Arc of King County
Supported Living
Reviews
Compassionate Disability Support Services
Four of five reviews praise staff helpfulness and expertise in navigating services for families with developmentally disabled members, highlighting patience, professionalism, and emotional support during complex processes like guardianship and school advocacy. One strongly negative review criticizes a staff member named Stacia as inconsiderate and questions the organization's motivations. Overall, families express deep gratitude for practical assistance and compassionate guidance, though one dissatisfied customer warns others away.
Terrible experience with this place. Stacia is inconsiderate in every way imaginable. Would highly recommend going anywhere else. I believe they are doing this for the money and d
I used to volunteer here back in 2009 providing services to people with developmental disabilities and ended up needing to use their services recently for one of our foster childr
Rachel Nemhauser, is the best helper, last year she helped me a lot when I got problem on my Special Son School, even if I have broken English you understand me, and offer me inter
This is a non-profit organization for families who have disabilities in the Seattle/King County area. They are professionals with a big heart. Their staff is warm and friendly an
Inspections(4)
This is an administrative scheduling letter confirming an Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR) meeting for September 9, 2024 Statement of Deficiencies related to WAC 388-101D-0220. The facility (The Arc of King County) is formally disputing the citation through proper regulatory channels. The facility's response demonstrates good engagement with the regulatory process by promptly requesting IDR review and organizing appropriate leadership participation, though the actual nature of the violation and corrective actions cannot be assessed from this scheduling document alone.
View original report →The inspection identified a regulatory non-compliance issue that was disputed through the Informal Dispute Resolution process. The facility's response was substantive, resulting in modifications to the Statement of Deficiencies including a change from WAC 388-101D-0220(2) to WAC 388-101D-0025(1)(d), removal of staff interviews and client skin check language, and correction of a staff title. The facility engaged appropriately in the dispute resolution process and successfully demonstrated that portions of the original findings required amendment, indicating a proactive compliance approach, though the underlying violation remains requiring a corrective action plan.
View original report →A resident sustained a fractured clavicle of unknown origin that went undetected for days despite 24-hour supervision, indicating a serious failure in resident monitoring and observation. Medical documentation confirmed the injury occurred days before discovery, suggesting inadequate staff vigilance. The provider failed to determine how the fracture occurred and could not account for the injury despite continuous supervision requirements, demonstrating systemic failures in care oversight. A failed provider practice citation was issued under WAC 388-101D-0220(2), but the investigation summary provides no evidence of meaningful corrective actions or systemic improvements implemented by the facility.
View original report →The inspection identified a pattern of non-compliance across multiple regulatory areas including failure to immediately report alleged exploitation to authorities, lapsed staff training (bloodborne pathogens, continuing education, mandatory reporter training), missing medical device safety instructions and physician orders, absent nurse delegation documentation, facility safety hazards (exposed electrical wires, mold-like substance), incomplete client refusal plans, and medication administration without required blood pressure checks. The facility's response included acknowledging deficiencies and attributing many gaps to leadership turnover and an office relocation in 2022, with corrective actions initiated during the inspection process. A follow-up inspection on 06/06/2024 confirmed all deficiencies were corrected, though the systematic nature of documentation and training failures indicated significant operational breakdowns requiring comprehensive remediation.
View original report →