Click on the links in the first column of the table below to download easy-to-use files for each state.
Each file includes information on:
- Each facility’s direct care RN, LPN, and CNA staffing levels;
- Staffing levels for important non-nursing staff, including administrators and activities staff; and
- The extent to which the facility relies on contract workers to provide resident care.
To facilitate ease of use, the individual state files are easily sortable. For example, a state file can be sorted to identify which facilities have the highest reported levels of RN care and which have the lowest.
Notes on the Information Provided:
- Data provided are the averages for the quarter (three month period).
- If a facility is not listed, it has not provided appropriate staffing data to CMS.
- CMS is now using payroll-based data on Nursing Home Compare. However, they are including nurses assigned to non-care functions in their computations of staffing levels. The nursing staff data provided on our website do not include staff time designated for administrative or non-care functions. They only include the staff that nursing homes have designated as providing resident care.
- See the Notes tab in each file for more information about the data.
National Staffing Data Summary:
The national staffing averages for Q1 2020 are 3.38 total care staff HPRD, 0.43 RN care staff HPRD. This falls short of the amount of time needed to ensure that residents receive clinical care (4.10 hours total care staff HPRD and 0.75 RN HPRD), according to a landmark 2001 federal study.
To access staffing reports from previous quarters, visit LTCCC’s Staffing Page.
| State | Avg Total Care Staff HPRD | Total Care Rank | Avg RN Care Staff HPRD | RN Care Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALASKA | 5.79 | 1 | 1.36 | 1 |
| ALABAMA | 3.50 | 22 | 0.35 | 43 |
| ARKANSAS | 3.70 | 14 | 0.20 | 48 |
| ARIZONA | 3.70 | 13 | 0.50 | 26 |
| CALIFORNIA | 3.96 | 2 | 0.43 | 35 |
| COLORADO | 3.46 | 24 | 0.66 | 10 |
| CONNECTICUT | 3.49 | 23 | 0.47 | 32 |
| D.C. | 3.72 | 11 | 0.77 | 4 |
| DELAWARE | 3.72 | 12 | 0.63 | 11 |
| FLORIDA | 3.90 | 4 | 0.51 | 22 |
| GEORGIA | 3.19 | 41 | 0.18 | 50 |
| HAWAII | 3.96 | 3 | 1.08 | 2 |
| IOWA | 3.24 | 37 | 0.51 | 23 |
| IDAHO | 3.82 | 8 | 0.62 | 12 |
| ILLINOIS | 2.97 | 48 | 0.53 | 18 |
| INDIANA | 3.03 | 47 | 0.40 | 37 |
| KANSAS | 3.10 | 43 | 0.46 | 33 |
| KENTUCKY | 3.28 | 36 | 0.41 | 36 |
| LOUISIANA | 3.21 | 40 | 0.11 | 51 |
| MASSACHUSETTS | 3.40 | 27 | 0.47 | 31 |
| MARYLAND | 3.38 | 30 | 0.51 | 21 |
| MAINE | 3.81 | 9 | 0.75 | 5 |
| MICHIGAN | 3.69 | 15 | 0.49 | 29 |
| MINNESOTA | 3.60 | 17 | 0.72 | 6 |
| MISSOURI | 2.60 | 51 | 0.27 | 46 |
| MISSISSIPPI | 3.59 | 18 | 0.37 | 40 |
| MONTANA | 3.39 | 29 | 0.62 | 13 |
| NORTH CAROLINA | 3.22 | 39 | 0.32 | 45 |
| NORTH DAKOTA | 3.90 | 6 | 0.52 | 19 |
| NEBRASKA | 3.06 | 44 | 0.50 | 27 |
| NEW HAMPSHIRE | 3.41 | 26 | 0.48 | 30 |
| NEW JERSEY | 3.32 | 35 | 0.49 | 28 |
| NEW MEXICO | 3.05 | 45 | 0.51 | 24 |
| NEVADA | 3.56 | 20 | 0.54 | 16 |
| NEW YORK | 3.35 | 33 | 0.46 | 34 |
| OHIO | 3.24 | 38 | 0.39 | 39 |
| OKLAHOMA | 2.85 | 49 | 0.19 | 49 |
| OREGON | 3.90 | 5 | 0.52 | 20 |
| PENNSYLVANIA | 3.45 | 25 | 0.50 | 25 |
| RHODE ISLAND | 3.11 | 42 | 0.60 | 14 |
| SOUTH CAROLINA | 3.52 | 21 | 0.37 | 41 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA | 3.03 | 46 | 0.56 | 15 |
| TENNESSEE | 3.39 | 28 | 0.36 | 42 |
| TEXAS | 2.82 | 50 | 0.24 | 47 |
| UTAH | 3.58 | 19 | 0.79 | 3 |
| VIRGINIA | 3.35 | 31 | 0.32 | 44 |
| VERMONT | 3.83 | 7 | 0.54 | 17 |
| WASHINGTON | 3.74 | 10 | 0.69 | 8 |
| WISCONSIN | 3.61 | 16 | 0.70 | 7 |
| WEST VIRGINIA | 3.35 | 32 | 0.40 | 38 |
| WYOMING | 3.32 | 34 | 0.67 | 9 |
State and national staffing (Total and RN) averages for Q1 2020 were determined by dividing a given sample’s aggregate of facility staffing by its aggregate of facility MDS census, thus accounting for variations in facility size. LTCCC staffing reports prior to Q3 2019 used different methodology by averaging all facility HPRDs in a sample (without adjusting for facility size) to determine state and national staffing averages.