Jazba Glenroy is a residential care home for the elderly (RCFE) in Sacramento, Sacramento County, California — state license #342701295, licensed for 6 residents, listed as licensed in the CDSS record we retrieved August 2, 2026. It does not appear on the DHCS Assisted Living Waiver participant list checked August 9, 2026 — that list covers the state waiver only, not a home's own payment arrangements. California has 13 dated inspection and complaint documents on file for this home going back to 2023, the most recent dated September 29, 2025 — published below in full, verbatim and unscored.

See an error in this summary? Report it — free →

2 homes in view

Jazba Glenroy

No photo on file yet

No photo of this home is on file — we show real, attributed images only, never a stock photo of someone else’s building.

Residential care home for the elderly (RCFE) · Small home, 6 residents · Sacramento, CA · Sacramento County
LicensedWheelchairMemory careHospiceBedridden not on file
No openings reportedBeds change hands in days ·
License #342701295, held since 2023 · read from the California state record on August 2, 2026 ·See on State Site →
8661 Glenroy Way · Sacramento, Sacramento County
Phone
(916) 838-1457
from the state licensing roster · August 2, 2026
No Google listing is on file for this home.
Website
None on file
Many small homes have no website — that says nothing about the care inside.
Contact facts come from the state roster, a county Area Agency on Aging roster, the home’s Google listing, or the operator — each labelled, never blended. Operators: add or correct yours, free →
Print tour sheet →

Wheelchair / non-ambulatoryApproved for 6 residents
Dementia / memory careVerified in record
Hospice careApproved for 6 residents
Bedridden careNot on file — ask the home

“Not on file” is not a no — approvals can be bed- or room-specific, so confirm current scope with the home on a tour. Where a number is shown it is the state’s own wording for how many residents the approval covers, not how many places are open today; where none is shown, the record simply does not state one.

Specific medical needs — insulin, oxygen, a catheter, an ostomy — aren’t in the state license record; ask the home directly. A feeding tube, tracheostomy, or advanced wound care usually needs skilled nursing →

See an error in these clearances? Report it — free →

What the state record says, word for word
AGE RANGE 60 AND OVER. APPROVED FIRE CLEARANCE FOR SIX(6) NON-AMBULATORY. APPROVED HOSPICE WAIVER FOR SIX(6) HOSPICE RESIDENTS.State service designation983 - RCFE / DEMENTIAthe CDSS license record, verbatim · checked August 2, 2026

“RCFE / Dementia” is the state’s designation for a home with an approved Dementia Care Plan of Operation — it’s recorded separately from the comments above, which is why the memory-care approval may not appear in that text.

Since 2023, the state has visited this home 15 times and filed 13 documents. The most recent is a facility evaluation report, dated September 29, 2025.

Most recent state visit
September 29, 2025
Occupancy at the August 8, 2024 visit
0 of 6 beds

The state's published file for this home includes 4 documents with transcribed findings, dated March 25, 2024 to August 8, 2024. 4 of the 4 carry the state's recorded outcome word: “Substantiated” (2), “Unsubstantiated” (2). 4 include the transcribed allegation the state investigated, word for word.

Summary composed by computer from the 4 documents below — every count derives from them, and the documents themselves are the state's records, verbatim. We never grade, score, or color a record.

What the state’s words mean
Substantiatedthe state found the allegation more likely true than notUnsubstantiatedinvestigated, but couldn’t be confirmed either way — not a finding of wrongdoingUnfoundedthe state concluded it was false or couldn’t have happenedType A citationthe most serious: an immediate health-or-safety risk, usually fixed on the spot or on a short deadlineType B citationless serious, with a deadline to fix
The last 36 months — 13 of 13 documentsFull record on the state’s site →
20253 state visits · 3 documents
Sep 29, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

May 12, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Feb 21, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

20246 state visits · 8 documents
Oct 7, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Oct 7, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Aug 8, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Resident eloped from the facility due to lack of care from staff Staff do not provide daily activities for residents Staff did not inform resident's authorized person of incidents of elopement

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Vincent Moleski arrived unannounced to deliver findings on this complaint investigation. LPA Moleski met with licensee Shane Stumpf and explained the purpose of the visit. This investigation consisted of interviews, observation, and record review. LPA Moleski interviewed one resident (R1), nine current and former staff members (S1-S9), and a resident’s responsible party (R1’s RP). One of the nine staff members interviewed (S8) said that R1 had at one point in time eloped from the facility. S8 said that they had been told by another caregiver, S9, that R1 had escaped through a door in their bedroom and went out into the road. According to S8, staff were told not to inform R1’s RP of the incident. In an interview, S9 said R1 had never eloped from the facility. S6 said that R1 “probably attempted” to elope from the facility, but said staff would have tried to redirect R1. [continued on 9099-C] Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 8, 2024 · control 27-AS-20240322120718
Aug 8, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff mismanaged resident's medication Resident fell due to lack of supervision Incidents were not reported to resident's responsible party

