Overall sentiment in the collected reviews for Taylor Community is strongly mixed. Many reviewers describe a vibrant, active community with excellent programming, beautiful grounds, and a staff that is warm, professional, and attentive. At the same time, a significant number of reviews report serious concerns ranging from safety and equipment failures to financial and contractual disputes. These two broad themes — strong resident life and facility amenities versus troubling management, safety, and financial allegations — recur throughout the feedback.
Care quality and staff: A large portion of reviewers praise Taylor Community staff for compassion, professionalism, teamwork and respect. Specific positives include attentive daily care, thoughtful end-of-life support, a helpful admissions team, and staff described as ‘‘extraordinary’’ during events like the COVID pandemic. Several reviewers emphasize that individual caregivers and teams ‘‘meet residents where they are’’ and provide peace of mind in a CCRC model. However, numerous other reviews report markedly different experiences: allegations of staff harassment, incompetence, refusal to accept responsibility, and even alleged malicious intent in isolated but serious incidents. Several reviews describe problematic nursing or care management, which reportedly contributed to adverse outcomes in some cases. These conflicting reports suggest variability in staff performance by unit, shift, or case, with particularly negative reports clustered around transitions of care (moving from Independent Living to Assisted Living or memory care).
Facilities, activities and daily life: Positive reviewers consistently highlight a robust activity calendar — exercise classes (water aerobics, tai chi), hiking groups, educational lectures, musical programming, movie theater, outings and trips — and describe an engaged, friendly resident population. The campus and grounds receive frequent praise: attractive landscaping, gardens, cottages, and proximity to outdoor recreation (lakes, mountains, Gunstock Resort). Dining and common areas are often described as clean and restaurant-like, and amenities such as a gym, pool and on-site therapies receive favorable mention. These strengths form a clear pattern: when programming, maintenance and resident engagement are working well, many residents report being ‘‘very happy’’ and ‘‘never bored."
Safety, security and medical alert systems: Several reviewers raised immediate and serious safety concerns. Multiple reports reference Lifeline or pendant alarm systems that were left disabled, malfunctioned for months, or were poorly monitored — situations reviewers say created dangerous delays or lack of response after falls. There are also allegations of medication overdoses or errors and claims that incidents were followed by finger-pointing rather than accountability. Security issues are also mentioned: reports of unlocked doors, no night security, and landscaping crews being used informally as security. These items collectively create red flags that prospective residents and families should investigate carefully, asking for specifics about monitoring, incident response protocols, and staffing ratios.
Management, contracts and financial concerns: One of the most striking themes in the negative reviews involves contractual and financial disputes. Several reviews allege forced relocations, termination of Continuing Care agreements, additional fees when moving to Assisted Living, eviction of residents, and loss of non-refundable deposits. There are also severe allegations by reviewers of financial misconduct — claims of embezzlement, missing funds, and an audit referenced alongside reviewer reports that the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office was involved or investigating. Because these are serious allegations reported by multiple reviewers, prospective residents should request transparent financial documentation, clarification of contract terms (including refund and transfer policies), and an explanation of any known investigations. One specific figure mentioned by a reviewer is an entry fee of $210,000; reviewers advise careful contractual review before committing.
Variability and patterns: A clear pattern is variability of experience. Many long-term residents and family members report excellent care, active social life, and high satisfaction. Conversely, many of the most vocal negative reviews focus on transitions (moving to a higher level of care), financial/contract disputes, and safety incidents. Some building-specific concerns were noted (for example, a review referencing a ‘‘Woodside building’’ room with limited staff and poor security). This suggests that outcomes may depend significantly on the specific unit, the timing of an incident, the staff on duty, and the terms of an individual’s contract.
Conclusions and recommendations: The reviews paint a campus that can offer a high-quality, engaging lifestyle with compassionate caregivers and excellent amenities, but one that also has reported systemic problems in management, safety systems, staffing consistency, and financial transparency. Because of the mix of glowing and serious critical reports, families and prospective residents should do thorough due diligence: review contracts carefully (especially clauses about relocation, fees, and refunds), request written policies and recent audit results, ask detailed questions about Lifeline/medical alert monitoring and response times, verify staffing levels by unit and shift, inquire about security protocols for evenings and nights, and ask for references from current long-term residents. Also ask management to address any known investigations or allegations and to provide documentation of corrective actions. Where possible, visit multiple residence areas during different times of day and speak with both residents and staff to get a fuller picture.
In summary, Taylor Community offers many tangible strengths — varied programming, attractive campus and amenities, and staff members who in many cases provide outstanding, compassionate care — but those positives are tempered by recurring, serious concerns in other reviews related to safety systems, management conduct, contractual disputes, and alleged financial misconduct. These contrasting patterns make careful, document-backed evaluation essential before making a residency decision.
