Overall sentiment about The Haven in Highland Creek is mixed and highly polarized. Many reviewers praise the community’s physical appearance, memory-care programming, and the compassion and engagement of individual caregivers and activity staff. At the same time, a substantial number of reviews raise serious operational, staffing, cleanliness, and safety concerns. Taken together, the reviews describe a facility with clear strengths in aesthetics, programming, and moments of excellent person-centered care, but also with recurring and significant weaknesses in management, staffing continuity, medical oversight, and maintenance.
Facilities and environment: Multiple reviewers describe the facility as tastefully decorated, calm, and attractive at first glance. The campus is reported to be large and pretty, with three separate neighborhood layouts that include their own dining and activity areas and spaces for family visits. These design elements support socialization and a neighborhood feel. However, underneath the pleasant initial impression there are repeated maintenance and cleanliness complaints: filthy air vents, mold and dust buildup, stale air, and dirty bathrooms. The presence of such environmental issues contrasts sharply with the descriptions of a well-kept appearance and suggests inconsistent housekeeping and maintenance standards. Some reviewers also questioned specific design choices — for example, wall colors they felt were inappropriate for dementia residents.
Care quality and staff: Reviews are sharply divided on care quality. A number of family members report top-notch, loving, and compassionate care: attentive staff, proactive communication, individualized memory-care approaches, engaging activities (including field trips), and a spirit of family and community. These positive reports often highlight an excellent activities director and person-centered programming that empower residents.
Conversely, many reviews describe chronic understaffing, caregivers who are kind but stretched too thin, and the loss of good staff members. Serious allegations include lack of RN presence and insufficient medical oversight, neglect that led to falls or injuries, residents left unattended when ill, and staff who do not answer family questions. Several reviewers say these problems increased after an ownership or management change, with staff turnover and a decline in supervision. The contradictory accounts suggest variability in resident experience depending on shifts, neighborhoods, or time periods.
Management, oversight, and regulatory issues: A recurring theme is a decline in operational standards after an acquisition or change in ownership. Reviewers allege disinterested or deceitful management, prioritization of profits over resident welfare, and a general absence of hands-on leadership. More alarming are mentions that the facility was the subject of a state investigation, resulting in fines and a suspension of admissions — details provided by reviewers and indicating regulatory action consistent with serious quality lapses. Several families reported that these issues prompted them to move their loved ones out. Such reports point to systemic issues that go beyond intermittent staff shortages.
Activities, community life, and memory care: Where the facility performs well, reviewers emphasize strong memory-care programming, individualized activities tailored to residents’ interests, active engagement from staff, and an overall atmosphere that fosters community and continuity. These strengths are repeatedly named as reasons families would recommend the facility or consider it a top choice — particularly if pricing were more affordable.
Costs and admissions: Price is a common concern. Multiple reviews cite monthly costs around $5,000+/month and indicate affordability worries; some say the community would be a strong option if pricing were lower. A few reviewers also noted sales practices that felt overly sales-driven and missing in-room amenities (for example, no TVs in rooms), which contributed to dissatisfaction.
Patterns and takeaways: The dominant pattern is one of inconsistency — strong points in décor, programming, and some caregiving staff are undermined by recurring operational failures: understaffing, maintenance neglect, poor air quality, management problems, and evidence of regulatory enforcement. Reviews suggest a timeline in which initial promise and quality eroded after a change in ownership or leadership, though positive experiences continued for some families. Because experiences vary widely, the reviews portray The Haven as a place that can deliver excellent, compassionate memory care in practice but also a place with documented and serious lapses that have endangered resident safety and triggered regulatory scrutiny.
Given the mixed but serious nature of the complaints, families considering The Haven should weigh the positive reports of programming and caring staff against the recurring operational and oversight concerns reported by others. Important, concrete follow-ups (based on the issues raised in reviews) would include asking management about current staffing levels and turnover, RN and medical oversight on site, recent state inspection results and any corrective actions taken, how maintenance and air-quality issues have been addressed, and current admission status. The reviews indicate that outcomes at The Haven may vary considerably depending on current leadership and staffing, so getting up-to-date, verifiable information is critical before deciding.
