Every California Self-Determination Program (SDP) fair hearing decision we could identify in the public record — searchable by issue, regional center, year, and outcome.
What self-advocates and families actually appeal, and how those appeals turn out.
An SDTA data report · 170 SDP fair hearing decisions
170
SDP hearing decisions coded
75%
Denied outright
24%
Won any relief (full or partial)
70%
Had no attorney or advocate
How to read these numbers
SDP budgets are individualized by law. The same support can be right for one person and not for another, so one family’s outcome is not a precedent for another’s. Each decision is an individualized ruling that binds only the parties in that case and, like every fair hearing decision, is not binding precedent for anyone else. What a hearing turns on is never what did someone else get, but what does this person need, and is it tied to a goal in their plan. Underneath almost every decision is one hard, shared task: connecting a person’s disability to a need, and that need to a goal in the IPP, the kind of work a busy service coordinator and a family have to do together. The figures below describe the contested few, not the program overall, though within that contested set the denial rate and the share of families appearing without representation are both high.
1Fair hearings are the tip of the iceberg
A decided hearing is what remains after most SDP disagreements are already resolved — in the IPP process, an informal meeting, or mediation. The large majority of disputes never reach a hearing, so these patterns describe the contested few, not the program overall. The decisions are presented as is, with no judgment as to their validity.
2The deeper answers are in data we can’t see
Demographics, withdrawal reasons, informal and mediation outcomes, and the requests never appealed — the data DDS gathers under WIC §4714 — would let us examine equity and regional variation that public decisions alone cannot show.
3SDTA would love to collaborate with DDS
We built this from public records as a working model. We’d welcome the chance to help DDS visualize that next layer of §4714 data — turning this proof-of-concept into a complete, public picture.
How appeals turn out
All 170 decisions, coded from each decision's order, from the claimant's standpoint (did the appeal obtain the relief sought).
Denied 75%
Partial 9%
Granted 15%
Denied — 127 (75%)Granted in part — 16 (9%)Fully granted — 25 (15%)Dismissed/withdrawn — 2 (1%)
Of these 170, 14 were regional-center-initiated reductions, where the regional center carried the burden of proof; the other 156 were family requests. See Who has to prove the case below.
In 7 of these decisions, the Director's final decision was less favorable to the claimant than the ALJ's proposed decision (and in 7, more favorable) — see the Director-review panel below (WIC §4712.5).
What self-advocates and families appeal — and how each kind of dispute turns out
Each bar is one issue type: width = number of cases, color = disposition. Relief rates are lowest for budget-increase and equipment requests.
Specific service (respite/ABA/ILS/day/social)
3048
4229% relief · 6 RC-initiated
Permissible use of funds
2956
4028% relief · 2 RC-initiated
Budget amount / increase
23
2715% relief · 2 RC-initiated
Equipment / goods / technology
183
2114% relief
Health / safety / medical / training
102
1217% relief
Provider approval & rates
511
729% relief · 1 RC-initiated
FMS / financial management
411
633% relief
Transportation
411
633% relief
Eligibility / enrollment / disenrollment
32
540% relief · 3 RC-initiated
Procedural / other
11
425% relief
DeniedPartialGrantedDismissed
Who has to prove the case, and does that change the odds?
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). Bar width = number of decisions; color = disposition.
Family bears the burden (a request)
11822
15623% relief
Regional center bears the burden (a cut)
1436% relief
DeniedPartialGrantedDismissed
In all 170 the family requested the hearing, but in 14, because the regional center moved to reduce or end a service, the law placed the burden of proof on the regional center. With only 14 such decisions the 36% relief rate is directional, not a stable rate; what it points to is that when the regional center has to justify a cut, it does not always succeed. Those cases cluster in eligibility and disenrollment, and in reducing or stopping an already-approved service.
Which statutes decide these cases — and which way
Each bar is one Welfare & Institutions Code section cited in the decisions: width = how many of the 119 decisions (whose citations we could extract) cite it, color = disposition. A decision can cite several sections. Showing the 12 most-cited of 38 sections referenced — use the “Statute cited” filter under Explore the decisions below for the rest.
§4685.8 · Self-Determination Program
468
5879% denied · 46 of 58
§4500 · Lanterman Act — purpose & rights
3257
4670% denied · 32 of 46
§4648 · Service provision — "most cost-effective use of funds"
114
1573% denied · 11 of 15
§4646 · IPP — "necessary & cost-effective"
103
1377% denied · 10 of 13
§4512 · Definitions (services & natural supports)
922
1369% denied · 9 of 13
§4646.4 · RC duties — generic, family responsibility, cost-effectiveness
8
8100% denied · 8 of 8
§4659 · Generic resources / payer of last resort
61
786% denied · 6 of 7
§4713 · Fair hearing decision
52
771% denied · 5 of 7
§4646.5 · IPP needs assessment
41
580% denied · 4 of 5
§4519 · Interagency / generic-agency duty
131
520% denied · 1 of 5
§4710.5 · Fair hearing procedure
31
475% denied · 3 of 4
§4710 · Fair hearing procedure
21
450% denied · 2 of 4
DeniedPartialGrantedDismissed
The provisions with the highest denial rates are the cost-effectiveness and generic-resource sections — §4646.4, §4659, §4648, and §4646 (73–100% denied where cited). §4519 (generic resources and other-agency responsibility) is cited in only a handful of decisions, more of them granting relief.
