How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Valle Verde Health Facility
900 Calle De Los Amigos, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Barbara County · (805) 883-4000· 80 certified beds · avg 56 residents/day · certified since Sep 30, 1972 · 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 →
Part of chain: HUMANGOOD (17 facilities, chain avg rating 4.5★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 9, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 29, 2026
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.33
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 29, 2026 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 29, 2026 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.
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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 23 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0686
The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. F-0578
The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. F-0656
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.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Oct 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Aug 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint · F-0835 |
| Jul 1, 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 |
| May 16, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| May 16, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0761 |
| Mar 1, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0645 |
| Mar 1, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Mar 1, 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 |
| Mar 1, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Mar 1, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Mar 1, 2023 | 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 1, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (5 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 7 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 5 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 6 | 1 | G ▲ |
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 facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 5.33
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.68
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.63
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 5.33 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 10% in California; top 9% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.68 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 26% in California; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.63 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 11% in California; top 10% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.23 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 18% in California; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 25.7 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 19% in California; top 8% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 16.7 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 13% in California; top 9% 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 4.79, RN 0.61, weekend 4.15.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.79 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · 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 Valle Verde Health Facility. 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Humangood | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 100% | 05/01/2016 |
| Humangood Norcal | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 03/31/1967 |
| Baker, Judith | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| Baker, Judith | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| Battison, William | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| Battison, William | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| Bordofsky, Michael | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/19/2022 |
| Bordofsky, Michael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/19/2022 |
| Brown, Herman | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| Brown, Herman | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/10/2013 |
| Brown, Herman | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/10/2013 |
| Christopherson, Joanne | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/20/2025 |
| Christopherson, Joanne | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/20/2025 |
| Cochrane, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/10/2009 |
| Cochrane, John | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/10/2009 |
| Cochrane, John | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/10/2009 |
| Fairley, Tracie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2026 |
| Fairley, Tracie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2026 |
| Feller, Irene | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/26/2021 |
| Feller, Irene | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/26/2021 |
Showing 20 of 48 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 28 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Humangood — 17 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Terraces of Boise, the — Boise, ID · overall 2/5abuse
- Las Ventanas Retirement Comm SNF — Las Vegas, NV · overall 5/5
- Village at Hillside — McMinnville, OR · overall 5/5
- Rydal Park of Philadelphia Presbytery Homes, INC — Rydal, PA · overall 4/5
- Judson Park Health Center — Des Moines, WA · overall 5/5
- Summitview Rehab and Health Center — Yakima, WA · overall 5/5
- The Terraces of Phoenix — Phoenix, AZ · overall 5/5
- Piedmont Gardens Health Facility — Oakland, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 16 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How do you inspect and maintain essential equipment, and how quickly are repairs made?"
- "Do you have a qualified dietician on staff, and how involved are they in each resident's nutrition plan?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
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 26% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 48 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mission Park Healthcare Center | 1.2 mi | Santa Barbara, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Samarkand Skilled Nursing Facility | 1.2 mi | Santa Barbara, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Channel Islands Post Acute | 1.2 mi | Santa Barbara, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| The Californian | 1.8 mi | Santa Barbara, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Buena Vista Care Center | 3.5 mi | Santa Barbara, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Casa Dorinda | 6.3 mi | Santa Barbara, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Santa Barbara, CA — 14 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Valley Oaks Post Acute — Santa Maria, CA · overall 4/5
- Villa Maria Post Acute — Santa Maria, CA · overall 5/5
- Atterdag Care Center — Solvang, CA · overall 3/5
- Lompoc Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Lompoc, CA · overall 4/5
- Lompoc Valley Medical Center Comprehensive Care Ce — Lompoc, CA · overall 5/5
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 055733.