Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Designated Crisis Responders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Designated crisis responders say involuntary commitment and placement processes are failing in parts of Washington
Summary
Designated crisis responders told the Community Safety Committee that DCR staffing has fallen sharply, hospitals and other facilities increasingly decline substance‑use placements, and local policy fragmentation leaves DCRs unable to complete involuntary holds even when assessors judge them necessary.
Designated crisis responders (DCRs) told a Washington State House Community Safety Committee work session on Oct. 29 that the state’s involuntary‑treatment pathway is often blocked by lack of accepting facilities, inconsistent local practices, and insufficient DCR staffing.
"Since we've left the regional sort of port network and moved to the BHASOs, we used to have 800 DCRs across the state, and now we're down below 350," Laura Pippen, a designated crisis responder, told the committee. Pippen said DCRs are assessors who can determine that a person meets criteria for involuntary commitment but cannot themselves physically move a person or compel transport without law enforcement or cooperating hospital providers.
Pippen described common problems: DCRs may petition for detention and obtain hospital acceptance, only to have the facility reverse that acceptance after a shift change; emergency departments increasingly discharge people who would previously have had inpatient substance‑use placements; and hospitals often cite medical rule‑outs or other exclusion criteria (e.g., wounds, advanced age, prosthetics) that prevent admissions. "The SUD [substance‑use disorder] is more difficult," she said, noting that inpatient SUD beds have diminished and hospitals sometimes refuse holds even when DCRs assert imminence.
The legal framework Pippen cited is RCW 71.34 (the involuntary treatment statute for youth was mentioned in testimony). She told lawmakers that disparate local practices, separate confidentiality rules and different facility policies interfere with DCRs' ability to coordinate placements and complete involuntary transports.
Workforce and system design: Pippen urged legislators to consider (1) how DCRs are deployed and supported, (2) whether BHASO‑level changes have undermined DCR capacity, and (3) how hospital and ED policies around withdrawal management and medical rule‑outs could be aligned with crisis‑response goals. She said co‑response and mobile crisis teams are valuable but cannot replace the statutory responsibilities of DCRs when an imminent risk is present.
What was not decided: committee members noted that DCR statutory issues fall under the Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction, but said the Community Safety Committee’s findings could inform cross‑committee work and short‑session technical fixes.
Speakers quoted: Laura Pippen (DCR, testimony Oct. 29).
