A national ALF citation board is not useful until operators can work it.
SNF operators have CMS Provider Data Catalog and a shared F-tag language. Assisted living does not. Inspections are state-run, tags are state-native, and public access ranges from bulk extracts to FOIA blackouts. ALF Survey Risk Performance is our answer: a multi-page Power BI board on a unified state-sourced spine — same product shape as our SNF Survey Risk boards, built for a different data reality.
Open live dashboard · Work Showcase · Measures guide · ALF Citations Spine
Spine facts (verified SQL load)
Counts below are from the 2026-07-29 full load into the alf schema — not invented marketing numbers.
- 44,636 facilities across 51 jurisdictions (all 50 states + DC) on the national roster.
- 395,067 finding rows (395K+) from official state sources — and growing as residual / dual-lane work lands.
- 38 states currently carry loaded findings; the rest are honest empty or FOIA-pending, not fake zeros sold as clean.
- Coverage levels: 30 bulk findings · 3 partial · 5 report-links-only · 13 FOIA blackout (no findings invented for blackout states).
- Not CMS · not Five-Star · not SNF F-tags. State-licensed assisted living only.
-
Risk Overview plus the six-page map operators actually use. Rates stay blank when coverage is unsafe.
Six operator pages — what you can do
The board is six pages, same density and professionalism as Survey Risk for SNF, on state AL sources:
- Risk Overview — R12 findings, citations, complaints, and open-like volume; state scoreboard with coverage levels; multi-state filter with an explicit coverage gate.
- Severity — soft-mapped severity weights and high-severity pressure. This is not a CMS scope/severity (S/S) grid — states do not share one federal severity scheme.
- Tags — native state tag codes and finding detail (for example Florida AHCA-style codes), preserved as state language rather than forced into F-tags.
- Survey mix — complaint mix and inspection yield where coverage supports those rates.
- Open & aging — open-like worklists and stale pressure you can filter and act on.
- Facilities — per-state facility roster and peer-style scorecards when a single state is selected and coverage is safe.
-
Overview · Facilities · Open & aging · Severity — real report pages, not mockups. -
Risk Overview — national citation spine with coverage honesty in the banner.
Coverage honesty first
Volume counts (facilities, findings, citations) can still show in a multi-state view. Rates and risk scores stay blank until every selected state has usable citation coverage. FOIA and links-only states stay labeled. We do not paint public-records gaps as clean performance.
That rule is deliberate. A pretty national map with invented rates is worse than an honest scoreboard.
What this unlocks in practice
- Operator benchmarking — volume, complaint mix, open-like pressure, and tag patterns in states where coverage supports it.
- Compliance & quality workflows — worklists and risk views from a consistent finding grain instead of fifty portals.
- Acquisition diligence — facility and citation history as structured input, not a manual crawl.
- Product & analytics platforms — license the underlying ALF Citations Spine when you want the dataset in your own stack (API package documented separately).
- Honest national context — FOIA and partial states remain visible as coverage, not silent zeros.
Try the board · go deeper
Click through the sample yourself: live ALF Survey Risk Performance .
Measure-by-measure operator language lives in the ALF Survey Risk Performance measures guide. For licensed data access (not only the demo board), see Data and ALF Citations Spine — or request access.
Related earlier note on data services and the spine product: Data services at davvvNET — ALF Citations Spine.