Noahs Ark Assisted Living Home II in Anchorage, AK

Pros

• Lawanna and the Ark of Caring team display a remarkable level of care and professionalism for their residents.
• The Ark of Caring team provides attentive, thorough support throughout the moving and care process.
• The advance nurse at Ark of Caring prepares families comprehensively for everything their grandmother would need in her new home.
• Lawanna oversees all logistical needs—from equipment and prescriptions to medical transport—for smooth coordination.
• Dale is there to support on move-in day, and the nurses are gracious and caring.
• Lawanna ensures frequent, clear communication with families, even when they are out of state.
• The team keeps the grandmother's care team and family well informed at every step, creating peace of mind.
• The facility is described as safe, clean, and caring.

Cons

• The service was terrible.
• There were clear trip and fall hazards at the main entrance.
• The owner did not care.
• The reviewer implied the owner knew what had been done or not done.
• The reviewer directed “Shame on you” at the owner.

Review

This community is best suited for families seeking a small, home‑like assisted living environment where care coordination and clear, ongoing communication are the primary strengths. The strongest fit is for relatives who need a hands-on team to navigate hospital discharges, equipment needs, prescriptions, and medical transport, all while keeping distant family members in the loop. The positive experiences describe a tightly knit staff that steps in to organize the move, ensures medical professionals are aligned, and maintains regular contact with both local and out‑of‑state relatives. For families who value a personal touch, proactive planning, and a resident‑centered approach delivered by a dedicated team, this setting can feel like the right match.

Altogether, however, there are clear reasons some families may want to explore alternatives. The most consequential concerns center on safety and consistency of leadership. A trip and fall hazard at the entrance signals a potential risk pattern for residents with mobility needs, and claims about owner indifference raise questions about accountability and ongoing risk management. For families prioritizing formalized safety protocols, transparent property maintenance, and steady ownership oversight, these factors can be dealbreakers. In such cases, touring other options with stronger, more visible safety discipline and more consistent owner or administrator engagement is prudent.

On the plus side, the pros are substantial and well-aligned with the needs of many moving into assisted living. The care team described as Ark of Caring demonstrates a level of investment and attentiveness that translates into calm confidence for families. Move-in logistics are handled comprehensively, even under tight timelines, with a dedicated advance nurse coordinating medical equipment, prescriptions, and transport. The team’s communication is highlighted as frequent and informative, ensuring that both local and distant relatives know what’s happening, what to prepare, and when to expect updates. Nurses and front-line staff described as gracious and genuinely caring further reinforce the sense of a trusted, personal caregiving environment.

Yet the reported cons cannot be dismissed. The most serious red flag is the unsafe main entrance, which directly impacts resident safety and family peace of mind. Coupled with perceived owner disengagement, these issues suggest that day-to-day oversight may be uneven and that hazards could recur if not actively addressed. Given the small sample size of two reviews, the range of experiences is real: one glowing account of coordination and empathy, and one pointed critique highlighting a foundational safety and governance failure. Prospective residents should weigh the warmth and responsiveness of the caregiving team against the risk of preventable accidents and inconsistent leadership.

The key question becomes whether the strengths can be protected and scaled while the weaknesses are resolved. If the facility commits to immediate, tangible safety improvements, upgrading entrance design, eliminating trip hazards, installing proper lighting and non-slip surfaces, and enforcing ongoing maintenance checks, while also implementing a transparent safety and maintenance log accessible to families, the positives gain traction. Equally important is establishing a predictable, responsive governance pattern: regular, scheduled family updates, clear escalation paths for concerns, and visible administrative oversight. In this scenario, the superior care coordination and compassionate staff make a compelling case for choosing this home.

Bottom line: for families prioritizing hands-on care coordination, transparent communication, and a warm, resident-first approach in a smaller, Anchorage setting, Noahs Ark Assisted Living Home II can be a strong fit, provided safety gaps are promptly closed and ownership maintains engaged, consistent oversight. If safety hazards and uncertain responsiveness remain unresolved, alternatives with more rigorous risk management, steadier leadership, and stronger built-in safety protocols should be pursued. The decision hinges on whether the facility can demonstrate reliable safety governance as convincingly as it delivers personalized, attentive care.