The reviews for Caring Village of Forest Glen present a sharply mixed picture with strong, often emotional divergence between families who praise particular staff and the community atmosphere and those who report serious neglect, safety, and maintenance problems. A recurring theme is that while certain caregivers receive high praise for kindness, attentiveness, and personal care (with a few staff members named specifically), these positive experiences coexist with multiple reports of systemic failures: inconsistent staffing, poor clinical oversight, and lapses in basic hygiene and safety.
Care quality is the most polarized area. Numerous reviews highlight compassionate, attentive caregivers who keep residents well groomed, are responsive, and create a familial, home-like environment. Several reviewers explicitly say residents receive good care and are happy. In stark contrast, other reviewers allege neglect severe enough to include residents not being showered for extended periods, medication mishandling, reports of residents being over-sedated, and at least one account of a resident dying and not being discovered promptly. These latter reports raise substantive safety and clinical oversight concerns (some reviewers specifically note an absence of nurses or clinical staff), which dramatically undermine the positive accounts for other families.
Staff and management-related themes show inconsistency and structural issues. Many reviews cite high turnover, staff shortages, and a mix of excellent and poor direct-care staff — "some good, some bad" — which suggests uneven hiring, training, or retention practices. Some caregivers are celebrated as making the community feel like "one big family," while others are described as disrespectful or even inhumane. Several reviewers mention that initial staff interactions are positive but that issues raised to leadership suffer from poor follow-through, communication gaps, and a top-down management style that limits transparency and accountability. There are expressed concerns about owner/management priorities, including perceptions that decisions are financially motivated rather than resident-centered.
The physical facility and maintenance show clear areas of concern. Multiple reviewers describe the building as old, dated, dingy, or "falling apart," with specific reports of mold, urine odor, filthy bathrooms, and rodent sightings. At least one reviewer explicitly calls maintenance "cheap." Conversely, some reviewers find individual rooms clean or describe a hotel-like, homey atmosphere and note ongoing remodeling. This indicates that conditions may vary by unit or by when the reviewer visited; however, the presence of mold, odors, and pests reported by several people is a serious red flag for infection control and overall living conditions.
Dining and activities are similarly mixed. Some families praise the meals and social programming, including church services and a variety of group activities, while others report poor or repetitive food (same menu daily), misrepresented meals, and an overall lack of organized activities. The petting zoo and animal interactions are repeatedly mentioned positively and appear to be a valued feature for many residents, but outdoor animals (chickens) and rodents outside the building are a concern for others.
Safety and security issues appear in multiple reviews. Reported problems include no front desk or inadequate security presence, at least one elopement incident, medication mishandling, and a resident death that was not detected quickly. These are high-severity items that potential residents and families should investigate thoroughly, as they relate directly to residents' immediate safety and the facility's ability to supervise and care for vulnerable adults.
Cost and value judgments are also conflicted: some reviewers find the facility expensive or criticize management for focusing on profit, while others are satisfied with the care relative to price. Several reviewers note that the facility accepts visitors and is pet/cat-friendly, and many praise the site's country setting and community feel, which can be important quality-of-life factors.
Overall, Caring Village of Forest Glen appears to be a highly variable facility where individual staff members and particular features (animal programs, religious activities, some clean rooms) are genuine strengths, but systemic issues with maintenance, staffing consistency, clinical oversight, and management responsiveness have led to multiple serious complaints. The pattern suggests that a prospective resident's experience may depend heavily on unit condition, the specific caregivers on shift, and recent management actions (remodeling and fixes have been cited but also described as incomplete). Families considering this facility should prioritize direct observation: tour multiple times (including mealtime and activity periods), ask about clinical staffing (nurse coverage and medication administration protocols), request recent inspection reports and pest-control records, speak with current family members of residents, and get clear, documented answers from management about turnover, staffing ratios, incident reporting, and how specific sanitation and safety complaints have been addressed. This mixed review profile makes careful, up-to-date due diligence essential before making a placement decision.
