California SDP Fair Hearings Explorer

Search the decisions

Search 315 California fair hearing decisions where the Self-Determination Program is involved. Type what the dispute was about, or filter below.

Search the decisions

Regional center

Year

Outcome

Issue type

Statute cited (WIC §) covers 147 of 315

Burden of proof

Three things to know before reading these. A fair hearing decision binds only its own parties — SDP budgets are individualized by law, so another family's outcome does not determine yours. Where a figure rests on a handful of decisions it is not a rate. And this is information, not legal advice: for help with an appeal, contact Disability Rights California at 1-800-776-5746, or the clients' rights advocate at your regional center. How a decision gets in, and what we could not find.

What this is, and how a decision gets in

What is counted. A decision is included when SDP is genuinely involved, even where the dispute is nominally about something else: the person is in the program, entering it, was refused entry, or the judge’s reasoning turns on it. We read the full text of every decision for the program’s whole vocabulary: “SDP”, “Self-Determination” and “Self Determination”, Welfare and Institutions Code §4685.8 and §4685.7, and the program’s machinery: spending plan, individual budget, independent facilitator, financial management service. A machinery term on its own does not put a decision in: an FMS agency is how California pays for vouchered services generally, and a spending plan can be a household budget, so 42 decisions that use one of these terms are out. Each was read in full rather than dropped on a threshold. We read 2,737 published decisions; 315 involve the program and 31 were read and set aside; a decision published under more than one case number is counted once and carries every one of its numbers, so any of them finds it. Matters consolidated for hearing are the opposite case: they produce a separate decision for each claimant, and each one is counted separately. Those carry a chip saying how many other decisions were issued the same day at the same regional center.

What this is not. It is not every SDP fair hearing decision that has ever existed. It is every one we could find: we downloaded and read 2,737 decisions rather than searching an index, because a search only finds the words it is given. 2,556 of those are listed by DDS today and 181 are held only by the Stanford Law SIDDLAPP mirror, which was built from the DDS site. Three limits remain and we would rather state them. 3 entries in the DDS listing and 18 in the mirror link to a file that does not load. 207 case numbers were published once and are no longer listed by DDS. And a dispute only appears here if it reached a hearing and a written decision, which most never do.

What these numbers are, and are not

These are decided fair hearings. Most disagreements about a Self-Determination budget never become one: they are settled at an IPP meeting, in an informal meeting, in mediation, or the family does not pursue it. So these 315 decisions are the contested remainder, not a sample of how the program goes for people generally, and every rate in this report describes only this set.

1Each decision binds only its own parties

SDP budgets are individualized by law. A fair hearing decision is not precedent and binds nobody else, so another family’s outcome does not determine yours.

2Small cells are not rates

Several regional centers, issue types and statutes appear in only a handful of decisions. Where a figure rests on a few cases it is shown for completeness, not as a ranking.

3This is information, not legal advice

For help with an appeal, contact Disability Rights California at 1-800-776-5746, or the clients’ rights advocate at your regional center. There is a deadline to appeal a Notice of Action, so it is worth asking early.

About this report. The state removes the claimant’s name before publishing (claimants appear as “Claimant”), but that is not the same as anonymized: in 12 of the decisions we read, someone close to the claimant is named in full — an aunt, a guardian, a tutor, a therapist, an aide at a named school. We have reported those to DDS. If you forward a link, the PDF behind it may name someone. Each decision was read and coded for outcome, issue type, and the judge's reasoning. This is information, not legal advice. For help with an appeal, contact Disability Rights California or your regional center's clients' rights advocate.

Source. Decisions taken from the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) public archive as published by DGS, with a small number from the Stanford Law SIDDLAPP mirror where DGS no longer lists them. Every decision was downloaded and its full text read for the whole SDP vocabulary — every spelling of the program’s name, its statute (§4685.8 and §4685.7), and its machinery — and each candidate was individually read and coded. 31 retrieved decisions were excluded, each for a stated reason. Enrollment figures for 2021–2025: DDS Update to the Statewide Self-Determination Advisory Committee, Sept. 9, 2025. Enrollment has grown since; the program now has more than 10,000 participants, as of 8 September 2026. “Read decision” links go to the official OAH PDF.

One caution about the issue text. For 169 of the 315 decisions the issue shown is lifted verbatim from the decision’s own ISSUE section, and some of those are truncated or carry artifacts of the original PDF. For the other 146, added in the September 2026 correction, it is a short editorial paraphrase of the question decided. Both appear in the same field, so quote the linked decision rather than this column.

About this report. SB 188 (§4714) directs DDS to collect and publish fair-hearing outcome data, and SB 1092 (the EASe Act) calls for a public, searchable version. This is a data report and working demonstration of that format, scoped to the Self-Determination Program and built entirely from public OAH decisions. An SDTA data report · September 2026.

