Minnesota's group homes: How did we get here?
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
Reporting from the MPR newsroom this week revealed multiple instances of maltreatment, neglect and death at Minnesota group homes connected to a man who has been working as a government official overseas since 2024.
Minnesota's group home industry has seen massive growth over the past few years, and with it, allegations of mismanagement.
But the system has been around for decades — and has roots in the deinstitutionalization movement.
“Early, [Minnesota was] one of the very first states to close our developmental disability systems institutions, and we evolved community programs that were group homes — that was all that was available,” said Amy Hewitt, director of the Institute on Community Integration at the University of Minnesota. “Over time, that's really expanded.”
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
Hewitt spoke with MPR News guest host Lisa Ryan about the history of group homes in Minnesota, and how care is evolving.
Press play above to listen to their conversation, or read a transcript below, edited for time and clarity.
Lisa Ryan: So my understanding, Amy, is that our current system has roots in the Fair Housing Act of the 1960s, which prevents discrimination based on disability. How did Minnesota come to rely on group homes, and who do group homes serve?
Amy Hewitt: We got here because, as a state, we're very committed to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities being able to be a part of their communities, and to be a part of their communities, they need to live in the community. That was called the deinstitutionalization movement.
It's not done. There are still many people in this country living in institutions that are funded by the state and managed by the state. In Minnesota, we don't have any institutions of the old days, like in the 1960’s, ‘70s, but we do have larger places where some people with intellectual and developmental disabilities live, and as a state, we have disproportionately more people living in four-person group homes than most states.
Early, we were one of the very first states to close our developmental disability systems institutions, and we evolved community programs that were group homes-that was all that was available. Over time, that's really expanded.
Now we have community supports that allow people to live in their own home, to continue living with their family, and bring services into the home. So we've really diversified what we do to support people with disabilities in the community in Minnesota, and that system has grown more complex over time, harder to understand over time, and clearly hard harder to manage over time.
What are some of the advantages and the disadvantages of the group home model?
I think the group home model is used appropriately when there aren't other community options for someone, and when the person wants to live there, and their family wants them to live there, and possibly can no longer support the person in their family home. So that's typically when they're used.
You know, we all want to live a self-determined life that we choose to live. We all would prefer to live with people that we know and that we love. And sometimes people don't have those choices, and so that becomes problematic.
Another big problem, and this is an area that I focus on a lot in my work, is the workforce, and as a society across the nation and in Minnesota, we haven't prioritized this workforce enough to ensure that the people who are hired have the skills necessary to do the job. We don't compensate people enough so that they stay in the jobs. The turnover rates are quite high in Minnesota and nationally. Of these staff, they rotate kind of in and out. There's a steady group of people who stay and are highly committed to this profession, but there's also a constant churn, and that is not something new that has existed since the inception of community services.
Given how much money is in the system, why is pay for workers so low and conditions for residents often so poor?
I do think that people often jump to the conclusion that there's enough money in the system to pay staff well and to ensure that they have affordable benefits. I've done estimates of costs in the past, and really the increases to give people a livable wage and affordable benefits would minimally need to be 30 percent higher in terms of rates. If you look at the rates and how they're set, the overwhelming majority of the money goes to the staff. It's just not enough.
Our investigation found a man living overseas who has made millions operating group homes in Minnesota. So, how are people getting rich off the system?
I can't answer that question. I can speculate an answer to that question, but I actually can't answer it. My speculative guess is they're not honest people, and if they're getting wealthy, they're cutting corners someplace. That stops by having rigorous evaluation, rigorous oversight on the things that matter most, which is health and safety, and people using the resources that are given to them to provide the service that they're supposed to provide.
How can people feel confident about oversight at these homes, given some of the reporting over the past few months, and what are some of the challenges with oversight in our system?
We use case management as one way in which we monitor and make sure people have good lives and that they're safe and that their program plans are being implemented. Case managers spend a vast majority of their time on paperwork, and less time really getting to know the people that they are supposed to be a case manager for, coordinating services and supports, making sure people's needs are being met. They simply don't have enough time.
10 years ago, a class action lawsuit accused the state of segregating Minnesotans with disabilities through group homes. The state was found at fault in 2023 for not informing Minnesotans with disabilities about options beyond group homes. Has that ruling led to any significant change in your eyes?
I think so. I think one of the greatest areas is the leadership that we're evolving of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and having them help with determining what our system should look like, what our system could look like, and teaching advocacy skills so that people can stand up for themselves and say what they want out of life, and so I see a lot more happening in our state to make that happen.
And then also, the creation of new services and supports or programs that can help people stay in the community, with their families, and we can't lose sight of. It took a long time to make what exists today happen and to build that, and we can't give up hope. There's a lot to fight for, and advocacy works. And so, I think if, as a community, a collective community, we all shared our voice with our elected officials. It would make a big difference.
Correction (Aug. 20, 2026): This story has been updated to accurately reflect the business relationship between the Minnesota group homes and the foreign government official.
