Assisted Living and Memory Care
Sterling Pointe Senior Living
1250 Northland Drive, Princeton, MN 55371 · Map
Licensed for 65 residents · STERLING POINTE SENIOR LIVING
Sterling Pointe Senior Living is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Princeton, Minnesota. It is licensed for 65 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, 65 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 421913, current license dated Aug 1, 2025. Licensee STERLING POINTE SENIOR LIVING.
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- May 7, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (May 7, 2025, state report ZLWV11)
MDH: “On July 16, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a follow-up survey at the above provider to follow-up on orders issued pursuant to a survey completed on May 7, 2025.”
Survey completed July 16, 2025: 9 correction orders
- Tag 100: 144G.10 Subdivision 1 License required (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
Rule cited: “(a)(1) Beginning August 1, 2021, no assisted living facility may operate in Minnesota unless it is licensed under this chapter. [...]”
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
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 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program (re-issued) scope/level letter D
Details
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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) scope/level letter F · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
Show all 9
- Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) scope/level letter F · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
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 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b-f) Fire protection and physical environment (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation (re-issued) scope/level letter F
Details
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 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services (re-issued) scope/level letter D
Details
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.”
Survey completed May 7, 2025: 10 correction orders
- Tag 100: 144G.10 Subdivision 1 License required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to demonstrate legal responsibility for the control and operation of the facility when the licensee rented out use of the facility space to operate a salon.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to demonstrate legal responsibility for the control and operation of the facility when the licensee rented out use of the facility space to operate a salon. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a)(1)Beginning August 1, 2021, no assisted living facility may operate in Minnesota unless it is licensed under this chapter. [...]”
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) developed and implemented a staffing plan to determine staffing levels to meet the needs of all residents, which included reviewing the staffing plan at least twice per year and failed to post a daily work schedule at the beginning of each work shift.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the clinical nurse supervisor (CNS) developed and implemented a staffing plan to determine staffing levels to meet the needs of all residents, which included reviewing the staffing plan at least twice per year and failed to post a daily work schedule at the beginning of each work shift. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and is issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. [...]”
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel/ULP-C).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to establish and maintain an infection control program to comply with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control for one of three employees (unlicensed personnel/ULP-C). [...]”
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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment 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 comply with Minnesota State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules chapter 7511.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to comply with Minnesota State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules chapter 7511. This deficient condition had the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
Show all 10
- Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed provide interconnected smoke alarms in required locations.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed provide interconnected smoke alarms in required locations. These deficient conditions had the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) provide smoke alarms outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms; (iii) provide smoke [...]”
- 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 the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · 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 to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R2) who was hospitalized.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) of the emergency relocation for one of one resident (R2) who was hospitalized. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
- Tag 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Immediate · fine: $3,000.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure all employees with access to residents and resident records had a cleared background study completed via NetStudy 2.0 for 2 of 35 employees (unlicensed personnel/ULP-F, kitchen worker/KW-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure all employees with access to residents and resident records had a cleared background study completed via NetStudy 2.0 for 2 of 35 employees (unlicensed personnel/ULP-F, kitchen worker/KW-G). This had the potential to affect all residents, employees, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”
- Tag 2310: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (a) Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards for one of one resident (R1) reviewed with an assistive device (consumer bedrail). [...]”
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.”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): Food and beverage inspection report included
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
- Tag 780 (144g.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
- Tag 1290 (144g.60 Subdivision 1 - Background Studies Required): $3,000.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $4.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- May 24, 2023: report 7T7911 · 5 correction orders
Details
Survey completed May 24, 2023: 5 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: (B) food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626; and”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the facility's physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the facility's physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(4) keep the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents in accordance [...]”
- 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 maintain the facility's fire safety and evacuation plan with required elements.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the facility's fire safety and evacuation plan with required elements. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 820: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (g) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide facilities that were not a distinct hazard to life.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide facilities that were not a distinct hazard to life. This had the potential to directly affect a limited number of residents and staff. [...]”
Rule cited: “(g) Existing construction or elements, including assisted living facilities that were registered as housing with services establishments under chapter 144D prior to August 1, 2021, shall be permitted to continue in use provided such use does not constitute a [...]”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the
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 to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative, for one of one resident (R2). [...]”
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. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: 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
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- July 20, 2026 · report HL308023143M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The resident neglected herself when the resident was found with an unexplained bruise and a fractured right clavicle (collarbone).”
“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 resident had a history of falls with injury. Unlicensed staff observed and reported bruises on the resident's back and shoulder several times over several days. The resident had limited ability to raise her right arm and reported pain. After four days a facility nurse assessed the resident and sent her to the emergency room for evaluation.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility sent the resident to the emergency room for an evaluation of shoulder pain.”
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 June 23, 2026: 2 correction orders
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to a suitable and up-to-date plan, and subject to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) reviewed for falls.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to a suitable and up-to-date plan, and subject to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) reviewed for falls. The licensee failed to ensure injuries were assessed, monitored and/or resolved and failed to develop and implement new interventions related to the root cause of the falls. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of three residents reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observations, interviews, and document review, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: On June 23, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination that neglect occurred, and that the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. The MDH concluded there was a preponderance of evidence that maltreatment occurred.”
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 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 3, pattern scope, scope/level letter H · correction period: Seven (7) days
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 2: “a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death”
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 65 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 STERLING POINTE SENIOR LIVING
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 421913
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-08-01
- Licensed capacity
- 65
- Licensee
- STERLING POINTE SENIOR LIVING
- County
- Mille Lacs County
- Executive Director
- Saraya Jayne-Hanover
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.
Executive Director name from public records we reviewed, as of Oct 12, 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 state recorded a finding in July 2026. What was it, and how was it fixed?
- 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?
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 | No plain statements of services found |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Sterling Pointe Senior Living provide?
Sterling Pointe Senior Living is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Princeton, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 65 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Sterling Pointe Senior Living?
No. We publish state licensing details for Sterling Pointe Senior 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 Sterling Pointe Senior 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. Sterling Pointe Senior Living does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Sterling Pointe Senior Living?
Use Sterling Pointe Senior Living's website, sterlingpointeseniorliving.com, or visit at 1250 Northland Drive, Princeton, MN 55371.
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