The reviews for Awe Kualawaache Care Center present a strongly mixed, polarized portrait with both clear signs of recent, documented improvement and concurrent, substantive concerns about operations and care. On one hand several comments highlight measurable progress — notably a "best state survey in years," "many improvements," and statements saying the facility has "turned this place around" and is an "amazing place." These positive remarks suggest there has been an administrative or operational shift that produced better regulatory compliance and visible upgrades to parts of the facility.
At the same time, multiple reviewers raise a number of consistent, concrete problems. Facility maintenance and condition are recurring negatives: reviewers mention "rubble," "color graffiti," and "poor maintenance," indicating areas of disrepair and vandalism that have not been fully addressed. That the same set of reviews contains both praise for improvements and complaints about visible deterioration points to uneven progress — improvements may be localized or recent, while some problem areas remain unresolved.
Care quality and staff performance are also contested. While some reviewers praise the facility's turnaround and call it "amazing," other comments directly allege "neglect" and "poor care," and at least one reviewer says the facility is "not recommended." These opposing impressions indicate inconsistent resident experiences or variability between shifts, units, or time periods. The positive state survey result is an important signal of compliance and improvement, but the allegations of neglect and poor care are serious and suggest either historical problems that linger in reputation or ongoing lapses that need monitoring.
Administrative and communications issues appear as a distinct theme. Several reviews cite "billing issues," "unkept promises," and "poor communication," which are administrative problems that can severely affect families' trust even when direct care shows improvement. Billing disputes and broken commitments are often signs of systemic process weaknesses in admissions, finance, or management follow-through rather than isolated incidents.
There is also a curious, specific note about "photography opportunities," which likely reflects elements of the facility's visual character or unique aesthetics noted by at least one reviewer. This positive comment contrasts with reports of graffiti and rubble, reinforcing the pattern of mixed, sometimes contradictory impressions about the physical environment.
Overall, the review set shows a facility in transition: documented regulatory and infrastructural improvements and strong endorsements from some visitors or families are balanced against persistent, serious complaints about physical maintenance, administrative reliability, communication, and at least some instances of poor resident care. The most salient pattern is inconsistency — some aspects appear to have been turned around, while others continue to cause dissatisfaction. For a prospective resident or family, these reviews recommend verifying current conditions directly: ask for the most recent state survey report, request specifics about the improvements made, inquire about staffing stability and care-monitoring processes, and clarify billing practices and written commitments before making decisions.
