Hopefully this investigative series will lead to some needed changes in the law. But it's unfortunate that the Times took the approach with these articles that DSHS isn't doing its job, rather than focusing on the problem that the laws that apply to adult family homes deny DSHS much authority to actually regulate them. The whole focus of the AFH statutes right now is that this is a cottage industry, something that mom & pop can do when they retire and have a bunch of empty rooms in the house, and so DSHS should for the most part not burden them with paperwork and inspections and bureaucracy. DSHS is even required to negotiate with the AFH providers' union when enacting regulations--not exactly a recipe for stringent rules. On top of that, the legislature has been decreasing funding for inspections, which of course is going to translate into more AFH providers slipping through the cracks. You get the regulatory oversight you pay for, people.

So yes, if the legislature decides not to heavily regulate a field you'll end up with more abuses slipping through. Then again, if the state decides to heavily regulate AFHs, fewer people will want to deal with the hassle of operating them--that's the trade-off that we have to try to balance here. Almost everybody would prefer to live in a smaller home with more privacy and sense of community, rather than being shuffled off to a huge institution like a nursing home. Our state legislature has so far taken the view that it's more important to have a vibrant AFH industry to provide people with choices, than it is to be absolutely certain that every AFH is safe. Maybe that's a poor policy choice. (Although it seems to me from reading these articles that there are relatively few troubling cases out of the huge number of people who live in AFHs, despite the low regulation. Maybe most people will take a sick Alzheimer's patient to the doctor's office out of pure humanity even without the fear that a government inspector will catch them and fine them? Washington is recognized nationally as being the leader in providing disabled people safe community living options, which I assume means however bad we're doing, it's at least better than anyone else has managed.) But it's unfair to treat public servants as punching bags for following the laws and public policies set by our legislature. If we have a problem with our regulation/safety-versus-deregulation/scarcity ratio, that's a problem of the legislature's making, and ultimately the voting public's responsibility.