Assisted Living
Good Shepherd Assisted Living
330 13th Street North, Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 · Map
Licensed for 60 residents · GOOD SHEPHERD ASSISTED LIVING
Good Shepherd Assisted Living is a state-licensed assisted living community in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. It is licensed for 60 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
Care and services
From the community’s website
What Good Shepherd Assisted Living says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
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, 60 residents
Assisted Living Facility 425719, current license dated Jun 1, 2026. Licensee GOOD SHEPHERD ASSISTED LIVING.
Nearest emergency room
2.1 miles
Centracare - St. Cloud Hospital, rated 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good Shepherd Assisted Living this community | 60 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated | |
| Good Shepherd Homes | 0.1 mi | 64 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Good Shepherd Cottages | 0.2 mi | 36 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Summit Ridge Place | 0.8 mi | 25 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Country Manor Apartments | 1.0 mi | 25 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- March 6, 2026
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (March 6, 2026, state report M5X911)
MDH: “On March 2, 2026, through March 3, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed March 6, 2026: 4 correction orders
- Tag 1370: 144G.61 Subd. 2 (a) Training and evaluation of unlicensed personn Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations were completed as required prior to providing direct care services for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-D).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations were completed as required prior to providing direct care services for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP-D). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Training and competency evaluations for all unlicensed personnel must include the following: (1) documentation requirements for all services provided; (2) reports of changes in the resident's condition to the supervisor designated by the facility; (3) [...]”
- 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 an inhaler was administered per manufacturer instructions for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an inhaler was administered per manufacturer instructions for one of one resident (R2). [...]”
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 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information for one of thirteen residents (R2) with medication management services.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription label with legible information for one of thirteen residents (R2) with medication management services. [...]”
Rule cited: “A prescription drug, prior to being set up for immediate or later administration, must be kept in the original container in which it was dispensed by the pharmacy bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration or [...]”
- Tag 3090: 144.6502, Subd. 8 Notice to Visitors Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the required notice was posted at the main entry way of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the required notice was posted at the main entry way of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity. This had the potential to affect all three current residents in the assisted living facility, staff, and any visitors of the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility must post a sign at each facility entrance accessible to visitors that states: "Electronic monitoring devices, including security cameras and audio devices, may be present to record persons and activities. [...]”
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)
- January 4, 2024: report NKGK11 · 13 correction orders
Details
Survey completed January 4, 2024: 13 correction orders
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Immediate
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure that one or more persons were available 24 hours per day, seven days per week, who were responsible for responding to the requests of residents, were in the same building, in an attached building, or on a contiguous campus with the facility in order to respond within a reasonable amount of time.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure that one or more persons were available 24 hours per day, seven days per week, who were responsible for responding to the requests of residents, were in the same building, in an attached building, or on a contiguous campus with the facility in order to respond within a reasonable amount of time. [...]”
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 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 facility'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 facility's grievance procedure with the required content. This had the potential to affect all of 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 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include 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 an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with required elements and failed to conduct required evacuation drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on a record review and interview, the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with required elements and failed to conduct required evacuation drills. This had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 910: 144G.50 Subd. 2 (a-b) Contract information Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written contract with 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 execute a written contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2). This practice resulted in a level one violation (a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety), and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has potential to affect a large portion or all of the [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The contract must include in a conspicuous place and manner on the contract the legal name and the health facility identification of the facility. [...]”
Show all 13
- Tag 940: 144G.50 Subd. 2 (e; 5-7) Contract information Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written contract with 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 execute a written contract with the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2). This practice resulted in a level one violation (a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety), and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has potential to affect a large portion or all of the [...]”
Rule cited: “(5) a description of the facility's policies related to medical assistance waivers under chapter 256S and section 256B.49 and the housing support program under chapter 256I, including: (i) whether the facility is enrolled with the commissioner of human [...]”
- Tag 950: 144G.50 Subd. 3 Designation of representative Level 1, isolated scope, scope/level letter A · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the resident identified or declined a designated a representative as required, for one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident identified or declined a designated a representative as required, for one of two residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Before or at the time of execution of an assisted living contract, an assisted living facility must offer the resident the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing in the contract and must provide the following verbatim notice on a [...]”
- 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
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 1610: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (a-b) 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 (RN) completed an initial, comprehensive nursing assessment prior to signing the assisted living contract/providing services for one of two residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed an initial, comprehensive nursing assessment prior to signing the assisted living contract/providing services for one of two residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- 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) completed a comprehensive reassessment no more than 14 days after the initiation of services, for one of two residents (R2) as required, and failed to ensure the RN completed a comprehensive reassessment after a change of condition for one of one resident (R1).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment no more than 14 days after the initiation of services, for one of two residents (R2) as required, and failed to ensure the RN completed a comprehensive reassessment after a change of condition for one of one resident (R1). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · 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, R2).
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 was issued at a pattern scope (when more than a limited number of residents are affected, more than a [...]”
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 1920: 144G.71 Subd. 23 Loss or spillage Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures included the required verbiage to investigate any known loss or unaccounted prescription drugs, as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures included the required verbiage to investigate any known loss or unaccounted prescription drugs, as required. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Assisted living facilities providing medication management must develop and implement procedures for loss or spillage of all controlled substances defined in Minnesota Rules, part 6800.4220. [...]”
- Tag 3090: 144.6502, Subd. 8 Notice to Visitors Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the required notice was posted at the main entry way of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the required notice was posted at the main entry way of the establishment to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity. This had the potential to affect all current residents in the assisted living facility, staff, and any visitors of the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility must post a sign at each facility entrance accessible to visitors that states: "Electronic monitoring devices, including security cameras and audio devices, may be present to record persons and activities. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,000.00.
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 3, widespread scope, scope/level letter I · correction period: Immediate
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 1: “a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety”
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 60 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 GOOD SHEPHERD ASSISTED LIVING
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 425719
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-06-01
- Licensed capacity
- 60
- Licensee
- GOOD SHEPHERD ASSISTED LIVING
- County
- Benton County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Andrea Kosloski
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 2.1 mi, nursing home 0.2 mi, pharmacy 1.1 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Centracare - St. Cloud Hospital, Saint Cloud. 2.1 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Good Shepherd Lutheran Home, Sauk Rapids. 0.2 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Good Shepherd Home Health Care, Sauk Rapids. 0.2 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 1.1 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56379 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fresenius Kidney Care St. Cloud, Saint Cloud, 2.0 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
- Hospice
- 16 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56379.
Centracare Hospice, office in Waite Park, 4.3 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
St Croix Hospice, office in St. Cloud, 6.4 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Moments Hospice, office in Saint Cloud, 8.8 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Allina Health System, Annandale. 24.2 miles away, straight line. 2 geriatric medicine doctors 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 very low, tornado relatively moderate, heat wave relatively low, 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 2026. 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 checked12 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 |
| The community’s own website | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Good Shepherd Assisted Living provide?
Good Shepherd Assisted Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 60 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Good Shepherd Assisted Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Good Shepherd Assisted Living 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 Good Shepherd Assisted Living 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. Good Shepherd Assisted Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Good Shepherd Assisted Living?
Use Good Shepherd Assisted Living's website, goodshepherdcampus.org/contact-us, or visit at 330 13th Street North, Sauk Rapids, MN 56379.
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