Oakmont Of Redding is a residential care home for the elderly (RCFE) in Redding, Shasta County, California — state license #455002743, licensed for 140 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 12 dated inspection and complaint documents on file for this home going back to 2021, the most recent dated February 2, 2026 — published below in full, verbatim and unscored.

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

3 homes in view

Oakmont Of Redding

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) · Large community, 140 residents · Redding, CA · Shasta County
LicensedWheelchairMemory careHospiceBedridden
No openings reportedBeds change hands in days ·
License #455002743, held since 2020 · read from the California state record on August 2, 2026 ·See on State Site →
2150 Bechelli Lane · Redding, Shasta County
Phone
(530) 395-5900
from the state licensing roster · August 2, 2026
No Google listing is on file for this home.
Website
oakmontseniorliving.com
listed in the county’s published care-facility roster
Listing details can lag reality — confirm anything important by phone.
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 140 residents
Dementia / memory careVerified in record
Hospice careApproved for 15 residents
Bedridden careApproved for 15 residents

“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. 140 NON-AMBULATORY, OF WHICH 15 MAY BE BEDRIDDEN. HOSPICE WAIVER FOR 15.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 2021, the state has visited this home 12 times and filed 12 documents. The most recent is a facility evaluation report, dated February 2, 2026.

Most recent state visit
February 2, 2026
Occupancy at the September 10, 2025 visit
96 of 140 beds

The state's published file for this home includes 4 documents with transcribed findings, dated March 22, 2022 to September 10, 2025. 4 of the 4 carry the state's recorded outcome word: “Unfounded” (1), “Unsubstantiated” (3). 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 — 7 of 12 documentsFull record on the state’s site →
20261 state visit · 1 document
Feb 2, 2026Facility 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.

20254 state visits · 4 documents
Oct 27, 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.

Sep 10, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnfounded

Allegation investigated: Staff do not ensure resident's alert band is in good repair.

On September 10, 2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ivan Avila conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit regarding the above allegation directed by the Department. LPA Avila met with Karen Slinkard and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA investigated the allegation, "Staff do not ensure resident's alert band is in good repair." Based on interviews and observations, R1's alert wrist band was in good repair. LPA observed R1's alert band to be working during the time of visit. R1 told LPA that they were confused how the wrist band worked and thought it was a call button. R1 has a pendant they use to call staff when they need assistance. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging "Staff do not ensure resident's alert band is in good repair." We have found that the complaint was unfounded, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. Unfoundedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 10, 2025 · control 59-AS-20250908091233
Mar 11, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not safeguard a resident's personal belonging Resident sustained multiple unexplained injuries while in care Staff did not meet a resident's incontinence needs Staff did not meet a resident's hygiene needs

On 03/11/2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ivan Avila conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit regarding the above allegations directed by the Department. LPA Avila met with Executive Director Karen Slinkard and explained the purpose of the visit. During the investigation process, interviews and a records review were initiated. LPA investigated the allegation, “Staff did not safeguard a resident’s personal belongings.” Based on interviews and record review, residents have stated there has not been any concerns about missing any personal belongings. LPA observed documentation of R1’s wife signature declining to inventory R1’s personal belongings upon admission to the facility. Interviews stated facility staff looked for R1’s missing ring and signs were posted throughout the facility, and it was not found. ----- Continued on LIC9099-C ---- Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 11, 2025 · control 59-AS-20241230135019
Feb 6, 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.

20242 state visits · 2 documents
Nov 20, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Resident sustained an infection due to lack of care or neglect by staff Staff did not safeguard resident's personal items Staff did not respond to residents call for assistance in a timely manner

On 11/20/2024 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ivan Avila conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit regarding the above allegations directed by the Department. LPA met with Karen Slinkard and explained the purpose of the visit. During the investigation process, interviews and a records review were initiated. LPA investigated the allegation, “Resident sustained an infection due to lack of care or neglect by staff.” Based on record review and interviews conducted, it was stated upon resident being admitted to the facility that the home health agency would be responsible for wound care. Facility staff would call the home health agency when R1’s bandage needed changing and facility staff would only reinforce the wound area with tape until the home health agency could send a reprasentative to clean and rebandage the wound. It was determined that the infection did not result from the bandage care. ****Continued on LIC9099-C**** Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 20, 2024 · control 59-AS-20240703094210
Feb 15, 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.

Beside homes the same size
Type A citations0typical 1
Type B citations0typical 1
Substantiated complaints0typical 2
Total complaints4typical 7
State visits on file12typical 19
“Typical” is the statewide median across the 1,244 licensed larger communities (16+ 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 2020.
Year-by-year trend
YearVisitsDocumentsSubstantiated202611020254402024220202311020223302021110
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 →

$3,500$5,500 /mo
our estimate — Shasta 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 (530) 395-5900

Is Oakmont Of Redding licensed?

Yes — Oakmont Of Redding is a licensed residential care home for the elderly (RCFE) in Redding (Shasta County): California license #455002743, shown as licensed in the CDSS state record checked August 2, 2026, licensed for 140 residents. State records list 12 inspection and complaint documents since 2021; the most recent, a facility evaluation report dated February 2, 2026, appears in the inspection record on this page.

Can Oakmont Of Redding 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 Oakmont Of Redding with clearances for wheelchair / non-ambulatory, dementia / memory care, hospice care, and bedridden. Clearances describe what the license permits, not day-to-day staffing — confirm current scope and availability with the home directly 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. 140 NON-AMBULATORY, OF WHICH 15 MAY BE BEDRIDDEN. HOSPICE WAIVER FOR 15.

