Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed to polarized: several reviewers praise the people, food, and family-friendly practices, while other reviewers raise serious concerns about the physical condition of the building, cleanliness, pet management, and some staff behavior. The most consistent positive notes center on staff demeanor and family inclusion; the most concerning negatives relate to maintenance, hygiene, and programming.
Care quality and staff interactions are reported largely positively by multiple reviewers. Staff are described as friendly, patient, attentive, respectful of residents' individuality, and accommodating to requests. Reviewers specifically noted that caregivers act in the resident's best interests and that the community is welcoming. One reviewer emphasized that the environment enabled family presence and participation, and another noted that short stays are supported, suggesting some flexibility in care arrangements.
However, there are serious, specific complaints about staff conduct and safety: at least one reviewer reported harassment by staff, which is a significant red flag for prospective residents and families. Although many reviewers praised individual caregivers, the harassment allegation indicates inconsistency in staff behavior or supervision that should be investigated further by anyone considering placement.
Facility condition and cleanliness are clear areas of concern in multiple summaries. Complaints include "horrible condition," unaddressed repairs and hazards, and a mismatch between the facility as pictured and the reality on site. Animal-related hygiene problems were reported: dogs urinating and defecating inside with visible carpet stains, and caregivers cleaning up these messes. These issues suggest lapses in building maintenance, housekeeping protocols, and pet management or enforcement of pet policies. Such problems affect resident health, safety, odor, and overall comfort.
Activities and programming appear limited based on the reviews. One strong complaint is that residents spend excessive time watching television (reportedly 8+ hours per day) and that live programming is minimal — cited as only a weekly musician. That pattern indicates low engagement opportunities for residents and may impact quality of life, particularly for those seeking social, cognitive, or recreational stimulation beyond television.
Dining and family involvement are repeatedly highlighted as strengths. Meals are described as "made from scratch," plentiful, and reviewers appreciated the ability to host special dinners for up to 15 guests. The community appears to make efforts to include family members in the resident's environment, accommodating visits and requests without charging for family presence. Several reviewers extended open invitations to visit — signaling confidence in the dining and communal aspects of the community.
Taken together, these reviews paint a bifurcated picture: strong interpersonal care and family-oriented policies on one hand, and troubling problems with physical plant maintenance, pet hygiene, limited activity programming, and at least one report of staff harassment on the other. For prospective residents or family members, the mixed feedback suggests concrete steps before committing: schedule an in-person tour to inspect the building condition, odors, and carpeting; ask directly about pet policies and recent incidents; observe mealtime and social activities to verify variety and engagement; request records or explanations about reported repairs, staff training, and complaint resolution procedures; and inquire about staffing levels, supervision, and how allegations of staff misconduct are handled.
In summary, Agape Senior Living of Scottsdale appears to offer warm, accommodating staff and strong family involvement with good homemade food, but significant operational and environmental issues reported by reviewers warrant careful, targeted inquiry. The positives may suit families prioritizing personnel warmth and communal meals, but the negatives — especially hygiene, maintenance, and limited programming — are substantive and should be resolved or clearly explained by management before placement.