What every number on this page describes. These are decided fair hearings. Most disagreements about a Self-Determination budget never become one: they are settled at an IPP meeting, in an informal meeting, in mediation, or the family does not pursue it. So these 315 decisions are the contested remainder, not a sample of how the program goes for people generally. A rate here is a rate among 315 contested decisions, not among the more than 10,000 people in the program as of 8 September 2026.

The headlines first. Select one to jump to the detail behind it.

70%of these appeals were denied28% obtained relief in full or in part. All 315 decisions.49% and 25%relief rate, by who had to prove the case41 decisions where the regional center moved to cut a service, 274 where the family asked for one.73%appeared without an attorney or advocateRelief was obtained 27% of the time without one and 32% with one; a difference this size turns up routinely in counts this small.102 of 315disputes about a specific serviceThe largest single issue type. Relief rates across the ten types run 17% to 43%, and on these counts the ordering among them is not separable: a difference this size turns up routinely in counts this small.88% and 28%denial rates, the two centers furthest apartFrank D. Lanterman (n=16) and Eastern Los Angeles (n=18). Of the 16 centers with five or more decisions, 14 cannot be told apart from the 70% statewide rate.30 to 9decisions per 1,000 participants, 2021 to 2025Enrollment went from 694 to 7,459 over the same period.18 of 315decisions the Director changedThe Director's final decision differed from the judge's proposed decision in 18: 10 less favorable to the claimant, 8 more.

315

Decisions involving SDP, from 2,737 read

70%

Denied outright

28%

Won any relief (full or partial)

73%

Had no attorney or advocate

How appeals turn out

All 315 decisions, coded from each decision's order, from the claimant's standpoint (did the appeal obtain the relief sought).

Denied 70%

Partial 12%

Granted 16%

Denied — 221 (70%) Granted in part — 39 (12%) Fully granted — 49 (16%) Dismissed/withdrawn — 6 (2%)

Of these 315, 41 are decisions where the regional center moved to reduce or end an existing service, so the law placed the burden of proof on the regional center. See Who has to prove the case below.

In 10 of these decisions, the Director's final decision was less favorable to the claimant than the judge's proposed decision, and in 8, more favorable — see the Director-review panel below (WIC §4712.5).

What the disputes are about

Each bar is one issue type: width = number of cases, color = disposition.

Specific service (respite/ABA/ILS/day/social)

652016

10235% relief · 22 RC bore the burden65 denied · 1 dismissed · 20 granted in part · 16 granted

Permissible use of funds

468

6023% relief · 3 RC bore the burden46 denied · 6 granted in part · 8 granted

Budget amount / increase

3719% relief · 3 RC bore the burden30 denied · 4 granted in part · 3 granted

Equipment / goods / technology

208

2829% relief · 1 RC bore the burden20 denied · 8 granted

Health / safety / medical / training

204

2417% relief · 1 RC bore the burden20 denied · 4 granted

Eligibility / enrollment / disenrollment

1322

1724% relief · 6 RC bore the burden13 denied · 2 granted in part · 2 granted

Procedural / other

843

1520% relief · 2 RC bore the burden8 denied · 4 dismissed · 3 granted

Provider approval & rates

842

1443% relief · 3 RC bore the burden8 denied · 4 granted in part · 2 granted

Transportation

722

1136% relief7 denied · 2 granted in part · 2 granted

FMS / financial management

4111

729% relief4 denied · 1 dismissed · 1 granted in part · 1 granted

DeniedPartialGrantedDismissed

Who has to prove the case

The burden of proof follows whoever is asking to change things. When a family requests a new or larger service, the family must show it is necessary to a goal in the plan, so the burden is on the family. When the regional center moves to reduce or end a service someone already has, the regional center must justify the change, so the burden is on the regional center, and the service generally continues during a timely appeal (aid paid pending). The deadline for keeping services running while you appeal is shorter than the deadline for requesting the hearing itself, so if that matters to you it is worth asking the day the notice arrives rather than at the end of the appeal window. Bar width = number of decisions; color = disposition.

Family bears the burden (a request)

2013137

27425% relief201 denied · 5 dismissed · 31 granted in part · 37 granted

Regional center bears the burden (a cut)

20812

4149% relief20 denied · 1 dismissed · 8 granted in part · 12 granted

DeniedPartialGrantedDismissed

In 41 of these 315, the regional center moved to reduce or end a service the person already had, so the law placed the burden of proof on the regional center rather than the family. Relief was obtained in 49% of those, against 25% of the 274 where the family bore it. On these counts the 49% is a wide figure: the range consistent with 41 decisions runs from 34% to 64%. The difference between the two groups is larger than the counts alone would produce: a difference this size would arise by chance in fewer than 1 set of decisions in 398. 22 of the 41 are reductions to a specific service (respite, ABA, ILS, day or social programs); 6 concern eligibility or disenrollment.

