Assisted Living
Glenoaks Senior Living Campus, Glenoaks Drive
102 Glenoaks Drive, New London, MN 56273 · Map
Licensed for 24 residents · GLENOAKS SENIOR LIVING CAMPUS
Glenoaks Senior Living Campus, Glenoaks Drive is a state-licensed assisted living community in New London, Minnesota. It is licensed for 24 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, 24 residents
Assisted Living Facility 421141, current license dated May 1, 2025. Licensee GLENOAKS SENIOR LIVING CAMPUS.
Nearest emergency room
12.1 miles
Centracare - Paynesville Hospital.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glenoaks Senior Living Campus, Glenoaks Drive this community | 24 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated | |
| Central Minnesota Senior Care, Highway 71 Northeast | 7.5 mi | 8 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Koronis Place | 11.9 mi | 60 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Compassionate Cottage, Upper Trentwood Circle Ne | 12.3 mi | 11 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Compassionate Cottage, Cottonwood Drive Ne | 12.4 mi | 10 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- October 3, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (October 3, 2025, state report VIDL11)
MDH: “On September 29, 2025, through October 1, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed October 3, 2025: 8 correction orders
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) developed and implemented a staffing plan to determine staffing levels to meet the needs of all residents, which included reviewing the staffing plan at least twice per year.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) developed and implemented a staffing plan to determine staffing levels to meet the needs of all residents, which included reviewing the staffing plan at least twice per year. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and 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 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
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, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and is issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. [...]”
- Tag 660: 144G.42 Subd. 9 Tuberculosis prevention and control Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control program, based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which included a current two-step tuberculin skin test (TST) or other evidence of TB screening such as a blood test, for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain a tuberculosis (TB) prevention and control program, based on the most current guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which included a current two-step tuberculin skin test (TST) or other evidence of TB screening such as a blood test, for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must establish and maintain a comprehensive tuberculosis infection control program according to the most current tuberculosis infection control guidelines issued by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division [...]”
- 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 disaster plan prominently and develop a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) and failed to review the missing person policy quarterly.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to post an emergency disaster plan prominently and develop a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) and failed to review the missing person policy quarterly. This had the potential to affect all residents, employees, and visitors to the 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 (R3).
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 (R3). [...]”
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, [...]”
Show all 8
- Tag 1530: 144G.64 (a) (1-2) Training in Dementia, Mental Illness, and De- Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure staff received eight hours of initial dementia care training within the first 160 working hours of
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure staff received eight hours of initial dementia care training within the first 160 working hours of employment for direct care staff as required for one of one employee (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B). Additionally, the licensee failed to ensure direct care staff complete two hours of initial training on mental illness and de-escalation for employees hired prior to July 1, 2025, for one of one employee (ULP-B). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must meet the following dementia care, mental illness, and de-escalation training requirements: (1) supervisors of direct-care staff must have at least eight hours of initial training on dementia topics specified under [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive assessment not to exceed 90 calendar days from the last assessment, for one of one resident (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2). 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 [...]”
Rule cited: “(f) The service plan must include: (1) a description of the services to be provided, the fees for services, and the frequency of each service, according to the resident's current assessment and resident preferences; (2) the identification of staff or [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): Food and beverage inspection report included
Earlier evaluations (1)
- August 24, 2023: report TLVH11 · 13 correction orders
Details
Survey completed August 24, 2023: 13 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one
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, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairmBased on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according [...]”
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 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control for one of two
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control for one of two unlicensed personnel ((ULP)-E) observed to perform blood glucose monitoring. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. [...]”
- 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 have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
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 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation for one of one resident (R1) hospitalized.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation for one of one resident (R1) hospitalized. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
- 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 affiliated with the assisted
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated 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. [...]”
Show all 13
- Tag 1440: 144G.62 Subd. 4 Supervision of staff providing delegated nurs Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted supervision of staff performing delegated tasks for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C, ULP-D).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted supervision of staff performing delegated tasks for two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C, ULP-D). [...]”
