Committee advances bill to allow out‑of‑home respite in unlicensed homes with guardrails; laid over

The House Human Services Finance Policy Committee heard Representative Hicks' House File 7‑28, which would allow out‑of‑home respite for children to be provided in unlicensed residential settings under specified safeguards, and laid the bill over for possible inclusion.

Representative Hicks and several testifiers told the committee that a 2020 change limited out‑of‑home respite for children to licensed settings and, in practice, reduced the pool of trusted, community‑based respite options available to families. The bill aims to restore availability by allowing respite in an unlicensed home so long as the service is provided under a 245D license held by the provider and certain guardrails are met.

Sarah Grafstrom, senior director of state and federal policy at ARM (a trade association of residential service providers), described the bill's requirements: a background study for everyone present in the home during respite, an assessment of the home by the child's case manager, a pre‑visit by the child's legal guardian, a residential setting limit with no more than four children at one time, individual bedrooms for each child (except sibling pairs by request), a prohibition on mixing children with someone over age 21 in the same residence at the same time, a 10‑consecutive‑day maximum per placement and a 46‑calendar‑day annual cap. Grafstrom said the change is important for Greater Minnesota where licensed respite openings are often scarce.

Tyler Langenfeld, senior director of 245D services at ACRA, told the committee that the service is licensed even when provided in someone's home and that staff who provide unlicensed out‑of‑home respite complete the same required 245D training and operate under program oversight. Recounting the 2020 change, Langenfeld said that “requiring unlicensed out of home respite providers for individuals under the age of 18 to be related to the child dramatically reduces an already shallow pool of potential staff.”

Representative Curran and other members described personal observations of families who benefit from a trusted, home‑based respite arrangement. Representative Gordon asked why the 2020 change was made; witnesses and agency staff said the 2020 language stemmed from a federal waiver amendment and issues related to background studies. Department of Human Services staff told the committee they had worked with Representative Hicks and do not have current objections to the bill; DHS staff referenced Adam Walsh background study requirements as part of the historical context.

Representative Hicks said the current draft incorporates guardrails developed in collaboration with DHS and includes geographic considerations to ensure distribution of services. The committee closed public testimony and laid House File 7‑28 over for possible inclusion. No final committee vote on substantive adoption occurred; the motion before the committee was to lay the bill over.

Votes at a glance: Representative Hicks moved that House File 7‑28 be laid over for possible inclusion; the motion was accepted and the bill was laid over (voice action; no roll‑call tally recorded).