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Vincent Moleski arrived unannounced to deliver findings on this complaint investigation. LPA Moleski met with licensee Shane Stumpf and explained the purpose of the visit. This investigation consisted of interviews, observation, and record review. LPA Moleski interviewed one resident (R1), nine current and former staff members (S1-S9), and a resident’s responsible party (R1’s RP). LPA Moleski reviewed a resident’s (R2’s) medication administration records (MARs) for the months of December 2023 and January, February and March 2024. LPA Moleski observed that R2 occasionally received PRN anti-anxiety medication, but did not observe in these MARs any indication that R2 was overmedicated. The number of doses reflected in the MARs align with R2’s prescription for this medication. Among the staff members interviewed (S1-S9) one staff member, S3, said that they suspected R2 was given too many doses of the PRN medication. [continued on 9099-C] Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 8, 2024 · control 27-AS-20240402132940
Jun 28, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

May 30, 2024Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff are not sufficiently trained Resident was allowed access to knives

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Vincent Moleski arrived unannounced to deliver findings on this complaint investigation. LPA Moleski met with facility administrator Shane Stumpf and explained the purpose of the visit. This investigation consisted of interviews and record review. LPA Moleski opened this complaint investigation on 3/25/24. LPA Moleski interviewed a staff member (S1) who did not have a staff file, and did not have any training records available. During the interview with S1, S1 said they had been working at the facility for about three weeks. During the same interview, LPA Moleski asked what sort of training S1 had received prior to starting work. S1 said that S1 had received training out-of-state prior to starting work, and was showed how to complete daily tasks by other staff members. [continued on 9099-C] Substantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 30, 2024 · control 27-AS-20240321120503
Mar 25, 2024Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff members worked at facility without criminal record association Staff files are incomplete

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Vincent Moleski arrived unannounced to open this complaint investigation. LPA Moleski met with facility administrator Shane Stumpf and explained the purpose of the visit. When LPA Moleski arrived, LPA Moleski observed a caregiver present at the facility (S1). S1 was the only caregiver present. S1 had no staff file present at the facility, and was not associated to this facility. LPA Moleski reviewed files for five other employees (S2-S6). S1 told LPA Moleski S1 had been working five days a week for three weeks. Per 22 CCR Section 87761(b)(1), a civil penalty of $100 per day shall be assessed for an employee without a criminal background association for a maximum of 30 days for a repeat violation. [continued on 9099-C] Substantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 25, 2024 · control 27-AS-20240321120503
Feb 12, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

20231 state visit · 2 documents
Sep 20, 2023Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Sep 20, 2023Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Beside homes the same size
Type A citations4typical 0
Type B citations2typical 0
Substantiated complaints4typical 0
Total complaints3typical 0
State visits on file15typical 6
“Typical” is the statewide median across the 5,773 licensed small board-and-care homes (6 or fewer beds) in the state record — larger, longer-licensed homes accumulate more visits and reports, so compare like with like. One complaint can contain several allegations. Counts cover this license since 2023.
Year-by-year trend
YearVisitsDocumentsSubstantiated202533020246822023230
An “unsubstantiated” complaint is not a finding of wrongdoing — it means the state investigated and could not confirm the allegation. Outcome words are the state’s own; we never grade, score, or color a record.Operate this home? Respond to or correct any document here, free. Respond or correct →

See an error in these counts? Report it — free →

$5,000$7,500 /mo
our estimate — Sacramento County band, market research June 2026; not this home’s quoted price
$3,500 · statewide low$9,000 · statewide high
California’s public record holds no per-home price, so we never invent one. Ask the home for its rate sheet, or
Ways families pay here
Private pay — ask what the base rate includes and what’s billed separately.SSI/SSP — California’s board-and-care payment standard is $1,626.07/mo (2026): $1,444.07 to the home, $182 stays with the resident.Medi-Cal ALW — this home isn’t on the DHCS waiver list (checked August 9, 2026). Details →

Free for families · We never sell your information · Homes never pay to appear, and rankings are never affected by fees.

Cost range look wrong? Report it — free →

What dementia training does staff have, and is the area secured?
Non-ambulatory approval — whole home or specific rooms, and is a spot open?
How is medication handled and logged day to day?
What’s in the base monthly rate, and what’s billed separately?
Staff-to-resident ratio on day and night shifts?
How are medical emergencies handled after hours?

