Assisted Living and Memory Care
Pearl Garden
3700 Foss Road Ne, Minneapolis, MN 55421 · Map
Licensed for 25 residents · PEARL GARDEN
Pearl Garden is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is licensed for 25 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, 25 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 421065, current license dated Aug 1, 2025. Licensee PEARL GARDEN.
Nearest emergency room
5.2 miles
M Health Fairview University Of Mn Medical Center, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearl Garden this community | 25 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Able View Assisted Living | 0.2 mi | 38 | Not published | Active | No record |
| Residences at St. Anthony Assi | 0.3 mi | 135 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Ds Assisted Living | 0.6 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
| Aliya Care | 0.6 mi | 8 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- December 11, 2024
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 1 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (December 11, 2024, state report QJHX11)
MDH: “On December 9, 2024, through December 11, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider, and the following correction orders are issued.”
Survey completed December 11, 2024: 2 correction orders
- 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 required content for an emergency relocation for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with required content for an emergency relocation for one of one resident (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 [...]”
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 1770: 144G.71 Subd. 9 Documentation of medication setup Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure documentation of a medication setup for one of one resident (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure documentation of a medication setup for one of one resident (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 an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a [...]”
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; no immediate fines.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- November 18, 2021: report VJJL11 · 10 correction orders
Details
Survey completed November 18, 2021: 10 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 (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: (i) at least three nutritious meals daily with snacks available seven days per week, according to the recommended dietary allowances in the United States Department of [...]”
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living facility established and maintained an infection control program that complied with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards related to infection control and COVID-19.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living facility established and maintained an infection control program that complied with accepted health care, medical and nursing standards related to infection control and COVID-19. [...]”
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 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan that included an individualized review or assessment of the person's susceptibility to abuse by another individual, including other vulnerable adults; the person's risk of abusing other vulnerable adults; and statements of the specific measures to be taken to minimize the risk of abuse for one of three residents (R6) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan that included an individualized review or assessment of the person's susceptibility to abuse by another individual, including other vulnerable adults; the person's risk of abusing other vulnerable adults; and statements of the specific measures to be taken to minimize the risk of abuse for one of three residents (R6) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included documentation of significant changes in the resident's status and actions taken in response to the needs of the resident, including reporting to the appropriate supervisor or health care professional for one of one resident (R6) observed with bruising.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident record included documentation of significant changes in the resident's status and actions taken in response to the needs of the resident, including reporting to the appropriate supervisor or health care professional for one of one resident (R6) observed with bruising. [...]”
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 1480: 144G.63 Subd. 3 Orientation to resident Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-I and ULP-H) providing assisted living services were specifically oriented to one of three residents (R6) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure two of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-I and ULP-H) providing assisted living services were specifically oriented to one of three residents (R6) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “Staff providing assisted living services must be oriented specifically to each individual resident and the services to be provided. This orientation may be provided in person, orally, in writing, or electronically.”
Show all 10
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure resident reassessment and monitoring based on resident changes for two of three residents (R6 and R7) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure resident reassessment and monitoring based on resident changes for two of three residents (R6 and R7) with records reviewed. [...]”
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 Service plan, implementation, and revisions t Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure services were provided as required in the current service plan for two of two residents (R6 and R7) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure services were provided as required in the current service plan for two of two residents (R6 and R7) with records reviewed. [...]”
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 1710: 144G.71 Subd. 3 Individualized medication monitoring and reas Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to to reassess the
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to to reassess the resident's medication management services for two of two residents (R6 and R7) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “The assisted living facility must monitor and reassess the resident's medication management services as needed under subdivision 2 when the resident presents with symptoms or other issues that may be medication-related and, at a minimum, annually.”
