StarlynnCare

StarlynnCare · Methodology

How we rate facilities

Every number on StarlynnCare comes directly from official state inspection records. We do not invent data, accept paid placements, or produce a single letter grade. Instead, we show four independent signals and let families weigh them.

Last updated May 2026

Editorial independence

StarlynnCare receives no referral commissions, lead fees, or paid placement from any operator. Rankings are derived solely from state inspection records and verified family reviews.

Dataset overview →

Primary data sources

Facility licensing, inspection, and complaint data are drawn from official public records published by each state’s licensing authority. Each source provides a facility roster and per-facility inspection reports — including visit dates, deficiency citations, inspector narratives, and complaint outcomes, where available.

StateLicensing bodySources
CACDSS Community Care Licensing Division — Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFEs)CDSS CKAN Open Data (roster); CDSS Transparency Portal (inspection reports, citations)
OROregon DHS Long-Term Care Licensing — Residential Care Facilities, Memory Care CommunitiesOregonDHS LTC public facility directory and inspection records
WADSHS Aging and Long-Term Support Administration (ALTSA) — Adult Family Homes and Assisted Living FacilitiesDSHS BH-Forms public inspection reports; DSHS facility directory
MNMinnesota Department of Health (MDH) / Assisted Living Licensure and Certification (ALRC) — ALDC and assisted living facilitiesMDH inspection findings; ALRC public licensing records
TXTexas HHSC — Assisted Living Facilities (Type A, B, C)HHSC public inspection reports

Data is refreshed via automated scrapers; production runs target a weekly cadence on CI/CD schedules, with facility rows reflecting the latest successful ingest in updated_at. See also the dataset page.

Current coverage

StarlynnCare currently publishes inspection data for 1,461 facilities across 5 states, with coverage expanding as we ingest new state licensing data.

  • California — licensed RCFEs across California, covering counties statewide including Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, and the Central Valley.
  • Minnesota — 552 licensed assisted living facilities (ALDC and AL).
  • Oregon — 244 licensed residential care facilities and memory care communities.
  • Washington — 180 licensed assisted living facilities and adult family homes.
  • Texas — early coverage expanding; 1 facility published to date as ingest ramps up.

Only facilities with an active state license and at least one published inspection record are shown. Facilities missing key data fields are held back until the next ingest run resolves them.

Benchmarks and peer sets are recomputed dynamically as coverage expands. Percentile thresholds will shift as more facilities are added within each state.

How we organize facilities

The following applies to California facilities; analogous capacity and dementia-care distinctions exist in other states, with state-specific thresholds and regulatory designations. California’s RCFE licensing regulations create two natural axes for organizing facilities that we use on every California city and county listing page.

Axis 1 — Capacity tier

The ≤6-bed threshold in HSC §1569.2 is the regulatory line that separates residential board-and-care homes from larger facilities:

  • ≤ 6 beds (“small”)— Typically a single-family home converted to care use. Owner-operated. These facilities receive fewer routine CDSS inspections by design, so a short inspection history does not mean a good track record — it means less inspector attention. We hide them by default and offer a “Show small care homes” toggle.
  • 7–49 beds (“medium”) — Small to medium freestanding RCFEs. Subject to CDSS annual inspection cycle and all Title 22 requirements.
  • 50+ beds (“large”) — Community-style facilities, often purpose-built buildings operated by regional or national chains. Typically have a dedicated memory-care wing.

Axis 2 — Memory-care designation

California HSC §1569.627 requires any RCFE that advertises or promotes special care, special programming, or a special environment for persons with dementia to disclose the special features of its program in the plan of operation filed with CDSS. This filing is the canonical regulatory signal that a facility is operating a dementia program — better than relying on what the facility puts on its own website.

