HOMELAND CENTER
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Homeland Center in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is recommended and above average in quality. It ranks #55 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among the eight nursing homes in Dauphin County. The facility's overall performance is stable, with nine issues reported consistently over recent years, and it has not incurred any fines, which is a positive sign. However, while staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, the turnover rate is 56%, which is higher than average, indicating potential instability. Specific concerns include failures to properly follow physician orders for residents' medications and inadequate support for residents with limited mobility, which could affect their well-being and recovery.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Pennsylvania
- #55/653
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ○ Average
- 9 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
8 points above Pennsylvania average of 48%
The Ugly 9 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, observations, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain adequate personal hygiene and grooming of residents ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program related to the preparation and adm...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on facility policy review, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the highest practical well-being by not following physician orders...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents with limited mobility received appropriate se...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, resident and staff interviews, and observations, it was determined that the facility failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for two...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive necessary treatment and services...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Pennsylvania.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Pennsylvania facilities.
- • 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Homeland Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns HOMELAND CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Homeland Center Staffed?
CMS rates HOMELAND CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Homeland Center?
State health inspectors documented 9 deficiencies at HOMELAND CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 8 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Homeland Center?
HOMELAND CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 95 certified beds and approximately 93 residents (about 98% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania.
How Does Homeland Center Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, HOMELAND CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (56%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Homeland Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Homeland Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, HOMELAND CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Homeland Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at HOMELAND CENTER is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the Pennsylvania average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Homeland Center Ever Fined?
HOMELAND CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Homeland Center on Any Federal Watch List?
HOMELAND CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.