Wisconsin ›Green Bay

Odd Fellow Home

1229 S Jackson St, Green Bay, WI 54301 · Brown County · 88 certified beds · avg 59 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1995

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$93,034
Fines, last 3 years
3.78
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

All citations in the current public record (42)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Feb 2, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint
Nov 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Nov 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Nov 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint
Oct 8, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
May 7, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
May 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
May 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
May 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services.
May 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
May 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
May 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · from a complaint
Jan 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Oct 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Mar 12, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time.
Mar 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal.
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave.
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason.
Mar 12, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · from a complaint
Sep 11, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint
Sep 11, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Mar 8, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Mar 8, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
Mar 8, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
Mar 8, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not perform required COVID-19 testing on residents and staff.
Mar 8, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Mar 8, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 7).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202380F
2024170F
2025160F
202610D

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)

18 fines totaling $93,034.

DateTypeAmount / length
Feb 20, 2024Fine$4,938
Feb 12, 2024Fine$4,938
Jan 22, 2024Fine$14,814
Jan 8, 2024Fine$4,938
Jan 2, 2024Fine$4,587
Dec 11, 2023Fine$13,762
Nov 20, 2023Fine$4,587
Nov 13, 2023Fine$4,587
Nov 6, 2023Fine$4,587
Oct 30, 2023Fine$4,587
Oct 23, 2023Fine$4,545
Oct 17, 2023Fine$4,235
Oct 10, 2023Fine$3,882
Oct 2, 2023Fine$3,529
Sep 25, 2023Fine$3,176
Sep 18, 2023Fine$2,797
Sep 11, 2023Fine$2,447
Sep 5, 2023Fine$2,098

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityWisconsin avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.784.293.95bottom 38% in Wisconsin; top 49% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.681.010.69bottom 20% in Wisconsin; top 38% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.493.843.50bottom 40% in Wisconsin; top 43% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.490.680.48bottom 33% in Wisconsin; top 33% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)56.346.945.8bottom 25% in Wisconsin; bottom 22% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)52.939.742.9bottom 30% in Wisconsin; bottom 31% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, 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 3.74, RN 0.68, weekend 3.46. Staffing rating: 3/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Cunningham, LorenIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/13/2016
Everett, CharleneIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/13/2022
Jones, JeffreyIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/10/2019
Kohn, Dan-AIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2022
Kohn, Dan-AIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2022
Kohn, Dan-AIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2022
Mott, PatriciaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/13/2016
Olsen, DeniseIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/13/2016
Proulx, RichardIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE08/06/2011
Tews, EllenIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/13/2016

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Woodside Lutheran Home3.0 miGreen Bay, WI★★★★★5/5
Serenity Spring Senior Living at Green Bay3.1 miGreen Bay, WI★★★★★4/5
Green Bay Health Services3.3 miGreen Bay, WI★★☆☆☆3/5
Edenbrook of Green Bay4.4 miGreen Bay, WI★★★☆☆3/5
Rennes Health and Rehab Center-De Pere4.7 miDe Pere, WI★★★★★5/5
Brown Cty Comm Treatment Ctr-Bayshore Village5.1 miGreen Bay, WI★★★★★4/5
Anna John Resident Centered Care Community7.5 miOneida, WI★★★★★4/5
Good Shepherd Services LTD15.2 miSeymour, WI★★★★☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Green Bay →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 525559.