Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Respite Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill to allow some out‑of‑home respite in unlicensed homes with safeguards
Summary
Senate File 446 would permit out‑of‑home respite for children receiving waiver services to be provided in unlicensed residential homes under defined safeguards (background checks, home assessment, guardian visit, maximum days). The committee referred the bill to Human Services.
Senate File 446, intended to restore pre‑2020 flexibility for out‑of‑home respite, was recommended to the Human Services Committee by the Health and Human Services Committee on Feb. 18, 2025.
The sponsor, Senator Rasmussen, said the 2020 change that limited respite to licensed settings removed trusted options and reduced availability, particularly in Greater Minnesota. “This change resulted in the loss of trusted options for families and reduced the services availability, especially in rural communities,” Rasmussen said.
What the bill does: SF446 would allow out‑of‑home respite to be provided in an unlicensed residential setting so long as the provider remains a licensed 245D respite provider and additional safeguards are met. Testimony from the association of residential providers (ARM) listed the conditions: background studies for everyone in the home; the child’s case manager must assess and document the home; a guardian or legal representative must visit the home before the first respite event; settings limited to residential homes; no more than four children at once; each child must have a private bedroom except siblings; no children and adults over 21 present together; a single stay in an unlicensed respite setting may not exceed 10 consecutive days and total days in a calendar year are capped at 46.
Why it matters: Supporters and providers said the change would expand safe, trusted community‑based respite options and reduce family crises caused by lack of local availability. Opponents were not recorded in opposition in this hearing; the committee discussion focused on the rationale for numeric limits such as “46 calendar days.”
Committee action: Senator Abler moved that the committee recommend SF446 to the Human Services Committee; the motion passed by voice consent.
Context and limits: The bill explicitly exempts foster‑care respite (it does not affect respite for children in foster care) and is framed as targeted to children receiving waiver services under 245D. The committee and testifiers emphasized that the provider remains licensed and the bill reinstates unlicensed site use only under specified safeguards.