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 1470: 144G.63 Subd. 2 Content of required orientation Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employees received orientation to assisted living requirements and regulations prior to providing
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employees received orientation to assisted living requirements and regulations prior to providing services for two of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C, ULP-D). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The orientation must contain the following topics: (1) an overview of this chapter; (2) an introduction and review of the facility's policies and procedures related to the provision of assisted living services by the individual staff person; (3) handling [...]”
- 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
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 (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-A, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All staff that perform direct services must complete at least eight hours of annual training for each 12 months of employment. [...]”
- Tag 1530: 144G.64 TRAINING IN DEMENTIA CARE REQUIRED Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure two of three employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-A, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C) received the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure two of three employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-A, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C) received the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must meet the following training requirements: (1) supervisors of direct-care staff must have at least eight hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 120 working hours of the employment start [...]”
- Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a service plan included the required content for two of two residents (R1,
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a service plan included the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2). 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 is issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”
Rule cited: “(f) The service plan must include: (1) a description of the services to be provided, the fees for services, and the frequency of each service, according to the resident's current assessment and resident preferences; (2) the identification of staff or [...]”
- Tag 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: IMMEDIATE · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure prior to
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure prior to delegating the nursing task of medication administration, the unlicensed personnel (ULP) demonstrated competency to a registered nurse (RN) for administering medications for one of one ULP (ULP-C). [...]”
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, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as prescribed for one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as prescribed for one of two residents (R2). 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 an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one [...]”
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 1770: 144G.71 Subd. 9 Documentation of medication setup Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure documentation of medication setup included all the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure documentation of medication setup included all the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “Documentation of dates of medication setup, name of medication, quantity of dose, times to be administered, route of administration, and name of person completing medication setup must be done at the time of setup.”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 1750 (144g.71 Subd. 7 - Delegation Of Medication Administration): $3,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,000.00.
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one
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”
Level 3: “a violation that harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury, impairment, or death, or a violation that has the potential to lead to 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 24 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 GLENOAKS SENIOR LIVING CAMPUS
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 421141
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-05-01
- Licensed capacity
- 24
- Licensee
- GLENOAKS SENIOR LIVING CAMPUS
- County
- Kandiyohi County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Isaac Dole
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 12.1 mi, nursing home 0.0 mi, pharmacy 12.4 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Centracare - Paynesville Hospital, Paynesville. 12.1 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Glenoaks Senior Living Campus, New London. 0.0 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Divine Home Care Inc, Willmar. 13.5 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Corner Drug. 12.4 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56273 as rural (rural area).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fresenius Kidney Care Willmar, Willmar, 14.2 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
- Hospice
- 8 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56273.
Divine Hospice Care, office in Willmar, 13.5 miles away, straight line
Bethesda Hospice, office in Willmar, 14.0 miles away, straight line
Centracare Hospice, office in Willmar, 14.2 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Hutchinson Health, Hutchinson. 38.9 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 moderate; 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
- Outside the high and moderate risk flood areas on FEMA's flood map (Zone X, minimal flood hazard, or not studied). (FEMA flood map)
- FEMA National Risk Index
- Overall: relatively moderate. By hazard: inland flooding relatively moderate, wildfire relatively low, tornado relatively moderate, 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 relatively 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 Glenoaks Senior Living Campus, Glenoaks Drive provide?
Glenoaks Senior Living Campus, Glenoaks Drive is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in New London, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 24 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Glenoaks Senior Living Campus, Glenoaks Drive?
No. We publish state licensing details for Glenoaks Senior Living Campus, Glenoaks Drive 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 Glenoaks Senior Living Campus, Glenoaks Drive 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. Glenoaks Senior Living Campus, Glenoaks Drive does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Glenoaks Senior Living Campus, Glenoaks Drive?
Visit Glenoaks Senior Living Campus, Glenoaks Drive at 102 Glenoaks Drive, New London, MN 56273.
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