Massive Compensatory Award: 1,700+ Hours for Autism Student After Years of Inadequate ABA and Failed Assessments

What Happened

A young student with autism attended school in the Redlands Unified School District over multiple school years, from the 2003-2004 school year through 2007. The student had at least average cognitive abilities but was falling two or more grade levels behind in reading and language expression. He demonstrated considerable difficulty in writing, spelling, phonemic awareness, and following oral directions, along with challenging behaviors that required specialized support.

The student's parents fought for years to obtain appropriate services. They repeatedly requested occupational therapy assessments that the district delayed for almost two years. They challenged the adequacy of the ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) services the district provided through a vendor called Big Springs. They argued the student needed evidence-based reading intervention through Lindamood-Bell and more intensive behavioral support.

The case was massive — spanning 14 days of hearing, nearly 300 exhibits, and a 96-page decision covering violations across multiple school years.

What the District Did Wrong

Inadequate ABA Services Through an Unqualified Vendor

The district contracted with Big Springs to provide ABA services to the student. The ALJ found that these services were "improperly developed and delivered" during the 2006-2007 school year. The ABA programming was not individualized to the student's needs, and the provider's approach did not meet the standard of care for a student with autism who required intensive behavioral intervention.

Two-Year Delay on Occupational Therapy Assessment

The student's mother first requested an OT assessment in November 2002. The district did not actually conduct the assessment until October 2004 — a delay of nearly two years. During this time, the district attempted to substitute an informal "screening" for the formal assessment California law requires, and at one point claimed it never received a signed assessment plan from the parent — a claim contradicted by the evidence.

Failure to Conduct Functional Analysis Assessment

Despite the student's significant behavioral challenges, the district never conducted a proper Functional Analysis Assessment (FAA). Although a behavioral assessment was conducted in June 2007, the ALJ found it was nearly 10 months old by the time of the decision and warranted a new assessment by an independent behaviorist.

Refusing to Address Reading and Writing Deficits

The student was at least two grade levels behind where he should have been in reading and language expression. Both the parent's expert and the district's own expert agreed that the student would benefit from Lindamood-Bell reading intervention. Yet the district failed to provide any evidence-based reading intervention to address these deficits.

What the Judge Found

ALJ Robert G. Martin issued a sweeping decision finding FAPE denials across multiple school years and multiple issue areas.

On the OT assessment delay, the ALJ found:

"The District therefore delayed almost two years from the time that Student's mother first requested an OT assessment until the time it first assessed Student. Since Student was ultimately determined to require OT services, the procedural failure to assess Student resulted in a substantive denial of educational benefit to him, and therefore denied him a FAPE."

On the district's attempt to "screen" instead of assess:

"'Screening' before initiating a requested assessment is not a procedure recognized by California law."

On the ABA services, the ALJ found the district denied FAPE "during the 2006-2007 school year" because "the ABA services the District provided to Student through Big Springs were improperly developed and delivered."

On the student's reading deficits, the ALJ credited the evidence that the student had at least average cognitive abilities and should have been progressing with appropriate support:

"The evidence supports Student's contention that he has at least average cognitive abilities and that he should have been able, with proper educational and behavioral support, to progress in the curriculum along with his peers, and advance from grade to grade. Instead, Student is at least two grade levels behind where he should be in reading and language expression."

What Was Ordered

The remedies in this case were extraordinary — totaling well over 1,700 hours of compensatory services with parents directing the scheduling:

1. 240 hours of Lindamood-Bell Seeing Stars program — to address phonemic awareness, reading, and spelling deficits

2. 150 hours of Lindamood-Bell Visualizing and Verbalizing program — to address oral and written language comprehension deficits

3. 430 hours of one-on-one academic instruction in mathematics and writing — one hour per day for 86 weeks (two school years plus ESY), by a Board Certified Educational Therapist or credentialed teacher

4. 1,250 hours of in-home ABA therapy — 50 weeks at 25 hours per week, for the 2008-2009 school year, plus 10 hours per month of supervision and 3 hours per month of parent training, provided by the Center for Behavior Research and Education or equivalent certified provider

5. Independent Functional Analysis Assessment — by an independent, qualified behaviorist of the district's choice, at district expense

6. Parent-directed scheduling — the Lindamood-Bell services could be provided during the school year or summer vacation at a maximum of four hours per day, at the discretion of the parents

Why This Matters for Parents

This decision is one of the largest compensatory education awards in California OAH history and contains several principles that remain powerful for parent advocates today.

1. Compensatory education can be massive when violations span years. The ALJ did not simply order a few hours of tutoring. The total award exceeded 1,700 hours of services because the violations spanned multiple school years. If your child has been denied FAPE for an extended period, the compensatory award should reflect the entire duration of the denial.

2. Parents can direct the scheduling of compensatory services. The ALJ explicitly gave parents discretion over when and how the ABA and Lindamood-Bell services would be delivered. This is critical — parents know their child's needs and tolerance for intensive services better than the district does.

3. "Screening" is not a substitute for assessment. When you request an assessment, the district must develop a formal assessment plan within 15 days. It cannot substitute an informal screening or claim it needs to "monitor" before assessing. An oral request for assessment triggers the same obligation as a written one — though putting it in writing creates better evidence.

4. Both sides' experts agreed on Lindamood-Bell. In a remarkable detail, even the district's expert, Dr. Bryna Siegel, agreed that the student would benefit from Lindamood-Bell reading intervention. When the district's own expert supports the parent's requested remedy, it becomes very difficult for the district to argue against it.

5. ABA services must be individualized and properly supervised. The district's use of Big Springs for ABA was found inadequate because the services were not properly developed and delivered. If your child receives ABA through a district vendor, ask for data on the program's design, the qualifications of the staff, and whether a Board Certified Behavior Analyst is providing regular supervision.

If your child with autism has been receiving inadequate services for multiple years, this decision demonstrates that the compensatory education remedy should be comprehensive enough to actually address the accumulated harm — not just a token gesture.