Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), there are formal dispute resolution options for parents and school staff to pursue when they cannot reach consensus on educational programming for a student. Use of the required dispute resolution offerings continues to negatively impact the collaboration necessary between parents and schools to make educational decisions for children with disabilities and to resolve their differences when engaged. Research indicates it is worthwhile for state and local agencies to search for opportunities to improve parent participation and appropriate dispute resolution. The national dispute resolution technical assistance center, the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), has developed the CADRE Continuum of Dispute Resolution Processes and Practices to facilitate stakeholders' capacity to engage in collaborative planning and problem-solving. The Continuum includes both the dispute resolution option requirements of IDEA and alternative, constructive resolution processes offered throughout the United States, and serves as a conceptual framework for state and local leaders to approach dispute resolution in special education. This researcher investigated the degree of relationship between the alternative dispute resolution practices reflected in the first three stages of the CADRE Continuum and the due process hearing rate for each of the 50 U.S. states using a multiple regression analysis. Publicly available, non-password protected dispute resolution activity data from the 2018-2019 school year compiled by CADRE were utilized for this investigation. The researcher also performed a descriptive analysis to examine the difference in alternative dispute resolution practices between exemplary states (identified by CADRE and the Office of Special Education) and states with the highest rate of due process complaints filed for 2018-2019. Results showed the number of Stage I, Stage II, and Stage III interventions were not statistically significant predictors of due process hearing rates at the state level, and there was a positive relationship between Stage I interventions and due process hearing rates. A clear trend observed is the exemplary states all use facilitation as an intervention practice. Additionally, the four states with the highest rate of due process complaints have more Stage I Interventions than the four exemplary states, which aligns with the results from the multiple regression analysis, which was not expected. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com.bibliotheek.ehb.be/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]