Assisted Living
Friendship Court
1228 South Rice Street, Blue Earth, MN 56013 · Map
Licensed for 32 residents · FRIENDSHIP COURT
Friendship Court is a state-licensed assisted living community in Blue Earth, Minnesota. It is licensed for 32 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.
Prices
This community does not publish its prices.
Area costs
Lilisity’s independent report
What the public record shows
Gathered by Lilisity from state and federal sources. Communities can’t edit this part of the page.
License
Active, 32 residents
Assisted Living Facility 422332, current license dated Sep 1, 2025. Licensee FRIENDSHIP COURT.
Nearest emergency room
0.5 miles
United Hospital District, rated 5 of 5 stars by CMS.
Side by side with nearby communities
The 4 nearest communities that offer assisted living, by straight-line distance. Prices are starting prices each community publishes; we never show estimates.
| Community | Distance | Licensed capacity | Published starting price | License | Inspection citations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Friendship Court this community | 32 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated | |
| Elmore Assisted Living | 8.3 mi | 72 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
| Parker Oaks Senior Living | 10.7 mi | 35 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Vista Prairie at Goldfinch Est | 17.7 mi | 140 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Ingleside | 18.3 mi | 62 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- January 28, 2026
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (January 28, 2026, state report 4D4V11)
MDH: “On January 26, 2026, through January 28, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed January 28, 2026: 9 correction orders
- Tag 550: 144G.41 Subd. 7 Resident grievances; reporting maltreatment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post in a conspicuous place, information about the licensee's grievance procedure with the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to post in a conspicuous place, information about the licensee's grievance procedure with the required content. This had the potential to affect the licensee's current residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and email contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 (a) Staff records Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-F).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records included all required content for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-F). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid staff member, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”
- Tag 1440: 144G.62 Subd. 4 Supervision of staff providing delegated nurs Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individual began working for the licensee for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-F).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of staff performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individual began working for the licensee for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-F). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Staff who perform delegated nursing or therapy tasks must be supervised by an appropriate licensed health professional or a registered nurse according to the assisted living facility's policy where the services are being provided to verify that the work [...]”
- Tag 1460: 144G.63 Subdivision 1 Orientation of staff and supervisors Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E and ULP-F) completed an orientation to assisted living facility licensing requirements and regulations before providing services to residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E and ULP-F) completed an orientation to assisted living facility licensing requirements and regulations before providing services to residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All staff providing and supervising direct services must complete an orientation to assisted living facility licensing requirements and regulations before providing assisted living services to residents. [...]”
- Tag 1500: 144G.63 Subd. 5 Required annual training Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure annual training included all required topics for each 12 months of employment for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-F).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure annual training included all required topics for each 12 months of employment for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-F). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All staff that perform direct services must complete at least eight hours of annual training for each 12 months of employment. [...]”
Show all 9
- Tag 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a current individualized medication management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a current individualized medication management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, a registered nurse, advanced practice registered nurse, or qualified staff delegated the task by a registered nurse must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the [...]”
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one of five residents (R1) observed during medication administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one of five residents (R1) observed during medication administration. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- Tag 1790: 144G.71 Subd. 10 Medication management for residents who will Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) trained and ensured competency for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-F) providing medications for residents with unplanned time away from home when the licensed nurse was not available.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) trained and ensured competency for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E, ULP-F) providing medications for residents with unplanned time away from home when the licensed nurse was not available. [...]”
Rule cited: “(2) for unplanned time away, when the pharmacy is not able to provide the medications, a licensed nurse or unlicensed personnel shall provide medications in amounts and dosages needed for the length of the anticipated absence, not to exceed seven calendar [...]”
- Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-C) followed appropriate medication administration procedures.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-C) followed appropriate medication administration procedures. In addition, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered according to policy and accepted standards of practice by one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-C) observed during insulin administration. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Residents have the right to receive health care and other assisted living services with continuity from people who are properly trained and competent to perform their duties and in sufficient numbers to adequately provide the services agreed to in the [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): No orders were issued for this inspection report.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- May 18, 2023: report CS3K11 · 13 correction orders
Details
Survey completed May 18, 2023: 13 correction orders
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the staffing schedule was posted as required, potentially affecting the licensee's current residents and any visitors.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the staffing schedule was posted as required, potentially affecting the licensee's current residents and any visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all the [...]”
