The reviews present a mixed but clarifying picture of New Athens For The Aged. The most consistent positive theme is the quality of direct care: multiple summaries emphasize that staff are caring, loving, and wonderful. Families and reviewers single out the activities director, Diana K., for praise, and several comments describe a family-like, faith-based atmosphere that conveys a sense of warmth and resident-focused intent. These comments suggest that on an interpersonal level, caregivers form meaningful relationships with residents and convey genuine concern for their well-being.
However, a number of operational and structural problems strongly temper the positive impressions of staff. Staffing shortages are repeatedly noted — reviewers specifically call the facility under-staffed — and this appears to be a root cause for several downstream issues. Related operational disruptions include job losses or layoffs and administration turnover, which contribute to instability. Reviewers report that residents have become "scattered" or "confused," and that readjustment is needed after recent changes. These descriptions suggest that staffing instability and administrative changes have had a noticeable impact on resident routines, supervision, and continuity of care.
Management and communication are another clear area of concern. Multiple summaries mention that communication needs improvement, and that administration changes have occurred. Poor communication combined with leadership turnover and staffing cuts appears to have created frustration among families and possibly contributed to some reviewers' decisions not to recommend the facility. The presence of job losses and administrative change raises questions about organizational stability and how transitions are being managed and communicated to families and staff.
Facility condition and environment received criticism as well. Reviewers note the building is older and that cleanliness needs improvement. An older physical plant plus cleanliness concerns can affect resident comfort and perceptions of safety and quality. While the emotional and relational strengths of staff are repeatedly praised, the tangible environment and maintenance issues are recurring negatives that should be weighed by prospective families.
Activities are a bright spot: the activities director (Diana K.) is singled out positively, and the faith-based, family atmosphere supports meaningful programming for residents. Dining is not specifically mentioned in the provided summaries, so no reliable conclusion can be drawn about food quality or meal service from these reviews. Overall sentiment is polarized: many reviews applaud the compassion and devotion of direct-care staff, while several serious operational complaints — understaffing, administration turnover, communication problems, cleanliness, and an aging building — lead some reviewers to express disappointment and to refrain from recommending the community.
Taken together, the pattern is clear: strong interpersonal care delivered by committed staff and a valued activities program exist alongside organizational and facility-level weaknesses. Prospective residents and families should consider confirming current staffing levels, turnover rates, cleanliness protocols, and how recent administrative changes and any layoffs have been handled. They may also want to observe the facility in person, speak directly with the activities director, and ask about how the community manages transitions to ensure resident routines and supervision remain stable despite staffing or leadership changes.