The first two come straight from this home’s record — a brochure won’t answer them.

Operate this home? This page is generated from CDSS public records — respond or correct it, free.
Claim your home → · See something wrong? → · How we source every fact →
Call (916) 838-1457

Is Jazba Glenroy licensed?

Yes — Jazba Glenroy is a licensed residential care home for the elderly (RCFE) in Sacramento (Sacramento County): California license #342701295, shown as licensed in the CDSS state record checked August 2, 2026, licensed for 6 residents. State records list 13 inspection and complaint documents since 2023; the most recent, a facility evaluation report dated September 29, 2025, appears in the inspection record on this page.

Can Jazba Glenroy care for dementia, hospice, bedridden, or non-ambulatory residents?

From the CDSS license record, checked August 2, 2026.

The CDSS license record checked August 2, 2026 lists Jazba Glenroy with clearances for wheelchair / non-ambulatory, dementia / memory care, and hospice care; it does not list bedridden. A clearance that is not on file is not a “no” — it may simply be unrecorded, so if your family needs one of these, ask the home directly and confirm its current scope on a tour.

Wheelchair / non-ambulatoryDementia / memory careHospice careBedridden

From the California state record. Some approvals are bed- or room-specific — always confirm current scope with the facility.

What the state record says, word for word
Verbatim, from the CDSS license recordAGE RANGE 60 AND OVER. APPROVED FIRE CLEARANCE FOR SIX(6) NON-AMBULATORY. APPROVED HOSPICE WAIVER FOR SIX(6) HOSPICE RESIDENTS.

How much does Jazba Glenroy cost?

California's public licensing record does not include Jazba Glenroy's monthly price, so we never show or estimate one for a specific home. As county-level context only, assisted living in Sacramento County typically runs $5,000–$7,500/mo and small board-and-care homes $4,000–$6,500/mo (market research compiled June 2026 — ranges, not quotes; California's 2026 SSI/SSP board-and-care payment standard is $1,626.07/month, of which $1,444.07 is the room-and-board portion paid to the home). Ask the home for its own rate sheet and what the base rate includes — or use the cost section at the top of this page.

Does Jazba Glenroy accept Medi-Cal or the Assisted Living Waiver?

Jazba Glenroy is not in the DHCS Assisted Living Waiver participant record we checked August 9, 2026 — that list covers only the state's ALW program, not a home's own payment policies, so ask the home directly about private Medi-Cal arrangements. The waiver pays for assisted-living care services (not room and board) at participating homes; every DHCS-listed home appears on our statewide Medi-Cal page.

Assisted living on Medi-Cal in California →See the DHCS list →

How full it was at the last state visit

0 of 6 beds occupied (0%) when the state visited on August 8, 2024. Availability changes constantly — confirm a current opening with the home.

What do state inspections show for Jazba Glenroy?

Verbatim from CDSS complaint-investigation reports — the state's own words, never summarized by us. Record checked August 2, 2026.

The CDSS state record checked August 2, 2026 lists 15 state visits and 13 dated documents since 2023 for Jazba Glenroy; 4 complaint-investigation narratives are transcribed verbatim below. The most recent, dated August 8, 2024, records an allegation the state marked “Unsubstantiated. Open any entry to read the state's full finding, word for word.

Most licensed homes receive some findings over 36 months; what matters is what was found and whether it was corrected. Counts here are shown compared with homes of similar size, and the state's own words appear in full below.

