reforms for California’s psychology and behavioral‑health professions. At the top level it extends the statutory life of both the Board of Psychology and the Board of Behavioral Sciences to January 1, 2030, preserving their authority to regulate these occupations and buy time for continued legislative review.
Simultaneously, the bill creates detailed operational rules rather than leaving these practices to ad hoc guidance.
The bill draws a clear temporary‑practice framework for out‑of‑state clinicians: a doctoral‑level licensee from another U.S. jurisdiction or Canada may provide services in California for up to 30 consecutive days each calendar year only if the client is a current, established client, the clinician provides advance notice and specified identification to the board, and the clinician signs a statement under penalty of perjury attesting to being subject to the board’s jurisdiction and California law. That attestation expands the reach of perjury exposure to short‑term cross‑jurisdictional practice and requires clinicians to proactively disclose identifying and licensing information to the board before starting care.SB 775 tightens entry standards for internationally trained applicants by requiring an equivalency evaluation from a NACES member or the NRHSP and primary‑source verification of transcripts.
For registered psychological associates and psychologists the board retains final authority to determine whether a degree or program meets statutory requirements. The bill also sets numerical and competency supervision rules: it limits the number of registered psychological associates a supervising psychologist may oversee at one time (three), preserves the requirement that direct supervisor contact can be via synchronous audiovisual means, and requires supervisors to assess and document whether videoconferencing supervision is appropriate within 60 days of starting supervision.For specialty roles and registrants, SB 775 expands eligibility for psychological testing technician registration to include degrees in neuroscience, cognitive science, or behavioral science and prescribes a minimum of 80 hours of education and training (including specified direct observation and hands‑on administration hours).
The bill creates explicit continuing‑professional‑development rules for research psychoanalysts (36 hours every two years unless otherwise approved), and adds required coursework or demonstrated training in human sexuality, child abuse assessment and reporting, suicide risk assessment, aging/long‑term care, and substance‑use detection to various application and renewal pathways. Finally, the bill revises disciplinary mechanics: a licensee incarcerated after a felony conviction is automatically suspended during incarceration, the board must hold a hearing (except for specified offenses assumed to be substantially related), and the board may decline to set aside a suspension in the “interest of justice.”
The Five Things You Need to Know
The board statutes are extended to January 1, 2030 for both the Board of Psychology and the Board of Behavioral Sciences.
Foreign‑trained doctoral applicants must submit an equivalency evaluation from a NACES member or the National Register of Health Services Psychologists that includes primary‑source transcript verification.
To register as a psychological testing technician the bill requires a minimum of 80 hours of education and training (including at least 20 hours of direct observation and at least 40 hours administering/scoring tests in the presence of a licensed psychologist).
Supervising psychologists may oversee no more than three registered psychological associates at one time, and supervisors must assess and document within 60 days whether supervision via two‑way, real‑time videoconferencing is appropriate.
A licensee or registrant incarcerated after a felony conviction is automatically suspended during incarceration; the board must hold a related hearing and may, for good cause, decline to set aside the suspension even if an appeal later overturns the conviction.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short‑term out‑of‑state practice — conditions and board notice
The statute establishes a controlled pathway for a doctoral‑level out‑of‑state psychologist to treat an existing client located in California for up to 30 consecutive days per calendar year. It enumerates seven preconditions (doctoral‑level license, active/unrestricted status, client location and established relationship, notice to client, provision of the board’s website, and disclosure of license jurisdiction and number). Crucially, it requires the out‑of‑state clinician to submit identifying information and a signed perjury statement to the board before providing services; noncompliance or a suspended California license exempts the clinician from eligibility. Practically, this creates a short, auditable notification process that gives the board immediate paper trail and jurisdictional leverage over temporary cross‑border practice.
Registered psychological associates — degree equivalence and supervision cap
The bill tightens degree review for psychological associates: the board has final authority to decide whether a master’s or doctoral program satisfies statutory requirements, and applicants trained outside the U.S. or Canada must provide a NACES or NRHSP evaluation showing equivalence with a regionally accredited U.S./Canadian doctorate. On supervision, the primary supervisor must ensure appropriate scope and quality of services, and may not supervise more than three registered psychological associates at once. That cap changes workload planning for clinics and agencies that rely on multiple trainees.
Psychological testing technicians — expanded degree routes and training minimums
SB 775 broadens acceptable fields for registration to include neuroscience, cognitive science, and behavioral science, but it also spells out an educational‑and‑training floor: applicants must document at least 80 hours of test‑related education and training, with specific minimums for direct observation (20 hours) and test administration in the presence of a licensed psychologist (40 hours). The board retains discretion to determine whether a particular degree or program qualifies, and the bill adds a $25 fee to add or change a supervisor — an operational detail that affects onboarding workflows.
