Assisted Living and Memory Care
Prairie View
1010 East Elm Avenue, Hector, MN 55342 · Map
Licensed for 40 residents · PRAIRIE VIEW
Prairie View is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Hector, Minnesota. It is licensed for 40 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 Prairie View says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
- Apartment types named: studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom.
Studio, 1 bedroom, 1 bedroom deluxe, and 2 bedroom floor plans, some available with patio or deck
(page, checked Oct 12, 2026)
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, 40 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 421396, current license dated Jul 1, 2025. Licensee PRAIRIE VIEW.
State inspection record0 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- November 14, 2024
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 0 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 1 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (November 14, 2024, state report 1NJS11)
MDH: “On November 12, 2024, through November 14, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed November 14, 2024: 6 correction orders
- 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
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 690: 144G.43 Subdivision 1 Resident record Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure entries in the resident records were authenticated by the title of the person making the entry for two of two residents (R1, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure entries in the resident records were authenticated by the title of the person making the entry for two of two residents (R1, R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Assisted living facilities must maintain records for each resident for whom it is providing services. [...]”
- 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, [...]”
- 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 comply with the current Minnesota Fire Code Provisions.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with the current Minnesota Fire Code Provisions. This deficient condition had the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”
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) [...]”
- 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 according to policy and accepted standards of practice by one of two staff (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F) observed during medication administration.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered according to policy and accepted standards of practice by one of two staff (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F) 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 1810: 144G.71 Subd. 12 Medications; over-the-counter drugs; dietary Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to ensure over the counter (OTC) drugs were labeled with directions for use prior to setting up for immediate or later administration for two of five residents (R4, R6) observed during medication administration. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility providing medication management services for over-the-counter drugs or dietary supplements must retain those items in the original labeled container with directions for use prior to setting up for immediate or later administration. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- March 11, 2022: report 155W11 · 21 correction orders
Details
Survey completed March 11, 2022: 21 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 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 ensure an individual abuse prevention plan was developed to include the required content for one of five residents (R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan was developed to include the required content for one of five residents (R2) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the employee record contained the required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the employee record contained the required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid employee, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”
- 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 (EP) plan with all the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness (EP) plan 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 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with required elements, failed to provide required employee training on fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct required evacuation drills as required.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop a fire safety and evacuation plan with required elements, failed to provide required employee training on fire safety and evacuation, and failed to conduct required evacuation drills as required. 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. [...]”
Show all 21
- Tag 900: 144G.50 Subdivision 1 Contract required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care a complete unsigned copy of the contract.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care a complete unsigned copy of the contract. 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 [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility may not offer or provide housing or assisted living services to any individual unless it has executed a written contract with the resident. [...]”
- Tag 910: 144G.50 Subd. 2 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 and R2) with records reviewed.
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 and R2) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The contract must include in a conspicuous place and manner on the contract the legal name and the license number of the facility. [...]”
- Tag 970: 144.50 Subd. 5 Waivers of liability prohibited Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the facility's liability for health, safety or personal property of a resident.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the facility's liability for health, safety or personal property of a resident. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”
- 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
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment for two of two residents (R1 and R2) 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 (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 the service plan included a signature or other authentication by the resident and the facility to document agreement on the services to be provided for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included a signature or other authentication by the resident and the facility to document agreement on the services to be provided for one of two residents (R2) 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 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) 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 the service plan included the required content for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed. 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: “(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 1700: 144G.71 Subd. 2 Provision of medication management services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7)
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted an individualized assessment with the required content for two of two residents (R1 and R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted an individualized assessment with the required content for two of two residents (R1 and R2) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident who requests medication management services, the facility shall, prior to providing medication management services, have a registered nurse, licensed health professional, or authorized prescriber under section 151.37 conduct an [...]”
- Tag 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management record with the required content for two of two residents (R1 and R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management record with the required content for two of two residents (R1 and R2) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the medication management services that will be provided to the resident. [...]”
- 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 as needed (PRN) medications had parameters for administration for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure as needed (PRN) medications had parameters for administration for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed. [...]”
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 as needed (PRN) medications had documentation of effectiveness after administration for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure as needed (PRN) medications had documentation of effectiveness after administration for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed. [...]”
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 1880: 144G.71 Subd. 19 Storage of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were stored according to the manufacturer's recommendations for one of one resident (R1) with insulin and failed to properly secure narcotic medications for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were stored according to the manufacturer's recommendations for one of one resident (R1) with insulin and failed to properly secure narcotic medications for one of two residents (R2) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”
- 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 date time sensitive medications with a date when opened for one of one resident (R1) with insulin.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to date time sensitive medications with a date when opened for one of one resident (R1) with insulin. [...]”
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 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of two residents (R1) with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “For each resident receiving management of ordered or prescribed treatments or therapy services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the treatment or therapy services that will be provided to the [...]”
- Tag 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 1 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 provide hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk assessment of the physical environment on and around the property for the facility.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk assessment of the physical environment on and around the property for the facility. This deficient practice had the ability to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care that has a secured dementia care unit must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk must be performed on and around [...]”
- Tag 2170: 144G.84 SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS WITH DEMENTIA Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to conduct an evaluation for activities that addressed all provisions and failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation with the required content, for one of one resident (R2) who resided in the secured memory care unit, with record review.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to conduct an evaluation for activities that addressed all provisions and failed to develop an individualized activity plan based on the evaluation with the required content, for one of one resident (R2) who resided in the secured memory care unit, with record review. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each resident must be evaluated for activities according to the licensing rules of the facility. [...]”
- Tag 2260: 144G.90 Subd. 3 Notice of dementia training Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide in written or electronic form to residents, families, or other persons who request it, an accurate description of the dementia care training program with the required content with records reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide in written or electronic form to residents, families, or other persons who request it, an accurate description of the dementia care training program with the required content with records reviewed. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care shall make available in written or electronic form, to residents and families or other persons who request it, a description of the training program and related training it provides, including the categories of [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
- 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
Inconclusive investigations (1)
- April 21, 2026 · report HL302301400M · MDH finding: Inconclusive
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility abused the resident resulting in bruises found on two of the resident's fingers on his right hand along with some redness and swelling to left wrist and the top of his left hand.”
“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. Although there were unexplained bruises on two of the resident's fingers of his right hand and redness with swelling on the top of his left hand/wrist region, it could not be determined how the bruising occurred.”
Action taken by facility: “No action required”
Action taken by MDH: “No further action taken at this time.”
Survey completed March 16, 2026: 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”
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 40 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 PRAIRIE VIEW
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 421396
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-07-01
- Licensed capacity
- 40
- Licensee
- PRAIRIE VIEW
- County
- Renville County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Cami Peterson-Devries
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.
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 checked8 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 |
| 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 Prairie View provide?
Prairie View is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Hector, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 40 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Prairie View?
No. We publish state licensing details for Prairie View 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 Prairie View 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. Prairie View does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Prairie View?
Use Prairie View's website, sfhs.org/communities/prairie-view, or visit at 1010 East Elm Avenue, Hector, MN 55342.
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