Citizen Portal
Sign In

Committee hears testimony backing larger state investment in Homeless Youth Act

Minnesota House Human Services Finance and Policy Committee · April 9, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Lawmakers heard multiple advocates and providers urging increased state funding for the Homeless Youth Act, citing service counts, positive outcomes and the risk of federal cuts; the committee laid House File 2068 over for possible inclusion after requesting DHS data on service counts and cost per outcome.

Vice Chair Keeler introduced House File 2068, a bill to continue and expand funding under Minnesota’s Homeless Youth Act. Witnesses representing youth service providers and statewide coalitions described the program’s reach and urged sustained or increased state investment in light of potential federal cuts.

James Lewis, chief program officer for The Link and spokesperson for the Youth Service Network, said the network now has 47 grantees statewide and provided service counts for the July 2023–June 2024 period, including outreach and shelter figures. He warned of a roughly $8.5 million annual federal funding shortfall that could force closures without state backup funding. Shari Brown and Amber Sadowski gave lived‑experience and Greater Minnesota perspective testimony, emphasizing that adequate funding allows youth to stabilize, continue education and avoid higher‑cost systems in the future.

Members pressed for detail on how many youth would be served by the sponsor’s $89 million request and how different types of service (rent support versus shelter versus transitional housing) change the per‑youth cost. Lorna Schmidt, legislative director at DHS’s homelessness housing and support services administration, said DHS can provide more precise counts and that the number served depends on the level and type of investment and regional cost differences.

The committee laid the bill over for possible inclusion and asked DHS for follow‑up information on historic service counts, how prior appropriations were spent, and return‑on‑investment calculations tied to different service mixes. No final appropriation was adopted at the hearing.