Research psychoanalysts — new training, CPD, and ethical standards
The bill requires research psychoanalysts to complete coursework or training in substance‑use detection and treatment, spousal/partner abuse assessment, suicide risk assessment and intervention, and aging/long‑term care. It sets a continuing professional development floor (36 hours every two years, subject to board regulation), requires registrants to retain proof and certify compliance under penalty of perjury, and directs the board to adopt a consumer/professional education program. For standardization, the bill adopts the American Psychoanalytic Association’s Code of Ethics as the benchmark standard for psychoanalysis registration and enforcement matters.
Permanent tele‑supervision rules and 60‑day appropriateness assessment
SB 775 makes permanent the allowance that counts synchronous audiovisual contact as "face‑to‑face" for purposes of direct supervisor contact. Supervisors must, within 60 days of starting supervision, assess whether videoconferencing supervision is appropriate given supervisee ability, privacy at both locations, and preferences — and they must document that assessment. The statute also clarifies weekly contact accounting, group supervision segmentation, and that direct supervisor contact must occur in the same week hours are claimed; these mechanics standardize tele‑supervision recordkeeping and audits.
Automatic suspension during incarceration and board hearing standards
The bill replaces the older suspension framework with an automatic suspension of any licensee or registrant who is incarcerated following conviction of a felony, effective during incarceration even if an appeal is pending. The board must determine whether the felony is substantially related to professional duties, but for certain sexual and violent offenses (listed sections of the Penal Code) the statute treats substantial relation as conclusively presumed and skips the hearing. The board can order discipline once appeals are final, but it also has discretion to decline to set aside a suspension when "in the interest of justice," a standard that is not further defined and will be applied case‑by‑case.
Retired license rules and void‑after‑three‑years provision
SB 775 harmonizes retired‑license treatments across professions: retirees must attest under penalty of perjury when applying, may not practice, and may restore to active status only once and only if the retired license was issued less than three years earlier. The bill also makes a license void if not renewed within three years of expiration; a void license cannot be reissued — the holder must apply for a new license and meet current requirements. Restoration applicants must meet specified CE and fingerprinting obligations; those rules create a one‑time, time‑limited reinstatement window with concrete continuing‑education thresholds.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare 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
- California consumers — clearer disclosure (board website links, consumer notices), better minimum training on child/elder abuse, suicide, aging, and human sexuality, and strengthened enforcement mechanics for serious misconduct.
- Out‑of‑state clinicians with continuing client relationships — a defined 30‑day pathway to maintain care for clients who temporarily relocate to California, with a straightforward notification process to the board.
- Candidates from adjacent academic fields — applicants with degrees in neuroscience, cognitive science, or behavioral science now qualify for psychological testing technician registration, widening the pipeline for testing support roles.
- Boards and regulators — more explicit statutorily‑defined grounds, documentation requirements, and notification pathways (including mandatory perjury statements and fingerprint processing fees) that improve traceability and enforcement.
Who Bears the Cost
- Foreign‑trained doctoral applicants — must pay for third‑party credential evaluations (NACES or NRHSP), translation and primary‑source verification, adding time and expense to licensure pathways.
- Licensees and registrants — new mandatory coursework/CE (human sexuality, child/elder abuse, suicide, aging, substance‑use detection) and potential additional probationary CPD or reexamination requirements increase time and training costs.
- Supervisors and employers — documentation, assessments for videoconferencing supervision, tighter supervision‑ratio planning (e.g., max three psychological associates), and new fees (supervisor changes, fingerprint processing) impose administrative and payroll impacts.
- Local agencies and courts — the bill expands perjury exposure for short‑term practice attestation, which the Legislature characterizes as imposing a state‑mandated local program and could increase prosecution or administrative enforcement workloads.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is tradeoff between expanding access and modernizing practice (temporary reciprocity, tele‑supervision, broader testing‑technician pathways) and strengthening gatekeeping to protect consumers (stricter foreign‑credential checks, expanded mandatory training, automatic suspensions, criminalized attestation). Each axis advances a legitimate goal — workforce flexibility or patient safety — but the statutory approach forces a choice: stricter entry and enforcement reduce risk but raise administrative and financial barriers that constrain the workforce.
SB 775 stacks modernization and gatekeeping measures in ways that create real implementation tradeoffs. The temporary‑practice pathway improves continuity for clients who travel or relocate, but the pre‑service submission requirement and perjury attestation create criminal exposure for clinicians who fail to comply — a blunt enforcement tool that may chill informal cross‑jurisdictional care.
The statute gives the board broad discretion (for example, to "decline to set aside" a suspension in the interest of justice) without articulating standards or review mechanisms, leaving significant room for uneven application unless the board adopts detailed regulations.
The bill also tightens credentialing for foreign‑trained doctoral holders through NACES/NRHSP evaluations and primary‑source verification. That raises objective comparability, but also risks excluding competent clinicians trained under different systems and imposes nontrivial costs and delays.
Making synchronous audiovisual supervision permanently acceptable balances access and rural workforce needs, but it depends on supervisor judgment and documentation; quality assurance will rely heavily on thorough audits and clear regulatory guidance. Finally, the package increases training and CE obligations across many license classes with unclear funding or transition support; boards and training providers will need to move fast to scale approved courses and document equivalency across existing programs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.