Outcomes by regional center
Each bar is one regional center, color = disposition. Toggle the bar between total decisions, decisions per 1,000 SDP participants, and denial rate: each ordering tells a different story, since a high case count often just reflects a large center. The highest and lowest figures rest on only a handful of cases, so centers marked “few cases” (fewer than 5 decisions) are shown for completeness, not as a ranking.
North Los Angeles County
1353
2259% denied · 38.1/1k
Alta California
135
1968% denied · 34.9/1k
San Diego
17
1894% denied · 19/1k
Inland
122
1580% denied · 23.7/1k
East Bay
1032
1567% denied · 34.5/1k
Harbor
10
1283% denied · 27.9/1k
South Central Los Angeles
822
1267% denied · 74.5/1k
Far Northern
711
978% denied · 28.4/1k
Eastern Los Angeles
43
757% denied · 21.8/1k
Frank D. Lanterman
511
771% denied · 19.8/1k
Orange County
7
7100% denied · 14.1/1k
Central Valley
42
667% denied · 36.6/1k
Westside
51
683% denied · 10.9/1k
San Gabriel/Pomona
41
580% denied · 18.1/1k
Tri Counties
21
367% denied · 25.2/1k · few cases
Kern
2
2100% denied · 7.1/1k · few cases
North Bay
2
2100% denied · 20/1k · few cases
Valley Mountain
11
250% denied · 15.4/1k · few cases
San Andreas
1
1100% denied · 3.5/1k · few cases
South Central Los Angeles
822
74.5/1k12 cases · 67% denied
North Los Angeles County
1353
38.1/1k22 cases · 59% denied
Central Valley
42
36.6/1k6 cases · 67% denied
Alta California
135
34.9/1k19 cases · 68% denied
East Bay
1032
34.5/1k15 cases · 67% denied
Far Northern
711
28.4/1k9 cases · 78% denied
Harbor
10
27.9/1k12 cases · 83% denied
Tri Counties
21
25.2/1k3 cases · 67% denied · few cases
Inland
122
23.7/1k15 cases · 80% denied
Eastern Los Angeles
43
21.8/1k7 cases · 57% denied
North Bay
2
20/1k2 cases · 100% denied · few cases
Frank D. Lanterman
511
19.8/1k7 cases · 71% denied
San Diego
17
19/1k18 cases · 94% denied
San Gabriel/Pomona
41
18.1/1k5 cases · 80% denied
Valley Mountain
11
15.4/1k2 cases · 50% denied · few cases
Orange County
7
14.1/1k7 cases · 100% denied
Westside
51
10.9/1k6 cases · 83% denied
Kern
2
7.1/1k2 cases · 100% denied · few cases
San Andreas
1
3.5/1k1 case · 100% denied · few cases
Orange County
7
100%denied · 7 cases
Kern
2
100%denied · 2 cases · few cases
North Bay
2
100%denied · 2 cases · few cases
San Andreas
1
100%denied · 1 case · few cases
San Diego
17
94%denied · 18 cases
Harbor
10
83%denied · 12 cases
Westside
51
83%denied · 6 cases
Inland
122
80%denied · 15 cases
San Gabriel/Pomona
41
80%denied · 5 cases
Far Northern
711
78%denied · 9 cases
Frank D. Lanterman
511
71%denied · 7 cases
Alta California
135
68%denied · 19 cases
East Bay
1032
67%denied · 15 cases
South Central Los Angeles
822
67%denied · 12 cases
Central Valley
42
67%denied · 6 cases
Tri Counties
21
67%denied · 3 cases · few cases
North Los Angeles County
1353
59%denied · 22 cases
Eastern Los Angeles
43
57%denied · 7 cases
Valley Mountain
11
50%denied · 2 cases · few cases
DeniedPartialGrantedDismissed
Appeals are growing — but no faster than the program
Bars = SDP decisions per year. Red line = decisions per 1,000 SDP participants. As enrollment grew more than 10× (694 → 7,459), the per-participant appeal rate actually fell and then held steady near 7 per 1,000.
The caseload isn't exploding — enrollment is. The rate of appeals per participant dropped from ~16 (2021) to ~7 per 1,000 (2023–25). Recent years are also undercounted, because some appeals haven't 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 was a transition year, since cases decided then were filed under the old rules):
EraDeniedAny relief
Pre-reform (through 2022)78%22%
Transition 202380%20%
New process 2024–2672%26%
After SB 188 (effective March 2023), the denial rate moved from 78% (through 2022) to 72% (2024–26). 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 ALJ issues a proposed decision and the Director issues the final decision (WIC §4712.5) — deciding the matter on the record; if the Director does not act within the statutory period, the proposed decision is deemed adopted. Only the final decision is binding, and it binds only the parties to that case. The final decision differed from the ALJ's proposed decision in 14 of the 170 decisions:
Final decision less favorable to the claimant than proposed — 7
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
Final decision more favorable to the claimant than proposed — 7
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
Funding remote coaching/tutoring and rideshare while attending college out of statethe 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
Across the 170 decisions, the Director's final decision differed from the ALJ's proposed decision in 14 cases: 7 less favorable and 7 more favorable to the claimant. By burden of proof, 11 were family-burden cases and 3 regional-center-burden.
Explore the decisions
About this report. Decisions are anonymized by the state (claimants appear as “Claimant”). 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.