Overall sentiment about Friendship Village of Bloomington is mixed but leans positive across many reviews, with consistent praise for the campus, programming, and individual staff members contrasted by repeated operational and clinical concerns. Reviewers frequently describe the facility as first-rate, resort-like, clean, and rich in resources. The community's certified designation as a Center for Successful Aging and claims of being in the top tier of retirement communities are reflected in extensive, well-rounded life-enrichment offerings: physical wellness programs, intellectual and social opportunities, spiritual programming, and a busy calendar of activities (bridge, book club, cocktail hours, etc.). Many residents and families report high satisfaction, long-term residency, and active participation in programming. The presence of in-house clinical services (regular nurse practitioner visits, on-site PT/OT, 24-hour skilled nursing and rehab) and access to personal trainers and wellness staff are important positives that make the community attractive for independent living residents seeking continuity of care.
Care quality perceptions are mixed. Numerous reviews praise individual caregivers — trainers, the chaplain, certain aides and nurses — and describe compassionate, top-notch care for many residents. Several reports specifically state that residents received wonderful and accommodating care, and that staff members appeared to genuinely love their work. At the same time, a recurrent theme is understaffing and high turnover, which reviewers connect to undertraining, lack of motivation in some staff, and inconsistent care delivery. Communication lapses are noted, particularly early during transitions or at move-in, although some reviewers remarked that communications improved after staff changes. There are also troubling reports about memory care quality and at least a few serious complaints about end-of-life care not being handled according to residents' instructions. These issues suggest variability in clinical performance that prospective residents should probe further.
Staffing and management are a focal point of concern. While many individual employees are singled out for praise, there are repeated mentions of systemic problems: chronic understaffing, micro-management, and high staff turnover. Several reviewers reported practical problems that may reflect staffing or supply chain issues: short supply of dressing and care supplies, extra charges for basic items (even wipes), and reported difficulties implementing new treatment orders. A particularly serious allegation appears in the reviews that management retained residents' money intended for care; this is a significant governance/financial concern and would warrant direct inquiry and documentation from the community before any commitment.
Facility layout, living spaces, and costs are important trade-offs noted by reviewers. The property is consistently described as attractive and resort-like, but private living spaces may be small — the smallest studio cited is about 400 square feet — and rehab patients have been placed in double rooms, which some found unsatisfactory for privacy and comfort. Financially, the community requires a substantial non-refundable entrance fee that reviewers listed as $110,000 and a minimum monthly fee around $1,800; reviewers flagged ongoing charges and fee policies (including charges for small items) as matters to review carefully. Overall, the community provides an all-inclusive-feel and a continuum of care that many find valuable, but the upfront and continuing costs and specific contract terms should be examined closely.
Dining, activities, and social life are consistently strong points. Many reviewers compliment the food and highlight rich social interactions, lively programming, and staff-run activities that keep residents engaged. The activities team receives frequent praise for encouraging participation — family members often note that their relatives are busy and well-involved. This strength supports the community's independent living focus and helps explain the high levels of resident satisfaction and long-term endorsements.
Bottom line and recommendations: Friendship Village of Bloomington offers a well-resourced, attractive campus with substantial programming, clinical services, and many individual staff who provide excellent care. However, prospective residents and families should balance these strengths against documented concerns about staffing levels and turnover, variability in clinical and memory-care performance, some troubling administrative/financial allegations, and the physical size of certain units or shared rehab arrangements. Recommended due diligence: verify current staffing ratios and turnover statistics; ask for specifics about memory care staffing, training, and staffing stability; review the residency contract carefully for entrance fee/refund terms, monthly fee inclusions, and policies on extra charges; inspect actual unit sizes and rehab accommodations; and request references from current residents and families. These steps will help determine whether the community's many programmatic and cultural strengths align with an individual resident's clinical needs, privacy expectations, and financial comfort level.