Statutes cited

Each bar is one Welfare & Institutions Code section cited in the decisions: width = how many of the 147 decisions (whose citations we could extract) cite it, color = disposition. A decision can cite several sections. Showing the 12 most-cited of 41 sections referenced, drawn from the 147 of 315 decisions whose citations we have extracted. Use the “Statute cited” filter on the Find a decision tab for the rest.

§4685.8 · Self-Determination Program

458

5878% denied · 45 of 5845 denied · 5 granted in part · 8 granted

§4500 · Lanterman Act — purpose & rights

358

4971% denied · 35 of 4935 denied · 2 dismissed · 4 granted in part · 8 granted

§4713 · Fair hearing decision

187

2864% denied · 18 of 2818 denied · 3 granted in part · 7 granted

§4648 · Service provision — "most cost-effective use of funds"

114

1669% denied · 11 of 1611 denied · 1 granted in part · 4 granted

§4512 · Definitions (services & natural supports)

1023

1567% denied · 10 of 1510 denied · 2 granted in part · 3 granted

§4646 · IPP — "necessary & cost-effective"

103

1377% denied · 10 of 1310 denied · 3 granted

§4646.4 · RC duties — generic, family responsibility, cost-effectiveness

8100% denied · 8 of 88 denied

§4659 · Generic resources / payer of last resort

786% denied · 6 of 76 denied · 1 granted

§4712.5 · DDS Director review of decision

786% denied · 6 of 76 denied · 1 granted in part

§4646.5 · IPP needs assessment

580% denied · 4 of 54 denied · 1 granted

§4501 · State responsibility

475% denied · 3 of 43 denied · 1 granted

§4519 · Interagency / generic-agency duty

121

425% denied · 1 of 41 denied · 2 granted in part · 1 granted

DeniedPartialGrantedDismissed

Denial rates where each section is cited: §4646.4, §4659, §4648 and §4646 fall between 69% and 100%. Read these as a record of how decisions are written, not as a predictor: a judge cites the section the decision turns on, so a section that appears mostly in denials will show a high denial rate for that reason alone. Cell counts are small; a section cited in a handful of decisions is not a rate. Citations were found in 147 of the 315 decisions, and that subset denies at 73% against 68% for the rest.

Outcomes by regional center

Each bar is one regional center, color = disposition. Toggle the bar between total decisions, all decisions per 1,000 participants, and denial rate: each ordering tells a different story, since a high case count often just reflects a large center. The middle ordering divides every decision from 2013 to 2026 by the July 2025 participant count, because that is the only per-center enrollment figure DDS publishes, so it is not comparable to the per-1,000 line in the chart above, which matches each year to its own enrollment. Centers marked “few cases” (fewer than 5 decisions) are listed after the ranked rows and are not a ranking.

North Los Angeles County

2374

3566% denied · 60.6/1k23 denied · 1 dismissed · 7 granted in part · 4 granted

Alta California

236

3370% denied · 60.7/1k23 denied · 3 dismissed · 1 granted in part · 6 granted

Inland

275

3382% denied · 52.2/1k27 denied · 1 granted in part · 5 granted

San Diego

3187% denied · 32.8/1k27 denied · 1 dismissed · 2 granted in part · 1 granted

Westside

1255

2255% denied · 40/1k12 denied · 5 granted in part · 5 granted

East Bay

1443

2167% denied · 48.3/1k14 denied · 4 granted in part · 3 granted

Harbor

154

2075% denied · 46.5/1k15 denied · 4 granted in part · 1 granted

Eastern Los Angeles

558

1828% denied · 56.1/1k5 denied · 5 granted in part · 8 granted

Far Northern

1323

1872% denied · 56.8/1k13 denied · 2 granted in part · 3 granted

South Central Los Angeles

1323

1872% denied · 111.8/1k13 denied · 2 granted in part · 3 granted

Frank D. Lanterman

1688% denied · 45.3/1k14 denied · 1 granted in part · 1 granted

Orange County

1377% denied · 26.1/1k10 denied · 1 dismissed · 1 granted in part · 1 granted

San Gabriel/Pomona

531

956% denied · 32.6/1k5 denied · 3 granted in part · 1 granted

Central Valley

771% denied · 42.7/1k5 denied · 2 granted

Kern

743% denied · 24.7/1k3 denied · 4 granted

Tri Counties

511

771% denied · 58.8/1k5 denied · 1 granted in part · 1 granted

Valley Mountain

3100% denied · 23.1/1k · few cases3 denied

North Bay

2100% denied · 20/1k · few cases2 denied

San Andreas

2100% denied · 6.9/1k · few cases2 denied

DeniedPartialGrantedDismissed

Decisions per year, against enrollment

Bars = SDP decisions per year. Red line = decisions per 1,000 SDP participants. The chart covers 2021–2025 only, because that is the span DDS publishes enrollment for; 99 of the 315 decisions fall outside it and are not drawn here. As enrollment grew more than 10× (694 → 7,459), the number of published decisions per 1,000 participants fell, from 30.3 per 1,000 in 2021 to 9.0 in 2025.

