SSB 5393
SignedSenate
Rainier school
Closing the Rainier school by June 30, 2027.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires the state to close the Yakima Valley School and Rainier School—two residential facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities—by June 30, 2027, and transition residents to community-based or alternative state-run settings. It also bans new long-term admissions and ensures staff have opportunities to transfer to other state jobs.
- By June 30, 2027, the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) must close the Yakima Valley School and Rainier School and relocate current residents to alternative settings.
- After the bill takes effect, no new long-term residents may be admitted to Yakima Valley School or Rainier School—only short-term respite or crisis stabilization services will be allowed.
- DSHS must provide state-operated living alternatives for residents who prefer them, and may use existing supported living programs in the community for others who choose that option.
- The bill permanently removes Rainier School and Yakima Valley School from the list of active residential habilitation centers in state law, and repeals the prior law (RCW 71A.20.180) that governed their closure.
- The bill updates definitions in education and corrections laws to reflect the closure of these facilities, including removing them from lists of institutions under various state departments.
Who is affected
- Residents of Yakima Valley School and Rainier School — Current residents of Yakima Valley School and Rainier School will be relocated to community-based or alternative state-operated settings; new admissions will be restricted to short-term crisis or respite care only after the bill takes effect.
- Employees of Yakima Valley School and Rainier School — Staff currently employed at Yakima Valley School and Rainier School will be offered opportunities to transfer to other state-run programs, including state-operated living alternatives and other facilities.
- Families and guardians of residents — Families and guardians of residents will be engaged in transition planning to ensure continuity of care and support during the move to new settings.
- Youth in residential schools — Youth currently enrolled in residential schools—including Yakima Valley School and Rainier School—may be affected if they are served in those facilities, though the bill primarily targets adult residential habilitation centers.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandating state-operated living alternatives for residents who prefer them—while honoring personal choice—supports individual autonomy and reduces institutional segregation, aligning with federal Medicaid waivers and best practices for community integration of people with disabilities.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)Preserving the option to remain in residential habilitation centers for those who prefer that setting upholds dignity and self-determination, countering assumptions that all individuals with disabilities prefer community placement—this respects neurodiversity and varied support needs.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(c)Requiring DSHS to offer current staff opportunities to transfer to new state-run settings helps prevent mass layoffs and preserves institutional knowledge, supporting workforce stability during transition—a concrete benefit to frontline workers.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(d)Restricting new long-term admissions to respite or crisis stabilization only reduces the risk of overburdening aging facilities and encourages earlier, smaller-scale community transitions—potentially improving outcomes for future residents by avoiding institutionalization.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)The legislative findings cite successful past transitions and emphasize intentional, person-centered planning—suggesting DSHS has demonstrated capacity to manage this closure responsibly, though success depends on continued funding and oversight.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4)
Potential Concerns (5)
Closing two long-standing residential facilities by June 30, 2027—without specifying a detailed, facility-specific transition plan or additional staffing/resources for alternative settings—risks disrupting continuity of care and increasing risks of medical or behavioral crises during transition, especially for residents with complex needs who rely on familiar environments and routines.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Banning all new long-term admissions (except respite/crisis) may leave some individuals without appropriate long-term placement options if community-based or alternative state-run settings lack capacity or readiness by the deadline—particularly for those with high support needs who cannot be accommodated in smaller or less-resourced community homes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)Allowing use of *existing* community-based supported living programs for transitioning residents may strain or overwhelm current capacity, especially in rural areas where such services are sparse, potentially delaying transitions or forcing suboptimal placements.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(b)While offering staff transfer opportunities is positive, the bill does not guarantee retention of current roles, wages, or schedules—many frontline staff (e.g., direct support professionals) may be reassigned to lower-paying or less stable positions in new settings, especially if new facilities are underfunded or understaffed.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(d)The bill assumes closure will reduce state operating costs, but does not quantify savings or specify how cost reductions will be reinvested—without explicit funding commitments to expand community-based services, cost-cutting could lead to under-resourced alternatives, harming service quality and equity.
FinancialLean peopleRef: Fiscal Impact Summary
Who Is Most Affected
Current residents—especially those with high support needs, limited communication, or long institutional stays—may face significant disruption if transitions are rushed or alternatives lack capacity. However, those who prefer community living may benefit from greater autonomy and integration.
Frontline staff (e.g., DSPs, nurses, therapists) are likely to benefit from job continuity and potential wage stability, but may face increased workloads or role changes if new settings are under-resourced. Management and unionized staff may have more predictable transitions.
Families may welcome reduced institutionalization and increased community inclusion, but many express concern about fragmented care, lack of 24/7 supervision in smaller homes, and insufficient support for siblings or caregivers. Rural families face added logistical burdens.
Youth in residential schools (e.g., Green Hill, Fircrest) are not directly affected by this bill, but its success may influence future policy on juvenile residential facilities—especially if community-based alternatives prove viable and cost-effective.
Community providers of supported living (e.g., group homes, day programs) may see increased demand and potential state funding shifts, but could be overwhelmed if capacity is not expanded. This may benefit larger, well-resourced providers more than small nonprofits.