Illinois ›Chicago

Smith Village

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

2320 West 113th Place, Chicago, IL 60643 (opens Google Maps) · Cook County · (773) 474-7300· 78 certified beds · avg 66 residents/day · certified since Sep 16, 1996 · 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 →

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

What the abuse flag means →

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Nov 26, 2025
5
Serious findings on record
most recent May 16, 2026
$16,350
Fines, last 3 years
5.40
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 16, 2026 · F-0627 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely.

Why it matters: A rushed or poorly planned move can leave a resident somewhere that can't meet their needs.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: May 20, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 21, 2026 · F-0602 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds.

Why it matters: Residents can lose money, jewelry, or cherished possessions to theft or misuse.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Mar 1, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 13, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Feb 14, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 13, 2025 · F-0909 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames.

Why it matters: Poorly maintained beds and rails can trap or injure residents, sometimes fatally.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Mar 13, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 7, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Apr 8, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 23 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. G · Actual harm, isolated

    The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint F-0627

  2. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint F-0580

  3. G · Actual harm, isolated

    The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint F-0602

View all 23 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
May 16, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint · F-0627
May 16, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580
Jan 21, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602
Nov 26, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Nov 26, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Nov 26, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Feb 13, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 13, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames. · from a complaint · F-0909
Sep 19, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Sep 19, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814
Sep 19, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Sep 19, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Sep 19, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 19, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0803
Sep 19, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813
Apr 7, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814
Oct 20, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Oct 20, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0695
Oct 20, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 23, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint · F-0558

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 3).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2026
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 2

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202360F
202491G ▲
202552G ▲
202632G ▲

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

1 fine totaling $16,350, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
May 16, 2026Fine$16,350
Jan 21, 2026Payment Denial16 days from Feb 13, 2026

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityIllinois averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 5.40
Illinois average: 2.99
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.15
Illinois average: 0.63
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.87
Illinois average: 2.67
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityIllinois avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.402.993.95top 4% in Illinois; top 8% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.150.630.69top 10% in Illinois; top 11% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.872.673.50top 4% in Illinois; top 8% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.940.560.48top 13% in Illinois; top 7% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)57.344.545.8bottom 18% in Illinois; bottom 21% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)33.341.842.9top 35% in Illinois; top 33% 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 5.27, RN 1.12, weekend 4.74.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.27 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Smith Village. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

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 →

Non profit - Other

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Araiza, EmaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2013
Araiza, EmaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2013
Jatis, MartiIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2012
Jatis, MartiIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2012
Marneris, RaymondIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2012
Marneris, RaymondIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/23/2025
McGee, KevinIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2012
McGee, KevinIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/23/2025
Sadok, SmainIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2012
Sadok, SmainIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/03/2025
The Washington and Jane Smith HomeOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/31/2000
The Washington and Jane Smith HomeOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/03/2025

All 12 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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

  • "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
  • "What safeguards do you have to protect residents' money and belongings, and what happens when something goes missing?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "How often are beds and bed rails inspected, and who does those checks?"
  • "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
  • "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
  • "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"

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 57% 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 138 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Belhaven Nursing & Rehab Center0.1 miChicago, IL★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Avantara Evergreen Park1.9 miEvergreen Park, IL★☆☆☆☆1/5
Morgan Park Healthcare2.0 miChicago, IL★★☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF
Mercy Circle2.6 miChicago, IL★★★★★4/5
Landmark at 95th Rehabilitation and Nursing Center2.9 miChicago, IL★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Aliya on 87th3.4 miChicago, IL★★☆☆☆1/5abuse
Warren Barr Oak Lawn3.6 miOak Lawn, IL★★★★☆4/5
Thryve of Crestwood3.8 miCrestwood, IL★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
Bria of Forest Edge4.2 miChicago, IL★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Aperion Care Midlothian4.4 miMidlothian, IL★☆☆☆☆2/5
Aliya of Crestwood4.8 miCrestwood, IL★☆☆☆☆2/5
Landmark of Oak Lawn Rehabilitation and Nursing Ce5.1 miOak Lawn, IL★☆☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Cook, IL — 202 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Chicago →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 145904.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details