3839 Strong Street, Riverside, CA 92501
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
A Good Samaritan Costs & Pricing
A Good Samaritan offers competitive pricing for its services, particularly when compared to both Riverside County and the broader California market. For a semi-private room, residents pay $1,500 per month, significantly lower than the county average of $2,844 and the state average of $3,333. Similarly, in a private room setting, A Good Samaritan charges $1,850 monthly, which is notably more affordable than Riverside County's rate of $3,474 and California's average of $3,939. This pricing structure not only highlights A Good Samaritan's commitment to providing accessible care but also positions it as a cost-effective option for those seeking quality accommodations in such a competitive landscape.
| Floor plans | A Good Samaritan | Riverside County | California |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semi-Private | $1,500 | $2,844 | $3,333 |
| Private | $1,850 | $3,474 | $3,939 |
Overall Review of A Good Samaritan
Pros
They are a nice family.
Cons
The reviewer's mother was injured there.- The establishment could have done a better job with cleanliness, food preparation, and selection instead of sandwiches.
- The reviewer had to furnish breakfast and was told others shared.
Review
Best suited for families seeking a small, family-run atmosphere where staff feel personally invested in residents and daily routines stay home-like. A Good Samaritan in Riverside leans into warmth, with approachable caregivers and a sense that staff will accommodate individual tempos and preferences. This can be reassuring for seniors who do not require heavy medical oversight yet value personal attention and flexible routines. The trade-off is a leaner operational framework, where consistency and formal procedures may ride on the day-to-day initiative of a few staff members. For families willing to supervise care closely and maintain open lines of communication, the setting can offer genuine comfort and a sense of belonging.
Those with higher care needs or strict expectations for safety, cleanliness, and professional dining will want alternatives. The experience cited points to safety gaps and cleanliness shortcomings, alongside a kitchen approach that relies on sandwiches and family-provided meals. If predictable safety incidents, well-documented housekeeping, and a robust, in-house meal program are non-negotiable, this option is unlikely to satisfy. Families who cannot regularly supervise day-to-day operations may discover that a larger, professionally managed community offers the reliability they need.
The core positives, a warm, family-oriented environment and accessible staff, can generate meaningful comfort when paired with strong processes. Yet those strengths are undermined if safety and nutrition are uncertain. In this case, a residentâs injury raises serious questions about risk management, supervision, and incident follow-through. The meal situation, sandwich options and the expectation that family members supply breakfasts, further erodes confidence that residents receive consistent, adequate nourishment. In practical terms, warmth does not compensate for gaps in safety nets, cleanliness, and dietary planning.
Operational dynamics appear anchored in personal relationships more than formal infrastructure. Cleanliness concerns and limited meal preparation point to a lean kitchen and housekeeping model. The report that breakfast had to be furnished by a family member suggests ongoing gaps in service coverage, meal variety, and resident independence. These issues matter because they translate into tangible daily burdens for families and potential risk for residents. For decision-makers, these signals warrant probing staffing hours, kitchen governance, incident logs, and sanitation routines.
Effective evaluation should center on concrete safeguards. Prospective families should request a clear care plan, verify staff-to-resident ratios, and examine safety records and maintenance responsiveness. Touring the kitchen during service is essential to gauge cleanliness and meal quality. Ask for a sample weekâs meal plan and how dietary restrictions are accommodated, plus whether residents can receive meals from the kitchen or must rely on family provisions. Request written policies on injuries, housekeeping schedules, sanitation procedures, and candid references from current residents or families who recently interacted with the community.
Practically, this community serves best those who prize intimacy, flexibility, and hands-on oversight from family members, and who can tolerate occasional gaps in cleanliness and safety. For families seeking strong professional standards, reliable meals, and clearly documented safety practices, alternative communities are advisable. The prudent path is an in-person evaluation: observe meals, inspect living spaces, talk with multiple staff, review incident histories, and compare against several similar options. The choice should blend warmth with reliability, and in Riverside this option leans toward the personal touch while inviting disciplined scrutiny of its processes.
6 resident community capacity
Assisted Living
Board and Care Home
Cable or satellite TV
Dining room
Fully furnished
Garden
Housekeeping services
Move-in coordination
Outdoor space
Private
Private bathrooms
Telephone
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
Ontario International (14 miles away)
24-hour supervision
Activities of daily living assistance
Ambulatory care
Assistance with bathing
Assistance with dressing
Assistance with transfers
Diabetes diet
Diabetic care
Incontinence care
Meal preparation and service
Medication management
Special dietary restrictions
Transportation arrangement (medical)
Transportation to doctors appointments
Exploring the Contrasts Between Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing
8 Key Indicators That Suggest It May Be Time to Transition from Assisted Living to Skilled Nursing Care
Vibrant Senior Living: A Comprehensive Guide for Active Older Adults