How much does Oakmont Of Redding cost?

California's public licensing record does not include Oakmont Of Redding's monthly price, so we never show or estimate one for a specific home. As county-level context only, assisted living in Shasta County typically runs $3,500–$5,500/mo and small board-and-care homes $3,000–$5,000/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 Oakmont Of Redding accept Medi-Cal or the Assisted Living Waiver?

Oakmont Of Redding 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

96 of 140 beds occupied (69%) when the state visited on September 10, 2025. Availability changes constantly — confirm a current opening with the home.

What do state inspections show for Oakmont Of Redding?

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 12 state visits and 12 dated documents since 2021 for Oakmont Of Redding; 4 complaint-investigation narratives are transcribed verbatim below. The most recent, dated September 10, 2025, records an allegation the state marked “Unfounded. 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

2025

Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Unfounded
Allegation the state reviewedStaff do not ensure resident's alert band is in good repair.
State's findingUnfoundedThe state investigated and found the allegation to be false.
On September 10, 2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ivan Avila conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit regarding the above allegation directed by the Department. LPA Avila met with Karen Slinkard and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA investigated the allegation, "Staff do not ensure resident's alert band is in good repair." Based on interviews and observations, R1's alert wrist band was in good repair. LPA observed R1's alert band to be working during the time of visit. R1 told LPA that they were confused how the wrist band worked and thought it was a call button. R1 has a pendant they use to call staff when they need assistance. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging "Staff do not ensure resident's alert band is in good repair." We have found that the complaint was unfounded, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. UnfoundedCDSS inspection report, September 10, 2025 · control 59-AS-20250908091233
Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Unsubstantiated
Allegation the state reviewedStaff did not safeguard a resident's personal belonging Resident sustained multiple unexplained injuries while in care Staff did not meet a resident's incontinence needs Staff did not meet a resident's hygiene needs
State's findingUnsubstantiatedThe state investigated but could not confirm the allegation. This is not a finding of wrongdoing.
On 03/11/2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ivan Avila conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit regarding the above allegations directed by the Department. LPA Avila met with Executive Director Karen Slinkard and explained the purpose of the visit. During the investigation process, interviews and a records review were initiated. LPA investigated the allegation, “Staff did not safeguard a resident’s personal belongings.” Based on interviews and record review, residents have stated there has not been any concerns about missing any personal belongings. LPA observed documentation of R1’s wife signature declining to inventory R1’s personal belongings upon admission to the facility. Interviews stated facility staff looked for R1’s missing ring and signs were posted throughout the facility, and it was not found. ----- Continued on LIC9099-C ---- UnsubstantiatedCDSS inspection report, March 11, 2025 · control 59-AS-20241230135019

2024

Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Unsubstantiated
Allegation the state reviewedResident sustained an infection due to lack of care or neglect by staff Staff did not safeguard resident's personal items Staff did not respond to residents call for assistance in a timely manner
State's findingUnsubstantiatedThe state investigated but could not confirm the allegation. This is not a finding of wrongdoing.
On 11/20/2024 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ivan Avila conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit regarding the above allegations directed by the Department. LPA met with Karen Slinkard and explained the purpose of the visit. During the investigation process, interviews and a records review were initiated. LPA investigated the allegation, “Resident sustained an infection due to lack of care or neglect by staff.” Based on record review and interviews conducted, it was stated upon resident being admitted to the facility that the home health agency would be responsible for wound care. Facility staff would call the home health agency when R1’s bandage needed changing and facility staff would only reinforce the wound area with tape until the home health agency could send a reprasentative to clean and rebandage the wound. It was determined that the infection did not result from the bandage care. ****Continued on LIC9099-C**** UnsubstantiatedCDSS inspection report, November 20, 2024 · control 59-AS-20240703094210

2022

Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Unsubstantiated
Allegation the state reviewedA resident's needs were not being met when the resident did not receive a shower. Staff have not met the medication training requirements. Staff did not ensure that a resident's medication was consumed. Staff did not respond to resident's call button in a timely manner.
State's findingUnsubstantiatedThe state investigated but could not confirm the allegation. This is not a finding of wrongdoing.
Donna Gurriere, Licensing Program Analyst was in contact and met with Lorene Bower, Administrator. It was alleged that A resident's needs were not being met when the resident did not receive a shower, Staff have not met the medication training requirements, Staff did not ensure that a resident's medication was consumed and Staff did not respond to resident's call button in a timely manner. LPA Gurriere completed the required COVID-19 testing protocols, and a daily self-screening questionnaire for symptoms of COVID 19 infection to affirm no COVID-19 related symptoms. The administrator/staff person was contacted to complete a facility risk assessment. LPA Gurriere ensured that hand sanitizer was applied before entering the facility and the following Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was worn: N-95 mask. Additionally, LPA Gurriere was screened by a staff person upon entering the facility. UnsubstantiatedCDSS inspection report, March 22, 2022 · control 25-AS-20211013165937

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

What the state has logged

California has logged 12 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 larger communities (16+ beds), computed across all 1,244 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. No substantiated complaints are on file.

Type A citations
0
typical for this size: 1
Type B citations
0
typical for this size: 1
Substantiated complaints
0
typical for this size: 2
Total complaints
4
typical for this size: 7
State visits on file
12
typical for this size: 19
See the full inspection record on the state's site →
Talk to this home directly

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

(530) 395-5900
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 Oakmont Of Redding? Claim this listing — free — add photos, activities, languages, and today’s availability.