Rule cited: “(13) offer to provide or make available at least the following services to residents: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”
- Tag 680: 144G.42 Subd. 10 Disaster planning and emergency preparedness Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post an emergency preparedness plan prominently.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to post an emergency preparedness plan prominently. This had the potential to impact all residents, staff, and visitors to the licensee's facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must meet the following requirements: (1) have a written emergency disaster plan that contains a plan for evacuation, addresses elements of sheltering in place, identifies temporary relocation sites, and details staff assignments in the event [...]”
- Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included a discharge summary with the required content for one of one discharged resident (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included a discharge summary with the required content for one of one discharged resident (R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “Contents of a resident record include the following for each resident: (1) identifying information, including the resident's name, date of birth, address, and telephone number; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the resident's emergency contact, [...]”
- Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that complied with fire protection requirements.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that complied with fire protection requirements. This deficient condition had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and: (1) for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) [...]”
Show all 13
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and received in affiliation with the assisted living license for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and received in affiliation with the assisted living license for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing resident monitoring and reassessment, not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last date of the assessment for two of two residents (R3, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted ongoing resident monitoring and reassessment, not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last date of the assessment for two of two residents (R3, R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of two residents (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of two residents (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure delegated procedures were followed for one of three residents (R4) observed during medication administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure delegated procedures were followed for one of three residents (R4) observed during medication administration. In addition, the licensee failed to document the site of injection for one of one resident (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “When administration of medications is delegated to unlicensed personnel, the assisted living facility must ensure that the registered nurse has: (1) instructed the unlicensed personnel in the proper methods to administer the medications, and the unlicensed [...]”
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure prescribed medications were clarified with dosage for one of three residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure prescribed medications were clarified with dosage for one of three residents (R2). In addition, the licensee failed to ensure prescribed medications were transcribed as ordered for one of three residents (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- Tag 1820: 144G.71 Subd. 13 Prescriptions Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a current written or electronically recorded prescription was obtained for all medications the provider had managed for one of three residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a current written or electronically recorded prescription was obtained for all medications the provider had managed for one of three residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “There must be a current written or electronically recorded prescription as defined in section 151.01, subdivision 16a, for all prescribed medications that the assisted living facility is managing for the resident.”
- Tag 1830: 144G.71 Subd. 14 Renewal of prescriptions Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7)
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to renew prescriptions at least every 12 months for one of three residents (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to renew prescriptions at least every 12 months for one of three residents (R4). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected [...]”
Rule cited: “Prescriptions must be renewed at least every 12 months or more frequently as indicated by the assessment in subdivision 2. Prescriptions for controlled substances must comply with chapter 152.”
- Tag 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication, for one of one discharged resident (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication, for one of one discharged resident (R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 2: “a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death”
Isolated scope: “when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred only occasionally”
Pattern scope: “when more than a limited number of residents are affected, more than a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred repeatedly; but is not found to be pervasive”
Widespread scope: “when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all of the residents”
Summaries are ours and are marked “Summary”; quoted text is MDH’s own, shortened where marked [...]. Read the full reports at the links above or search every report on MDH’s site.
What these terms mean
MDH: “An evaluation is a process regulated by the division to ensure licensees comply with the laws, rules, and certifications for the type of care and services authorized under their license/certification.”
“An investigation may occur when the division is notified that care and services are not being provided by licensees as required by law. This may include allegations of abuse, neglect, or financial misuse.”
For maltreatment, Minnesota law defines substantiated as “a preponderance of the evidence shows that an act that meets the definition of maltreatment occurred” and inconclusive as “less than a preponderance of evidence to show that maltreatment did or did not occur” (Minn. Stat. 626.5572).
Correction orders, as MDH explains on each state form: “Tag numbers have been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities.” “The letter in the left column is used for tracking purposes and reflects the scope and level issued pursuant to 144G.31 subd. 1, 2, and 3.” MDH adds that there is no requirement to submit a plan of correction for violations of Minnesota state statutes.
MDH keeps investigation results for seven years when allegations are substantiated, four years when inconclusive, and three years when unsubstantiated, so the counts cover different periods. This community is licensed for 32 residents; larger communities are evaluated and reported on more often, so read counts with size in mind. Source: Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division, data as of September 28, 2026. Always visit in person and ask the community about anything listed here.