Decisions per 1,000 SDP participants: 30 in 2021, 9 in 2025. Enrollment over the same period went from 694 to 7,459. Recent years are undercounted, because some appeals have not been decided or published yet.

Before & after the 2022 reform (SB 188)

SB 188 (eff. March 1, 2023) overhauled the appeals process — a 60-day deadline, mandatory mediation, limits on regional-center attorneys, “engaged neutrality,” plain-language notices, and a mandate to publish hearing data. Comparing outcomes before and after it fully took hold. 2023 is shown separately because it is mixed: of the 36 decisions issued that year, 15 were filed before the reform took effect and 21 after it.

EraDeniedAny relief

Pre-reform (through 2022)67%33%

Transition 202369%28%

New process 2024–2672%26%

After SB 188 (effective March 2023), the denial rate moved from 67% (through 2022) to 72% (2024–26). On these counts that is not a change: a difference this size turns up routinely in counts this small. Two things would also have to be separated before any of it could be read as an effect of the law. SB 188 made mediation mandatory, which removes the more settleable disputes before they reach a decision and raises the denial rate among what is left, with nothing about how anyone decides having changed. And the mix of issues shifted; standardizing the later years to the earlier mix moves 72% only to 71%. SB 188 (§4714) also directs DDS to collect and publish this hearing data; this tool presents that format using the public decisions.

Director review of ALJ proposed decisions (WIC §4712.5)

In cases not delegated to the hearing office, the judge issues a proposed decision and the Director issues the final decision (WIC §4712.5). Only the final decision is binding, and it binds only the parties to that case. What follows is read from the decisions themselves and from the names DDS gives the published files, which record whether the Director adopted or rejected the proposed decision; for the procedure and its deadlines, ask DDS or a clients’ rights advocate. The final decision differed from the ALJ's proposed decision in 18 of the 315 decisions:

Final decision less favorable to the claimant than proposed — 10

Increase in SDP budget for additional respite hours for minorTri CountiesALJ proposed partial relief → Director: denied as awarded — ordered IPP/team review

Acupuncture services in SDP spending plan for autistic minorSan DiegoALJ proposed full relief → Director: denied

Whether acupuncture services may be funded in child's SDP spending planSan DiegoALJ proposed full relief → Director: denied

Increase SDP budget to fund Uber transportation costsSan DiegoALJ proposed full relief → Director: denied

SDP funding for above-ground swimming pool with saltwater filtration pumpFar NorthernALJ proposed full relief → Director: denied

Funding for personal assistance (PA) hours in SDP budgetsValley MountainALJ proposed full relief → Director: denied as awarded — ordered IPP/team review

Whether SDP participant can get CFS assessment referral into SDP budgetWestsideALJ proposed full relief → Director: denied

Floortime therapy in a child's SDP budgetWestsideALJ proposed partial relief → Director: denied

Business supplies and rideshare tips in an SDP spending planFar NorthernALJ proposed partial relief → Director: denied

Behavior support hours ahead of an SDP transitionSan Gabriel/PomonaALJ proposed partial relief → Director: denied as awarded — ordered IPP/team review

Final decision more favorable to the claimant than proposed — 8

SDP budget rate increase and spending plan amendment for therapeutic/communication servicesthe East BayALJ proposed denial → Director: granted in part

Whether SDP budget must reflect third rate-reform installment for PA/ASTHarborALJ proposed denial → Director: granted in part

Out-of-state college remote coaching, tutoring, and rideshare funding under SDPthe East BayDirector: more favorable

Respite rate increase and OMT funding in SDP budgetHarborALJ proposed denial → Director: granted in part

Termination of PA services and SDP transition over withheld IHSS letterNorth Los Angeles CountyALJ proposed denial → Director: granted in part

Out-of-state travel for orthotics; FMS placing credit card on filethe East BayDirector: more favorable

Occupational therapy in an SDP budgetFar NorthernALJ proposed denial → Director: granted

Paid vacation for a provider in an SDP spending planInlandALJ proposed denial → Director: granted

Across the 315 decisions, the Director's final decision differed from the ALJ's proposed decision in 18 cases: 10 less favorable and 8 more favorable to the claimant. By burden of proof, 14 were family-burden cases and 4 regional-center-burden.