The reviews present a strongly mixed and polarized picture of All of God's People Assisted Living Home. On the positive side, several reviewers praised specific caregivers for being exceptional, and others described the facility as well-kept both inside and outside. Multiple comments highlighted kind, caring, and professional staff members, a thoughtfully planned and balanced meal program, and an activities schedule that some found suitable. These positive remarks include explicit recommendations from some families and suggest that, for certain residents and at certain times, the facility can provide compassionate and competent care.
Contrasting sharply with those positive notes are repeated and serious negative reports that raise major concerns about safety, staffing, management, and cleanliness. Multiple reviews describe the building as an older home with numerous renovations and add-ons and note that rooms can be overcrowded. More alarmingly, reviewers documented incidents with direct safety implications: at least one missing resident who was reportedly unaccounted for and whose family was not promptly notified, reports of at least one assault, and official reports filed concerning these incidents. Several reviewers described residents as becoming disoriented, appearing unclean, and experiencing health declines while in the facility, including one specific report of an 18-pound weight loss. These accounts together indicate potentially serious lapses in supervision and care.
Staffing and management issues are another consistent theme. Some reviews praise individual caregivers, but a number express broader competency concerns and assert that the facility is understaffed or negligent. There are explicit management complaints — for example, claims that the owner hires random or unvetted people — which, if accurate, would exacerbate risks for vulnerable residents. Multiple comments advise that the facility is not appropriate for people with cognitive impairments, underscoring a pattern that residents who need close supervision or skilled dementia care may be at particular risk there.
Cleanliness and infection-control problems are also reported: reviewers mention bed bugs and poor overall cleanliness in parts of the facility. Those reports, combined with accounts of weight loss and health decline, suggest both environmental and care-quality issues that could affect resident well-being. At the same time, the praise for well-kept areas and good meals indicates variability in maintenance and service levels — some parts of the facility and some staff appear to meet expectations while others fall short.
Overall, the reviews show a facility with significant internal contradictions: capable, caring staff and good programs reported by some families, alongside serious safety incidents, management shortcomings, staffing inconsistencies, and sanitation problems reported by others. The most salient, recurring risks are lapses in supervision (missing residents, delayed family notification), potential staff incompetence or poor vetting, understaffing leading to health decline, and cleanliness/bed bug concerns. These are not merely minor complaints; they are safety- and health-related issues that prospective residents and families—especially those caring for people with cognitive impairment or high supervision needs—should weigh heavily. Conversely, families who reported positive experiences point to competent caregivers, pleasant grounds, decent meals, and meaningful activities, indicating that experiences may depend greatly on specific staff on duty, the resident’s needs, and perhaps timing.
In summary, the aggregated reviews recommend exercising caution. If considering this facility, families should conduct detailed, targeted inquiries: ask about staff-to-resident ratios, staff hiring and vetting practices, incident reporting and response protocols (including how missing-person situations are handled and communicated), pest control and sanitation records, and how the home manages residents with cognitive impairment. Also seek references from other families and, if possible, observe the facility during different shifts to assess consistency. The mixed feedback means there are reportedly strong points worth noting, but there are also multiple serious concerns that require verification before placement decisions are made.