- Tag 2110: 144G.82 Subd. 3 Policies Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living facility with dementia care provided the required policies and procedures to designated representatives and/or residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living facility with dementia care provided the required policies and procedures to designated representatives and/or residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) In addition to the policies and procedures required in the licensing of all facilities, the assisted living facility with dementia care licensee must develop and implement policies and procedures that address the: (1) philosophy of how services are [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 Appropriate care and services Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure assisted living services were provided that were appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan and subject to accepted health care standards for one of three residents (R6) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure assisted living services were provided that were appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan and subject to accepted health care standards for one of three residents (R6) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”
MDH letters in this report
- February 7, 2022: Notice Of Removal Of Conditional License
- December 14, 2021: Notice Of Extension To The Conditional License
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 510 (144g.41 Subd. 3 - Infection Control Program): $500.00
- Tag 2310 (144g.91 Subd. 4 - Appropriate Care And Services): $3,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $3,500.00.
- 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
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- October 17, 2023 · report HL204517766M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the resident fell and hit her head, and the facility did not send her to the emergency department until hours later when the resident became unresponsive. Subsequently, the resident was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”
“The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect substantiated (facility responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The facility failed to contact the resident's physician immediately after the fall due to the resident being on a blood thinner and hitting her head. The facility waited approximately five hours after the fall to send the resident to the hospital when the resident became unresponsive. The resident died the next day after her fall due to a significant brain bleed.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility completed an internal investigation. The facility updated their fall and emergency protocol and educated staff.”
Action taken by MDH: “The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed August 15, 2023: 2 correction orders
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to contact the physician and timely send one of one residents (R1) to the hospital following a fall with head strike while on an anticoagulant.Approximately five hours after the fall, R1 became unconscious, went to the hospital and died due to severe head bleeding.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to contact the physician and timely send one of one residents (R1) to the hospital following a fall with head strike while on an anticoagulant.Approximately five hours after the fall, R1 became unconscious, went to the hospital and died due to severe head bleeding. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) Days
Inconclusive investigations (1)
- July 15, 2024 · report HL204513441M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP), a facility staff member, abused the resident when the AP hit the resident.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse inconclusive.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was inconclusive. Due to conflicting information provided, it could not be determined whether the alleged incident did or did not occur. The resident reported that the AP hit her, and the AP denied hitting the resident. There were no witnesses of the alleged incident. During a skin assessment the following morning after the alleged incident, the resident was found with a bruise to the back of her head and a bruised ring finger. It could not be determined whether the injuries occurred by the AP hitting the resident or the resident's multiple falls prior to the allegation and a fall later that night after the allegation.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility completed an internal investigation and staff were re-educated on reporting abuse immediately. The AP is no longer employed by the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed June 24, 2024: no correction orders issued.
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”
Level 4: “a violation harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury or death, or a violation that was likely to lead to serious injury 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 25 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 PEARL GARDEN
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 421065
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-08-01
- Licensed capacity
- 25
- Licensee
- PEARL GARDEN
- County
- Hennepin County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Randall Benson
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 5.2 mi, nursing home 0.2 mi, pharmacy 0.5 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- M Health Fairview University Of Mn Medical Center, Minneapolis. 5.2 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- St Anthony Health & Rehabilitation, St Anthony. 0.2 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Mental Health Nursing LLC, New Brighton. 0.6 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 0.5 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55421 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fmc Dialysis - New Brighton, Roseville, 1.3 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars)
Davita Arden Hills Dialysis Unit, Arden Hills, 3.2 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars)
Davita East River Road Dialysis, Fridley, 3.8 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 2 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 24 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55421.
Interim Healthcare Of The Twin Cities, Inc., office in Roseville, 1.9 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Intrepid Usa Hospice, office in Minneapolis, 2.7 miles away, straight line
Presbyterian Homes Hospice Inc, office in Roseville, 2.8 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Steven Lawler, MD, Minneapolis. 2.7 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 low; 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 low. By hazard: inland flooding relatively low, wildfire very low, tornado relatively 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 work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
- What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
- How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
- 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?
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 Pearl Garden provide?
Pearl Garden is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 25 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Pearl Garden?
No. We publish state licensing details for Pearl Garden 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 Pearl Garden cost?
Assisted Living in Hennepin County typically starts at $2,500 to $4,400 a month. Based on 18 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price. Pearl Garden does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Pearl Garden?
Visit Pearl Garden at 3700 Foss Road Ne, Minneapolis, MN 55421.
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