License and ownershipActive license, licensee FRIENDSHIP COURT
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 422332
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-09-01
- Licensed capacity
- 32
- Licensee
- FRIENDSHIP COURT
- County
- Faribault County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Margaret Brandt
Source: Minnesota state licensing records (agency listing), retrieved 2026-09-09. Licensing status is a matter of public record; it is not a quality rating.
Administrator/Authorized Agent name from the Minnesota licensing record, as of Sep 9, 2026.
Paying with Medicaid and other programsHow Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota, and other programs
How Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota
- Elderly Waiver (EW), customized living services. Minnesota's Elderly Waiver, part of Medical Assistance (Minnesota Medicaid), can pay for "customized living" services, and a provider of those services must hold an assisted living license (or meet certain exceptions). You must qualify for Medical Assistance and need a nursing-home level of care. (state page)
Ask the community whether it accepts Medicaid.
Location and nearby careNearest hospital 0.5 mi, nursing home 0.2 mi, pharmacy 17.6 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- United Hospital District, Blue Earth. 0.5 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 5 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- St Lukes Lutheran Care Center, Blue Earth. 0.2 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- United Hospital District Inc, Blue Earth. 0.8 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Hy-Vee Pharmacy. 17.6 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56013 as rural (rural area).
- Hospice
- 3 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56013.
United Hospital District Inc, office in Blue Earth, 0.8 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 5 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Mayo Clinic Health System-Southeast Minnesota Region, Austin. 55.9 miles away, straight line. 1 geriatric medicine doctor listed there.
Distances are straight lines from the community, not driving distance. Hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors come from CMS provider data (CMS, hospital list updated Jul 22, 2026). Star ratings are CMS’s own.
Emergency and natural hazard riskFEMA overall risk relatively high; outside FEMA's high-risk flood areas
Public hazard maps for this location. Ask the community about its emergency plan, its generator and where residents would go in an evacuation.
- Flood zone
- FEMA has a flood map for this community (effective May 3, 1982), but it is not in FEMA's digital flood map data, so the zone at this address could not be read. FEMA's Map Service Center has the map. (FEMA flood map)
- FEMA National Risk Index
- Overall: relatively high. By hazard: inland flooding very high, wildfire very low, tornado very high, heat wave relatively moderate, earthquake very low. These are FEMA’s ratings for the census tract, compared with tracts nationwide. (FEMA, December 2025)
A flood zone describes the map at this point, not the building's elevation. In an emergency, follow the local emergency management agency.
Questions to ask on a tour10 questions picked for this community from its record
Picked for this community from its record. Ask them in person and write down the answers.
- The current license dates from 2025. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
- What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
- What fees are charged at move-in?
- How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
- How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
- Who gives medications, and what training do they have?
- For what reasons can a resident be asked to leave?
- Is the apartment held during a hospital stay, and at what cost?
What we checked11 public sources we searched, with dates
Every public source we searched for this community. “Nothing on record” means we found no record that matched it. A record can be missed when a name or address differs.
| Source | Data as of | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection records | Sep 28, 2026 | See above |
| U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour cases | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016 | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| FEMA flood map | See above | |
| USDA wildfire risk | Apr 15, 2026 | Not shown: FEMA rates wildfire risk here very low |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Friendship Court provide?
Friendship Court is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Blue Earth, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 32 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Friendship Court?
No. We publish state licensing details for Friendship Court but no score, rating, or ranking. Only communities on the Top Communities list or with a Senior Living Alliance Excellence Award, both based on phone-verified resident and family interviews, are ranked.
How much does Friendship Court cost?
Assisted Living in Minnesota typically starts at $2,200 to $4,800 a month. Based on 74 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price. Friendship Court does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Friendship Court?
Visit Friendship Court at 1228 South Rice Street, Blue Earth, MN 56013.
How Lilisity works. The only scores or rankings Lilisity publishes are the Top Communities list and the Excellence Awards, both built from phone-verified resident and family interviews. Communities can pay Lilisity a flat monthly fee to manage their own listing: photos, prices, contact details, and receiving the inquiries families choose to send them. The fee is the same no matter how many families contact them or move in. Senior Living Alliance, which runs Lilisity, offers the same listing to its member communities as part of their membership; members pay SLA for its resident and family interview program. No community pays Lilisity per inquiry, per referral or per move-in. Payment never changes a testimonial, a rating, or the order of search results. The "Nearby Senior Living Alliance communities" box shows member communities only. How we verify testimonials · How we are paid