Overall impression: Reviews of St. Ann Center for Intergenerational Care are sharply mixed, with a strong cluster of highly positive descriptions of programs, staff, and activities alongside a number of very serious allegations about care quality, ethics, and management responsiveness. Many reviewers praise the center as a community asset—highlighting its intergenerational model, life-enriching activities, and caring employees—while other reviewers report neglect, malnutrition, hospitalizations, and unethical staff behavior. These two poles create a pattern of inconsistent experiences that prospective families should weigh carefully.
Care quality and safety: Several reviewers describe excellent dementia programming, creative activities that give residents purpose, and nourishing meals. Conversely, a distinct subset of reviews alleges failures in basic care: unattended hygiene, inadequate meal supervision that posed choking risks, weight loss, stopped eating/drinking, and even hospitalizations and near-death episodes. Some families report recovery after removing their loved one from the facility, while others say problems persisted. The presence of both positive and alarming accounts suggests uneven standards of care that may depend heavily on staffing, unit assignment, or specific times.
Staffing, culture, and behavior: Numerous reviews praise staff as compassionate, dedicated, and genuinely engaged—several single out individual employees and clinicians by name for exemplary care. At the same time, complaints about rude or uncaring employees, high turnover, inconsistent staff behavior, and staff motivated by money appear repeatedly. Additional reports describe staff arguing about personal religious beliefs, reacting poorly to religious symbols, and imposing personal views, which some reviewers found unprofessional. Serious allegations include bullying of disabled residents, exploitation, and sharing videos without consent. These ethical and behavioral concerns, combined with reports of staff calling residents “too much work” or failing to engage them, point to problems with training, supervision, and culture in some cases.
Activities, intergenerational programming, and amenities: The intergenerational model is a clear strength in many reviewers’ eyes—kids enjoy attending, residents benefit from regular contact with children, and activities (music, choir, art, sewing, embroidery, sing-alongs, dog visits) are repeatedly praised. The aquatic center and small pool are appreciated for classes and social gatherings, and on-site amenities like a beauty salon add value. Multiple reviewers emphasize that the intergenerational experience and life-enrichment programs are what make the center special and meaningful for participants.
Dining and nutrition: Several reviewers speak positively about nutritious meals and the sense that life feels purposeful. However, conflicting reports about malnutrition and poor meal supervision indicate a potentially serious variability in mealtime oversight and dietary follow-through. One set of reviews reports good meal quality and value, while another cites neglect leading to weight loss and medical consequences.
Management, operations, and communications: Operational issues recur in the feedback. Many reviewers report long waiting lists, inconsistent information from staff, lack of callbacks, a poorly maintained website, and apparent lack of responsiveness from management when concerns are raised. There are multiple allegations of deposit/payment problems and even claims of fraud or services not delivered after payment—these are serious operational red flags. Other administrative concerns include required mental testing or denial-of-return for some clients, confusion around reopening of memory care units, and long commutes for families seeking care.
Patterns and implications: The dominant pattern is inconsistency—some families experience exceptional, compassionate care and a thriving intergenerational environment, while others report severe lapses that resulted in harm. Positive reviews emphasize staff commitment, creative programming, and meaningful engagement; negative reviews emphasize neglect, poor supervision, unethical conduct, and administrative failures. Because both kinds of reports appear with some frequency, it is likely that outcomes depend heavily on which staff members are on duty, the specific unit or program, and how management addresses issues when they arise.
Recommendations for prospective families and stakeholders: Based on the mixed and sometimes contradictory reviews, families considering St. Ann Center should conduct an in-person tour, ask detailed questions about staffing ratios, supervision during meals and personal care, training on dementia/special-needs care, policies on video/photo consent, incident reporting, turnover rates, and how management addresses grievances. Verify licensing, inspection reports, and complaint histories with local regulatory authorities. For families with special needs (e.g., autism), probe how the intergenerational model is adapted and whether staff have relevant training. Finally, get written details about deposits, waitlist policies, and payment/refund procedures to reduce the risk of administrative disputes.
Bottom line: St. Ann Center clearly offers unique and valuable intergenerational programming and has many admirers who praise its staff, activities, and dementia care. However, a nontrivial number of reviewers report serious failures in basic care, safety, ethics, and administration. Those positives and negatives both deserve attention; prospective users should verify current conditions directly, ask pointed operational and safety questions, and monitor closely if they choose to enroll a loved one.
