Overall impression: The reviews present a mixed but strongly polarized view of Harvest Retirement. Several reviewers highlight very positive, service-oriented experiences—particularly praising staff, customer service, cleanliness, and the availability of memory-care amenities and activities. At the same time, other reviews raise serious concerns, including legal problems and past poor inspection results. This creates a pattern where some families feel reassured and satisfied, while others warn strongly against using the community.
Staff and care quality: A recurring positive theme is the staff. Multiple summaries call out "great staff," strong customer service, and staff who provide reassurance and assistance (including help with financial matters). These comments suggest that on a day-to-day, interpersonal level some residents and families experience compassionate and capable caregivers. However, there are also blunt warnings from other reviewers—phrases like "do not keep your loved ones there"—which indicate that at least some families experienced care issues severe enough to prompt strong negative recommendations. The presence of both glowing staff reports and alarming warnings suggests inconsistency: some households report good care, while others report significant problems.
Facilities and amenities: Reviews describe the community as clean and well-kept but note that the building is older. Memory-care is repeatedly mentioned as a strength: the facility appears to offer memory-care amenities and organized activities, and reviewers specifically note security measures for wandering residents. All-inclusive pricing is cited as a positive logistical/financial feature. At the same time, the age of the facility and distance from some family members are practical drawbacks to consider—an older building can mean more maintenance considerations, and a remote location can make visits and involvement harder.
Management, safety, and regulatory concerns: The most serious negative themes relate to management, safety oversight, and legal/regulatory history. Summaries reference "plenty of lawsuits" and explicitly call out poor inspection results in 2011 and December 2012. Several reviewers advise prospective families to "do your research," and at least one reviewer gives an unequivocal warning against placing loved ones there. These points are red flags that should prompt prospective families to request documentation: inspection reports, corrective action plans, litigation disclosures, and management responses. The combination of legal reports and historical inspection problems suggests systemic issues at certain points in time, even if some later experiences appear positive.
Dining, activities, and other services: The reviews specifically praise memory-care activities and the security measures associated with memory support. There is no specific, consistent commentary about dining quality, recreational programming outside memory care, or medical/staffing ratios. The absence of comments on these topics means prospective families should ask directly about meal services, menus, therapeutic activities beyond memory care, medical oversight, and staffing levels during visits.
Recommendations for prospective families: Given the split in reviewer sentiment, due diligence is essential. Visit the community multiple times at different hours, speak with front-line staff and current residents/families, and request copies of the most recent inspection reports and any corrective-action documentation relating to the 2011 and December 2012 inspections. Ask management about the lawsuits referenced in reviews and whether those matters are resolved. Verify staffing ratios, training (especially for memory-care staff), security protocols for wandering residents, and details of the all-inclusive pricing (what is and is not covered). Consider distance and ease of regular visitation when evaluating whether this location fits your needs.
Summary judgement: Reviews indicate genuine strengths—particularly personable staff, clean facilities, memory-care programming, and an all-inclusive pricing structure—but they are offset by serious historical concerns (legal issues and documented poor inspections) and at least some strong negative personal accounts. The overall picture is mixed: Harvest Retirement can offer a positive experience for some families, but the historical and legal red flags justify careful scrutiny before making a placement decision.
