The review set for Polly's Adult Family Home is sharply polarized, with a substantial cluster of very positive testimonials alongside a significant number of serious, sometimes criminal‑sounding allegations. Multiple reviewers describe the home as small, family‑style, and staffed by compassionate, long‑tenured caregivers — including an owner who is an RN — and praise the individualized care plans, private rooms, home‑cooked meals, pet friendliness, park‑like grounds (garden, pond, pool), and active holiday/entertainment programming. Several commenters — including a hospice nurse and family members — report that residents receive attentive, dignified end‑of‑life care, quick responses to needs, and feel loved and comfortable. These reviewers often highlight professionalism, warm communication with healthcare providers, and a genuine home atmosphere.
Contrastingly, a sizable number of reviews allege severe problems that raise safety, legal, and ethical concerns. Recurrent negative claims include theft of residents' possessions, staff selling or otherwise disposing of personal items, and misuse or diversion of residents' food stamps. Multiple reviewers assert neglectful care practices such as residents going long periods without showers, meals being withheld or of extremely poor quality, and unequal meal distribution across different parts of the home. Medication safety is a repeated worry: accounts mention medication being dropped on the floor, residents being asked to pick up their own medications, and generally unsafe handling that could spread infection. There are also allegations of unsanitary conditions (including improvised bathing practices like using a toilet chair for showering), staff misconduct, verbal and physical abuse, intimidation, and even sexual allegations against certain employees or contractors.
Management and regulatory concerns are a common theme among negative reviews. Accusations range from operating beyond licensed capacity and running unlicensed services to committing welfare fraud, extorting money from residents, and running a money‑focused or gambling‑influenced operation. Several reviewers identify the owner or administrator as dishonest, manipulative, or unhelpful; others explicitly praise the owner and leadership — a stark contradiction that suggests the reviews may reflect multiple experiences over time or at different points in management/staffing. Price and value are also disputed: some families feel the monthly fee (one example cited at $3,000/month) is excessive given the room size or quality of services, while others believe the care justifies the cost.
Facilities, dining, and activities elicit mixed reactions. Positive reviewers describe real cooked meals, homey touches, entertainers and holiday celebrations, and well maintained grounds. Negative reviewers counter with descriptions of poor food quality, hidden or missing dishes, and alleged manipulation of food stamp benefits. Physical space is another divided area: many appreciate private rooms and roomy home settings, while some complain rooms are too small or that cleanliness standards are inadequate.
Overall, the pattern that emerges is one of high variability in resident experience: some families consistently report excellent, compassionate, and professional care in a comfortable, home‑like setting, while others report alarming allegations involving theft, neglect, unsafe medication handling, and potential fraudulent practices. These conflicting narratives make it essential for prospective families to perform thorough due diligence: verify licensing and complaint records with local regulators, request references from recent families and hospice providers, tour the home multiple times at different hours, ask detailed questions about medication management, safeguarding of personal belongings, staff background checks and turnover, policies for showers and meals, and obtain clear written agreements about fees and services. Given the severity of the allegations in some reviews, checking state inspection reports and any substantiated complaints is especially important before making a placement decision.
