Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed: several reviewers strongly praise the caregiving staff, cleanliness, and the improved dining under new leadership, while others report serious operational and management shortcomings that affected their trust and satisfaction. The most consistent positive themes are the warmth and attentiveness of many staff members, the cleanliness of the facility, and reports that some residents are well cared for and enjoying their time. However, multiple reviews raise material concerns about inconsistency—both in staffing quality and in whether advertised services and programs actually exist.
Care quality and staff: A large portion of reviewers emphasize compassionate, kind, patient, and nurturing caregivers who communicate well with families. Words like "exceptional," "compassionate," and "attentive" appear frequently, and several accounts describe family members being pleased with the one-on-one attention in the smaller residential setting. That said, other reviewers describe a decline in staff quality over time or concerns about staff language skills (specifically English) that impacted communication and care. This suggests variability in staffing or turnover: some residents experienced excellent, consistent care, while others encountered staff who did not meet their expectations. Additionally, some reviewers reported unanswered concerns and poor follow-up from management, indicating issues with consistency in oversight and resident advocacy.
Facilities and environment: The home is repeatedly described as clean, with tidy rooms and common areas. The smaller, residential atmosphere is seen as a pro by many who appreciate personalized attention. However, several reviewers describe a lack of a "loving family environment," feeling lonely, or being unhappy despite a neat physical environment. This contrast indicates that the physical facility is acceptable to good, but social programming and emotional support may be insufficient or inconsistent across residents.
Dining and nutrition: Opinions on meals are mixed but show a clear trend: earlier reviewers complained about limited meal variety and offerings that did not align with resident preferences (examples include being offered hotdogs instead of cereal/fruit). Multiple comments note an upgrade in meals under new leadership, with others specifically praising healthy, high-quality food and residents being well fed. The pattern suggests the dining program has been actively changed and improved for some residents, though personalized meal preferences and consistent variety may still be issues for others.
Activities and social programming: Reviews indicate variability in activity offerings, particularly because there are two homes referenced with differing programs. Some residents or families report that an advertised program was sold but did not exist, resulting in disappointment, loneliness, and a sense that promises were not kept. Other reviewers had not yet explored activities or found adequate options. This inconsistency is important: prospective residents should confirm which home and which specific activity programs are available and get written descriptions of promised programming.
Management, promises, and operations: Several reviews express disappointment and sadness tied to broken promises, unmet expectations, and costs that did not match perceived value. A serious operational concern raised is that transportation was advertised as included but was not actually provided. Another safety-related issue was an instance of pills found on the floor—this is an isolated but significant red flag regarding medication handling and supervision. While some reviewers found the owner cordial and tours positive, the recurring themes of unmet promises, unanswered concerns, and variability between homes point to potential management and communication problems that families should probe during tours and contract negotiations.
Cost and value: A number of reviewers mention higher cost and question the value received. When combined with reports of services not being delivered as advertised (transportation, activity programs), these cost/value concerns become more substantial. Prospective residents and families should request a clear, written list of included services, any additional fees, and guarantees about programming to avoid surprises.
Notable patterns and recommendations: The reviews collectively show a facility with real strengths—especially in staff compassion, cleanliness, and, more recently, improved meals—but also with inconsistencies that matter: staffing quality and language, program availability, communication and follow-through from management, a safety incident, and billing/transportation discrepancies. Because of these mixed signals, anyone considering Agape Care Home of Scottsdale should (1) ask which of the two homes they are touring and get specifics about differences in activities and programming, (2) request documentation about included transportation and other services, (3) inquire about staff training, language capabilities, and turnover, (4) ask for recent references from current resident families about responsiveness and incident handling, and (5) taste or review the current menu and meal plan to ensure dietary preferences will be honored. Doing this due diligence will help distinguish whether a given home within the Agape group matches the positive experiences described or risks the negative issues some reviewers reported.
