VIEWPOINT: Proposed Rainier School closure ill-informed, ill-advised

Once again in Washington, there’s a move to reduce or eliminate capacity of our state’s facilities for the developmentally disabled.

These are our residential habilitation centers (RHCs). There are five, strategically located in Buckley, Bremerton, Shoreline, Spokane and Yakima. They are home to some of our state’s most fragile and vulnerable citizens.

Attempts to close our RHCs are always presented as a way to save the state money and provide more services to those thousands in our state so desperately in need of the services our RHCs provide.

The facts, however, overwhelmingly support preserving existing capacity. The need for them actually supports increasing their ability to provide respite for families on the verge of collapse because of the pressures from a loved one who demands everything from everyone.

As an aging population with loved ones at home becomes desperate for loving care for their family members, demands for long-term care increase. RHCs offer an ideal setting for those who need the kind of loving, sheltered environment offered at facilities like the Rainier School in Buckley.

Many still refer to our state’s RHCs as institutions. That is simply not the case. The developmentally disabled were de-institutionalized in the early 1980s. The current facilities instead offer secure, campus-like settings.

The Rainier School is typical of the state’s RHCs, with cottage homes, secure streets, a snack bar with easy access for those who are barely ambulatory, a recreation hall available to all, a gym, a swimming pool for therapeutic swimming, a dental clinic (many dentists in the community simply are not able to deal with this population) and a medical clinic.

There is even a chapel for those who choose to attend worship services. Employment is available through various opportunities on- and off-site.

The options for those residents who reside at Rainier, should it close, are dismal. Most would be virtual prisoners in their apartments. The need for 24-hour care would severely restrict their ability to come and go.

Many other services now available, such as dental care and a place to go to work, just do not exist in most community settings.

The judiciary decided years ago, in the landmark Olmstead decision, that residents should be given the choice of where they live so long as the professionals and the individuals (or their guardians) agreed and that there was a suitable alternative place to go. The most desirable living arrangements are those that are the least restrictive and the most integrated.

The cost of providing the quality of life for the residents of our RHCs in a setting without benefit of economies of scale would be so prohibitive that the state would be forced to cut services.

In some cases, those reductions in services would not only seriously impact quality of life, but would also impose serious safety and health threats. Many residents would be easy targets for victimization if they were forced to move from the Rainier School.

Instead of seeking to restrict services available to our most vulnerable neighbors, we should expand our ability to fill those voids currently existing in our community settings. RHCs should be utilized to provide needed – and in many cases missing – services.

Most notably, these could be medical and dental clinics open to anyone on Medicaid because of developmental disabilities, as well as therapeutic swimming programs, training sites for medical and other professional students, and outreach self-reliance classes.

Respite for families striving to care for loved ones at home is a desperately unfilled need.

Finally, these people should have a home that they know is safe and permanent, that can’t be lost because of zoning laws changes or because their adult boarding home or apartment is placed on the auction block due to change in ownership.

It is a moral imperative that the Rainier School remains open.

Christopher Hurst, D-Enumclaw, represents the 31st Legislative District, which includes Buckley, in the state House of Representatives.