4 transcribed reports on file

2024

Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Unsubstantiated
Allegation the state reviewedResident eloped from the facility due to lack of care from staff Staff do not provide daily activities for residents Staff did not inform resident's authorized person of incidents of elopement
State's findingUnsubstantiatedThe state investigated but could not confirm the allegation. This is not a finding of wrongdoing.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Vincent Moleski arrived unannounced to deliver findings on this complaint investigation. LPA Moleski met with licensee Shane Stumpf and explained the purpose of the visit. This investigation consisted of interviews, observation, and record review. LPA Moleski interviewed one resident (R1), nine current and former staff members (S1-S9), and a resident’s responsible party (R1’s RP). One of the nine staff members interviewed (S8) said that R1 had at one point in time eloped from the facility. S8 said that they had been told by another caregiver, S9, that R1 had escaped through a door in their bedroom and went out into the road. According to S8, staff were told not to inform R1’s RP of the incident. In an interview, S9 said R1 had never eloped from the facility. S6 said that R1 “probably attempted” to elope from the facility, but said staff would have tried to redirect R1. [continued on 9099-C] UnsubstantiatedCDSS inspection report, August 8, 2024 · control 27-AS-20240322120718
Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Unsubstantiated
Allegation the state reviewedStaff mismanaged resident's medication Resident fell due to lack of supervision Incidents were not reported to resident's responsible party
State's findingUnsubstantiatedThe state investigated but could not confirm the allegation. This is not a finding of wrongdoing.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Vincent Moleski arrived unannounced to deliver findings on this complaint investigation. LPA Moleski met with licensee Shane Stumpf and explained the purpose of the visit. This investigation consisted of interviews, observation, and record review. LPA Moleski interviewed one resident (R1), nine current and former staff members (S1-S9), and a resident’s responsible party (R1’s RP). LPA Moleski reviewed a resident’s (R2’s) medication administration records (MARs) for the months of December 2023 and January, February and March 2024. LPA Moleski observed that R2 occasionally received PRN anti-anxiety medication, but did not observe in these MARs any indication that R2 was overmedicated. The number of doses reflected in the MARs align with R2’s prescription for this medication. Among the staff members interviewed (S1-S9) one staff member, S3, said that they suspected R2 was given too many doses of the PRN medication. [continued on 9099-C] UnsubstantiatedCDSS inspection report, August 8, 2024 · control 27-AS-20240402132940
Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Substantiated
Allegation the state reviewedStaff are not sufficiently trained Resident was allowed access to knives
State's findingSubstantiatedThe state investigated and found this allegation more likely than not true.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Vincent Moleski arrived unannounced to deliver findings on this complaint investigation. LPA Moleski met with facility administrator Shane Stumpf and explained the purpose of the visit. This investigation consisted of interviews and record review. LPA Moleski opened this complaint investigation on 3/25/24. LPA Moleski interviewed a staff member (S1) who did not have a staff file, and did not have any training records available. During the interview with S1, S1 said they had been working at the facility for about three weeks. During the same interview, LPA Moleski asked what sort of training S1 had received prior to starting work. S1 said that S1 had received training out-of-state prior to starting work, and was showed how to complete daily tasks by other staff members. [continued on 9099-C] SubstantiatedCDSS inspection report, May 30, 2024 · control 27-AS-20240321120503
Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Substantiated
Allegation the state reviewedStaff members worked at facility without criminal record association Staff files are incomplete
State's findingSubstantiatedThe state investigated and found this allegation more likely than not true.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Vincent Moleski arrived unannounced to open this complaint investigation. LPA Moleski met with facility administrator Shane Stumpf and explained the purpose of the visit. When LPA Moleski arrived, LPA Moleski observed a caregiver present at the facility (S1). S1 was the only caregiver present. S1 had no staff file present at the facility, and was not associated to this facility. LPA Moleski reviewed files for five other employees (S2-S6). S1 told LPA Moleski S1 had been working five days a week for three weeks. Per 22 CCR Section 87761(b)(1), a civil penalty of $100 per day shall be assessed for an employee without a criminal background association for a maximum of 30 days for a repeat violation. [continued on 9099-C] SubstantiatedCDSS inspection report, March 25, 2024 · control 27-AS-20240321120503

Transcribed from CDSS complaint-investigation reports · record checked August 2, 2026.

What the state has logged

California has logged 15 state visits for this home as of August 2, 2026. These are the home's own counts, straight from that record — shown beside the statewide median for small board-and-care homes (6 or fewer beds), computed across all 5,773 licensed homes of that size, because larger and longer-licensed homes naturally accumulate more visits and reports. They are facts, not a grade — a citation may be minor and since corrected, and an “unsubstantiated” complaint is not a finding of wrongdoing.

Type A citations
4
typical for this size: 0
Type B citations
2
typical for this size: 0
Substantiated complaints
4
typical for this size: 0
Total complaints
3
typical for this size: 0
State visits on file
15
typical for this size: 6
See the full inspection record on the state's site →

Who runs Jazba Glenroy?

From the CDSS ownership record, checked August 9, 2026.

Licensed to Jazba Care Llc, who operates 3 licensed California homes in total. Running more than one home is common and is neither good nor bad on its own.

Talk to this home directly

You can call them yourself, anytime — you never have to go through us.

(916) 838-1457
What isn't in the state record

Resident reviews, the exact monthly price, and the languages staff speak aren't part of California's public licensing record, so we don't show them here. Ask the home directly — the tour questions above are a good start.

Operate this home? The record above comes from California's public licensing data. You can respond or correct it — free. Claim your home — free →

See something wrong? Report an error — free → · How we source every fact →

This page is generated from CDSS Community Care Licensing public records. How we build these pages →

Do you run Jazba Glenroy? Claim this listing — free — add photos, activities, languages, and today’s availability.