Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans positive regarding direct caregiving, daily living conditions, and the physical environment, while showing clear and repeated concerns about ownership and management practices. Multiple reviewers emphasize that caregiving staff are compassionate and attentive; specific staff members are named (Rose, an on-site nurse, and Ted, who is described as friendly and communicative). Medication administration is called out as accurate, and families report that residents receive regular caregiver attention. One concrete outcome noted by a reviewer is a resident gaining eight pounds, which readers presented as a sign of improving health and appropriate nutritional attention.
The facility’s physical environment and daily life receive consistently favorable remarks. Reviewers describe the houses as clean, odor-free, and comfortable. Meals are repeatedly praised as homemade and nutrition-focused, and reviewers note that residents are generally happy and well cared for. The community atmosphere is described as friendly, with owners and management present in the home. Several reviews state that the facility has a good inspection history and that costs are about average for the market, and some reviewers explicitly highly recommend the home.
Activities and engagement are reported inconsistently across summaries. Some reviews state there is good involvement in activities, while at least one review notes that activities were suspended due to COVID. This suggests the presence of opportunities for engagement when circumstances allow, but families should expect pandemic-related limitations may have reduced programming at times. Communication is reported positively in multiple reviews, with staff keeping families up to date.
However, there are important and recurrent concerns about ownership and management practices that contrast sharply with the praise for caregivers. Several reviewers characterize the owner as extremely cheap and cite specific problematic behavior: most notably, an allegation that the owner refuses to use air conditioning, leading to room temperatures exceeding 80°F and making residents uncomfortable. There are also serious employment-related complaints — an allegation that an owner refused a final paycheck and that employees are underpaid — and at least one reviewer links management behavior to negative impacts on resident care. These issues introduce a significant caveat: while direct-care staff may provide strong day-to-day care, higher-level management decisions and owner behavior have the potential to undermine comfort and staff stability.
In sum, the reviews portray a facility with strong hands-on caregiving, clean and comfortable living spaces, good meals, and generally positive resident outcomes and inspections. At the same time, persistent allegations about the owner’s cost-cutting, refusal to use air conditioning, payroll disputes, and understaffing/underpayment concerns are significant and repeatedly mentioned. Prospective families should weigh the favorable reports about staff, cleanliness, meals, and inspection history against the ownership/management red flags and may want to ask direct questions about AC use policies, staffing and compensation, resident temperature comfort, activity programming post-COVID, and the facility’s approach to resolving payroll or employment disputes before deciding.
