How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Havencare at Hancock Hall
31 Staples St, Danbury, CT 06810 (opens Google Maps) · Western Ct County · (203) 794-9466· 96 certified beds · avg 91 residents/day · certified since Feb 3, 1997 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
5/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 1, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.63
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 17 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. F-0761
The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. F-0550
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. F-0600
View all 17 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| May 1, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| May 1, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · F-0600 |
| May 1, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| May 1, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| May 1, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Aug 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jan 29, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Apr 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Apr 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Apr 13, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| Mar 12, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Mar 12, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Mar 12, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Mar 12, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Mar 12, 2020 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not give residents reasonable access to and privacy in using ways to communicate, such as phones, mail, and email. Residents have the right to stay in touch with the outside world privately. · F-0576 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 6).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2020
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 2 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 6 | 0 | E |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityConnecticut averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.63
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.47
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.36
Connecticut average: 3.43
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Connecticut avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.63 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 45% in Connecticut; bottom 43% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.47 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 27% in Connecticut; bottom 33% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.36 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 46% in Connecticut; top 50% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.43 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 43% in Connecticut; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 45.0 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 21% in Connecticut; bottom 50% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 43.8 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 39% in Connecticut; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.64, RN 0.47, weekend 3.36.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.64 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Havencare at Hancock Hall. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Regional context: $525.78/day — Connecticut statewide average for a semi-private nursing-facility room, September 30, 2025. This is a historical regional figure, not this facility's price or a prediction. View the OPM source.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Danbury Opco LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 09/12/2023 |
| Jek Irrv Tr II | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 26% | 09/12/2023 |
| NMJ Irrv Tr II | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 23% | 09/12/2023 |
| Jakobovits, Nathan | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/12/2023 |
| Kagan, Jeffrey | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/12/2023 |
| Shapiro, Yitzchok | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/12/2023 |
All 6 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "Does a pharmacist review every resident's medications and chart monthly, and how are their concerns acted on?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 45% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 33 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Havencare at Filosa | 0.2 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Saint John Paul II Center | 1.1 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Civita Care Center at Danbury | 1.6 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Glen Hill | 1.8 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bethel Health Care Center | 4.3 mi | Bethel, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Laurel Ridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 4.9 mi | Ridgefield, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Putnam Ridge | 6.0 mi | Brewster, NY | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Ridge Crest at Meadow Ridge | 9.4 mi | West Redding, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Waterview Hills Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 10.6 mi | Purdy Station, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Salem Hills Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 10.6 mi | Purdys, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Stone Bridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 10.6 mi | Newtown, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Putnam Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 12.1 mi | Holmes, NY | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Western Ct, CT — 20 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Nathaniel Witherell, the — Greenwich, CT · overall 2/5
- Norwalk Care Center — Norwalk, CT · overall 1/5abuse
- Notre Dame Health and Rehabilitation Center — Norwalk, CT · overall 4/5
- Stamford Care Center — Stamford, CT · overall 2/5
- Villa at Stamford, the — Stamford, CT · overall 4/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075414.