Overall sentiment about Clark Retirement at Franklin is mixed but leans positive in many areas while raising serious concerns in others. Many reviewers praise the facility for its clean, well-maintained environment, comprehensive on-site services, and a broad continuum of care — independent living, assisted living, memory care, on-site rehab, skilled nursing — all under one roof. Multiple families cited the advantage of on-site rehabilitation allowing residents to remain with friends and continue social ties. Long-tenured residents and families often describe a sense of home, frequent engagement, and staff who are warm, attentive, and resident-focused. The availability of amenities such as a chapel, cafe, salon, gym, convenience store, and varied programming contributes to a strong lifestyle offering for many residents.
Staff are frequently described as friendly, helpful, and caring. Event directors, nurses, and aides are singled out by some reviewers for personalized attention, frequent check-ins, and tailoring activities to residents’ interests. Activity programming is noted as robust — music, quilting, jewelry classes, exercise, outings, and group dining — and many residents are reported to be socially engaged and enjoy the offerings. For families seeking peace of mind, the buy-in program and the presence of multiple care levels are cited as major advantages.
However, a recurring and serious theme across reviews is staffing strain and its downstream impacts. Multiple reviewers reported nursing and aide shortages, slow call-light responses, delayed assistance, and times perceived as unsafe due to insufficient staffing. These operational shortfalls are tied in several accounts to management and leadership problems, including high staff turnover, poor handling of complaints, and inconsistent follow-through. Some families reported abrupt removals of long-term residents or experiences of neglect and poor treatment. These reports contrast strongly with more positive accounts and indicate inconsistency in care quality and oversight.
Dining is another polarizing area. While many praise the variety and quality of the menu (with some calling it the best menu), others describe a notable decline in food quality, quantity, and service after a vendor change to Unidine. Specific issues reported include not enough food ordered for service, cooks deemed subpar by some, servers apologizing for vendor-related problems, and concerns about nutrition. These problems appear linked to contractor performance and have been significant enough to prompt requests for vendor replacement from some families.
Communication, billing, and administration also generate mixed feedback. Positive comments note staff who walk families through processes and help with transitions. Negative comments cite slow responses to inquiries, incomplete communication about room details (e.g., beds, balconies), accounting errors, rude billing staff, and a general perception of declining administrative leadership. Some families were upset by a perceived lack of sympathy from staff after bereavement, receiving only a bill rather than condolence outreach. Visitation policies (particularly during COVID) were also a sore point when they felt restrictive or not family-friendly, negatively affecting residents’ mental health.
Facility condition and accommodations show two strands: many reviewers call the building clean, well-appointed, and safe, while others note that certain floors or units (especially higher-care floors) feel dated and could use modernization or freshening. Specific operational details raised include balconies that are locked or require supervision and some rooms missing expected items — both issues tied back to communication lapses. On the positive side, rooms can be personalized, hospital beds and equipment are provided when needed, and the physical layout supports socialization and convenience.
Cost is consistently mentioned: Clark is described as expensive by many reviewers, with additional or unexpected fees reported. Some families feel the value matches the quality when the experience includes attentive staff and robust services, while others feel the high cost is not justified when care quality or dining declines or when management issues arise.
In sum, Clark Retirement at Franklin offers many strengths — comprehensive on-site services, strong programming, often caring and engaged staff, and a clean, service-rich environment — that make it a good fit for many families. At the same time, significant concerns about staffing levels, contractor performance (particularly food service), inconsistent management/communication, billing problems, and occasional lapses in safety or compassion appear frequently enough to warrant careful consideration. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive lifestyle and care continuum against reports of operational variability, ask detailed questions about staffing ratios and vendor contracts, request current examples of staffing stability and response times, and consider personal priorities (cost vs. amenities vs. consistent care) when evaluating Clark Retirement at Franklin.
