Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans positive regarding the community’s culture, activities, and many frontline staff, while raising consistent concerns about care consistency, housekeeping, staffing levels (especially in memory care), management responsiveness, and certain administrative practices.
Staff and resident experience: One of the strongest and most consistent themes is praise for the staff. Many reviewers describe staff as caring, friendly, attentive, and willing to build relationships with residents. Names such as Anita, Trevor, and Janna are repeatedly mentioned as helpful and hands-on in sales and transition support. Families commonly note smooth move-ins, personalized attention, and staff that learn residents’ names and coordinate medical transitions and therapies well. The activity program receives frequent positive mention — reviewers list a broad mix of daily offerings (cards, bingo, bonfire, outings, chapel, movies, exercise, trivia, etc.) and often call the activity director energetic and effective. Many residents are described as happy, engaged, and fulfilled, and the community feel is regularly described as home-like and welcoming.
Care quality and safety: While some families report very good care and supportive staff, a significant subset of reviews highlights important care quality issues. These include missed or inconsistent basic care tasks (bathing, incontinence care), neglected housekeeping and laundry, and even unsanitary bedding or dirty apartments in some instances. Memory care is a particular area of concern: reviewers explicitly flagged understaffing (one cited 2–3 staff for 16 residents) and high turnover, which they view as a safety and supervision risk. At least one review describes a safety incident resulting in an injury. Several reviewers caution that the community may not be suitable for residents with complex or high-acuity needs because of these staffing and oversight concerns.
Facilities and apartment features: Many residents and families praise apartment size and features — large private rooms, kitchenettes or full kitchens, in-unit washer/dryer in many units, first-floor patios, handicap or walk-in showers, and accessible layouts. The campus layout, chapel, movie theater, and shuttle outings are also noted positively. Conversely, multiple reviewers say parts of the building feel dated: older furniture, worn carpet, a dingy or dark lobby, and window-mounted air-conditioning units rather than central air. Remodeling and updates are occurring floor-by-floor, which some families appreciate, but others note limited common area space (small meeting areas) and insufficient outdoor walking or exercise facilities.
Dining: Dining impressions are mixed. A large number of reviewers praise the food, calling it good or very good and appreciating the menu variety and meal cadence (three meals/day, snack/happy-hour options). Several families specifically say the cuisine is a highlight. However, a recurring counterpoint is inconsistent meal temperature and quality (meals served cold, bland items, repeated vegetables), and some reviewers call for a stronger kitchen leadership/chef to improve consistency and menu oversight. Dietary concerns (high sodium) and limited fruit/vegetable variety were also raised.
Management, billing, and communication: Administrative themes are mixed and sometimes problematic. Positive mentions include helpful and proactive sales/administrative staff who aid transitions and follow up. On the negative side, several reviewers report poor responsiveness from management at higher levels (regional manager, CEO) and allege unethical practices such as inflated reviews or insincere sales pitches. Billing and finance issues appear repeatedly: examples include surprise or extra charges despite some mentions of “all-inclusive” rent, an 8% late fee, a $25 check fee, and reports of billing inaccuracies or services paid for but not performed. Communication inconsistencies are also notable — families report good one-on-one communication but poor email/message follow-through and a lack of transparency in some cases about residents’ conditions. Language/communication barriers with some staff due to accents were mentioned by multiple reviewers, complicating family interactions.
Staffing and operational consistency: A pattern emerges of very good, caring frontline staff in many instances, but inconsistent quality control, follow-through, and relatively high turnover in both management and caregiving roles. That mix results in experiences that range from “exceptional” to “concerning” depending on timing and which staff are on duty. Many reviewers advise that for standard assisted living and social needs, the community succeeds (activities, social engagement, dependable meals for many), but those needing complex medical oversight or consistent memory-care staffing should proceed with caution and ask detailed questions about staffing ratios and supervision.
Value and cost: Opinions on cost are mixed. Several reviewers find the community’s value better than many competitors (amenities, included meals, activities), while others call pricing “ridiculously high” and point to extra fees and unclear billing as major drawbacks. This inconsistency suggests families should seek clear, written explanations of what is included in monthly fees and ask specifically about common add-on charges.
Final impression: New Perspective Senior Living | Eagan comes across as a friendly, activity-rich community with many devoted frontline employees and numerous features residents enjoy (spacious units, in-unit washers, outings, and a warm culture). However, recurring issues around housekeeping, medication and incontinence care, memory care staffing, inconsistent food quality, billing transparency, and management responsiveness are significant and substantiated by multiple reviews. Prospective residents and families should tour more than once, ask specific questions about staffing ratios (especially in memory care), request written billing and fee policies, probe recent housekeeping and sanitation practices, and verify how the community handles medication management and incontinence care. If personalized, relationship-driven care and a lively activity program are priorities, many reviewers felt very positive; if stable, high-acuity clinical oversight and flawless operational consistency are required, the reviews suggest caution and further due diligence.