Until CDSS publishes a machine-readable list of these filings, we identify memory-care facilities through two proxies: (1) a facility name or licensee name that contains a recognized dementia-program keyword or known memory-care chain name, and (2) any CDSS citation under Title 22 §87705 or §87706 — the dementia-care-specific regulations — which constitutes regulatory confirmation that the facility operates a dementia program.

By default, each listing page shows only 7+ bed facilities with a confirmed memory-care signal. The “Show small care homes (≤6 beds)” toggle on each page reveals the smaller board-and-care segment for families who want it.

The four metrics

Each facility profile shows an “At a glance” panel with four rows. Here is exactly how each is computed.

Compliance record

Formula: Total deficiencies ÷ number of routine (non-complaint) inspections on file

Tier logic: Compared against the distribution across all same-state, same-county peer facilities. At or below the 33rd percentile = Strong; 34th–66th = Mixed; above 66th = Concerns.

Why it matters: Routine inspections are the most comparable measure of regulatory compliance across facilities. Complaint-triggered visits are excluded here because they are initiated by external reports, not by the state's regular cycle.

Severity record

Formula: Count of Type A deficiency citations on file (all time)

Tier logic: Same percentile cutoffs (33rd / 66th) across all county facilities.

Why it matters: California distinguishes Type A (actual harm or immediate risk of death/serious bodily injury) from Type B (potential harm). A Type A citation is the most serious regulatory outcome short of license revocation; even one warrants a closer look.

Dementia-care specificity

Formula: Boolean: any §87705 or §87706 citation in the past 5 years

Tier logic: No tier comparison — shown as 'For reference' with the date of the most recent qualifying citation.

Why it matters: California Code of Regulations Title 22, §§ 87705–87706 govern RCFE dementia-care programs specifically. A citation under these sections means a facility was found out of compliance with requirements designed to protect residents with cognitive impairment. This is surfaced separately because it is uniquely relevant to memory care placement decisions.

Complaint pattern

Formula: Substantiated complaints ÷ total complaints that received a CDSS outcome determination

Tier logic: Same percentile cutoffs, restricted to facilities with at least one complaint that has a recorded outcome. Facilities with no complaints-with-outcome show 'For reference'.

Why it matters: CDSS investigates complaints and issues a formal outcome (Substantiated, Unsubstantiated, etc.). A high substantiation rate relative to peers is a meaningful signal, but many complaints are routine and do not result in findings — context matters.

Tier color key

All numeric metrics are compared against the current county distribution using 33rd and 66th percentile cutoffs. “Strong” means better than most peers; “Concerns” means worse than most peers. These are relative assessments within the current sample, not absolute benchmarks.

Strong

At or below 33rd percentile — better than most peers

Mixed

34th–66th percentile — near the county middle

Concerns

Above 66th percentile — worse than most peers

For reference

Boolean metric with no peer comparison

Why we don’t publish a composite score

A composite score implies that one weighting of metrics is universally correct. It isn't. A family with a parent who has advanced dementia may weight §87705 citations more heavily than a family whose parent is largely independent. A family that has already toured three facilities and spoken to staff may weight a slightly elevated complaint rate differently than the aggregate numbers suggest.

Composite scores also obscure: a facility with one catastrophic Type A event and otherwise clean records will look identical to a facility with a pattern of minor Type B deficiencies if both are averaged into the same number.

We believe four honest signals, clearly labeled, serve families better than one opaque number.

Limitations and disclaimers

  • Inspection records reflect conditions at the time of a specific visit. They are not a real-time assessment of today’s care quality.
  • Facilities that have improved since a citation was issued will still show that citation. Corrective action dates are shown where available.
  • Percentile thresholds are computed per county and may be sensitive to outliers in counties with few facilities. Tiers may shift as coverage expands.
  • StarlynnCare is an information resource, not a licensed placement agency or healthcare provider. Nothing on this site constitutes medical or legal advice. Always tour facilities, speak with staff, and consult a licensed care advisor before making placement decisions.

Questions about methodology or data errors? hello@starlynncare.com