Come along for the terrifying tale of the SDC!

You can find all of our wonderful links on the Linktree: https://linktr.ee/allts

The Sonoma Developmental Center (SDC) was a state-run facility in Eldridge, California, established in 1891 as the California Home for the Care and Training of Feeble-Minded Children. It was one of the first institutions on the West Coast dedicated to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Over the years, it expanded and rebranded multiple times, eventually being called the Sonoma Developmental Center. By the mid-20th century, SDC served thousands of residents with various disabilities.

Brief History:

• Establishment: Opened in 1891, SDC aimed to provide care, education, and training to children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Its creation was part of a broader, growing movement for social services and institutional care in the United States.


• Growth and Expansion: Through the early and mid-20th century, SDC expanded significantly, housing upwards of 3,000 residents by the 1950s. The center occupied a large campus with many buildings, including residential facilities, hospitals, workshops, and classrooms.


• Shift in Care Model: In the 1970s and 1980s, attitudes toward care for people with developmental disabilities began to change, emphasizing deinstitutionalization, personal rights, and community-based living. New policies led to a gradual decline in the resident population, as many were moved to smaller, community-based homes.


• Closure: The state of California announced in 2015 that it would close SDC, and in 2018, after over a century of operation, the center officially ceased residential care operations. Today, the future of the site remains under consideration, with discussions about repurposing the land for conservation and community use.

Scandals and Issues: SDC, like many institutions for vulnerable populations, was not without controversy, facing scrutiny and criticism for several significant issues over the years.

1. 
   

   Abuse and Neglect: Numerous reports emerged over the decades about physical and sexual abuse, as well as neglect of residents. Inspections often revealed instances where residents suffered mistreatment by staff, including the use of excessive restraints and isolation. For instance, a 2012 investigation by California’s Department of Public Health revealed widespread cases of abuse and negligence, leading to citations against the facility.

   
   


2. 
   

   Lack of Oversight and Poor Conditions: Inspectors and journalists frequently reported overcrowding, understaffing, and inadequate healthcare services at SDC. Conditions were often compared to those of other troubled mental health institutions of the era, highlighting the challenges of operating such large, closed facilities.

   
   


3. 
   

   Eugenics Practices: SDC was historically linked to California's eugenics movement, which sought to limit reproduction among people considered "unfit." Between the 1920s and 1950s, California's sterilization laws led to forced sterilizations at facilities like SDC, with many patients sterilized under the guise of preventing the transmission of "undesirable" traits.

   
   


4. 
   

   Financial and Operational Mismanagement: The facility faced criticism for poor financial oversight and ineffective administration. Reports of misallocated funds and irregular financial practices emerged, especially in later years, as government officials scrutinized state budgets.

   
   


5. 
   

   Legal and Regulatory Violations: The facility accumulated a record of non-compliance with state and federal regulations, including failing to report abuse cases to law enforcement. This negligence drew significant criticism from disability rights advocates and led to multiple lawsuits.

   
   

The closure of the Sonoma Developmental Center marked the end of an era in institutionalized care in California. Today, the site is under deliberation for conservation and community development, and the future of the SDC property remains a point of active public and governmental interest.