Skip to main content

SHB 2200

In Committee

House

DD residential settings data

Increasing access to data related to the safety and stability of residential settings for individuals with developmental disabilities.

This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.

How does a bill become law?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: February 2, 2026
Last Action: February 4, 2026
Status: H Approps

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill requires the state to collect and publicly report standardized data on safety and stability outcomes for residential services for people with developmental disabilities, comparing state-run facilities with private providers. It also creates a public dashboard to help families and the public see how different settings perform on key metrics like 911 calls, hospital stays, and placement disruptions.

  • Requires the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) to conduct a review of safety and stability outcomes—including 911 calls, hospital stays, and placement disruptions—for clients with high behavioral or medical needs across state-operated facilities and contracted private residential settings (e.g., group homes, companion homes) from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2025.
  • Mandates that the review include data on: (a) 911 calls related to behavioral crises, (b) emergency room visits where discharge was delayed due to behavioral/safety concerns, and (c) placement terminations leading to state custody, incarceration, or homelessness.
  • Requires the review to also include staff retention rates and the percentage of high-acuity clients in each setting, enabling comparison of resource needs and outcomes.
  • Requires the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) to create a public-facing dashboard on its website by June 1, 2027, showing aggregate data on emergency service use and placement stability for residential settings serving people with developmental disabilities.
  • The dashboard must be updated annually, with the first update due by December 1, 2027, and must include data starting January 1, 2026.
  • The JLARC report must be delivered to the legislature by December 1, 2026, in compliance with existing audit reporting rules.

Who is affected

  • Individuals with developmental disabilitiesFamilies and guardians of individuals with developmental disabilities who receive residential services will gain access to standardized, comparable data on safety and stability outcomes across different types of residential settings, helping them make more informed decisions about care options.
  • Private residential service providersPrivate residential providers (e.g., group homes, companion homes) will need to share standardized data on client outcomes and staff retention, potentially influencing how their services are evaluated and reimbursed.
  • State-operated developmental disability facilitiesState-operated facilities (e.g., Residential Habilitation Centers, State-Operated Living Alternatives) will be included in standardized data reporting and public comparison, increasing transparency around their performance relative to private providers.
  • State agencies (DSHS and JLARC)State agencies—especially the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC)—will be responsible for collecting, analyzing, and publishing standardized data on residential outcomes.
Effective: July 1, 2026Fiscal impact: The bill requires DSHS and JLARC to collect and analyze data, which may involve modest additional staffing or technology costs; however, no specific dollar amount is identified in the bill text.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 20, 2026 at 2:35 AM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (5)
  • The public dashboard will empower families and guardians with transparent, comparable data on emergency service use and placement stability—enabling more informed care decisions and reducing information asymmetry that currently disadvantages families choosing between state and private settings.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)
  • Standardized collection of 911 calls, ER visits, and placement disruptions for high-acuity clients will reveal systemic gaps in crisis response across settings, informing targeted policy reforms and resource allocation to improve safety outcomes for the most vulnerable individuals.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)-(c)
  • By comparing staff retention and high-acuity client percentages across settings, the JLARC review may expose staffing inequities that contribute to poorer outcomes—supporting evidence-based workforce investments to improve service quality for people with developmental disabilities.

    EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)(a)-(b)
  • Requiring apples-to-apples comparison between state and private residential settings will hold all providers to the same performance metrics, reducing regulatory asymmetry and potentially improving accountability for outcomes—especially for clients in under-scrutinized private group homes.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)-(c)
  • Annual public updates starting in 2026 create a foundation for long-term performance tracking and trend analysis, enabling policymakers and providers to evaluate the impact of reforms over time—though initial data gaps may limit early insights.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
  • Mandating standardized reporting of staff retention rates across all residential settings—including private providers—could increase administrative burden and compliance costs for smaller private providers, who may lack dedicated data infrastructure, potentially discouraging new entrants or forcing consolidation.

    Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(4)(b)
  • Publicly releasing data on 911 calls and emergency room visits tied to behavioral crises could stigmatize residents and discourage families from seeking care in high-acuity settings due to reputational concerns, even if outcomes are comparable—potentially leading to underutilization of needed services.

    Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(1)
  • Publishing data on placement disruptions and transfers to state custody/incarceration/homelessness may lead private providers to avoid enrolling high-acuity clients to avoid appearing on the dashboard as “high-risk,” reducing access to care for the most vulnerable individuals.

    HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(c)
  • The requirement for DSHS to collect and update dashboard data annually may strain state agency resources, especially if data systems are not interoperable across programs—potentially diverting staff time and budget from direct service delivery.

    Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(2)
  • The bill does not define or standardize how “behavioral or safety concerns” trigger hospital discharge delays or placement terminations, risking inconsistent reporting across providers and undermining the comparability the bill seeks to achieve.

    Public SafetyRef: Sec. 2(3)(c)

Who Is Most Affected

Individuals with developmental disabilitiesPositive Impact

Families and guardians gain critical tools to compare provider performance and make informed decisions about residential placements—especially valuable for high-acuity clients where outcomes vary widely across settings.

Private residential service providersMixed Impact

Private providers face increased transparency and potential reputational risk if their data appears worse than state facilities, which may incentivize quality improvements but also discourage enrollment of high-need clients to avoid dashboard stigma.

State-operated developmental disability facilitiesMixed Impact

State-operated facilities gain credibility through standardized comparison, but also face heightened scrutiny—potentially accelerating reforms if they underperform relative to private settings.

State agencies (DSHS and JLARC)Mixed Impact

DSHS and JLARC gain new authority and data infrastructure, but must invest in staff, system integration, and quality assurance—though costs appear modest relative to broader system benefits.

Local government and emergency servicesPositive Impact

County emergency services and courts may see reduced strain if improved data leads to better-coordinated crisis responses and fewer placement breakdowns resulting in incarceration or homelessness.