1st Seniors RCH

Pros

• They do great work in the community.
• They are described as a wonderful place to get assistance with health needs.
• They have a wonderful dietitian who is awesome and takes the time to listen and tailor plans.
• They are helping seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income communities.
• They are considered the best organization the reviewer has had the honor to serve with in the community.
• They are praised for having great people and a positive volunteer experience.
• They assist older adults with information and housing options.
• They are seen as providing prompt, courteous care to clients.

Cons

• The organization sent a threatening legal letter to silence criticism.
• Public-service recipients faced months-long waits for essential assistance.
• The leadership allegedly strayed from its mission and harmed vulnerable families by abusing government programs.
• Qualified families were repeatedly denied, causing months of hardship.
• Retaliation and intimidation occurred, including hiring a lawyer to coerce.
• Mold-contaminated housing and health hazards were ignored by leadership and regulators.
• ADOH leadership was accused of inaction that enabled the misconduct.
• There is a claim of systemic abuse of government programs in Arizona with protection by ADOH.
• Vulnerable families are left in unsafe housing while the organization benefits from taxpayer funds.
• The review asserts that Tamara Bohannon, Kathie Blodgett, and Joan Serviss should be removed from authority.

Review

The story surrounding AllThrive365, the rebranded Foundation for Senior Living (FSL), is a mix of urgent complaints, troubling safety concerns, and moments of genuine appreciation from people who have encountered the organization in different ways. Across several accounts, readers encounter a common thread: a deep frustration with how public resources are allocated and administered, punctuated by strong accusations that accountability and timely service have given way to intimidation, delay, and in some cases distressing conditions for those in need. One overarching claim is that expressing concerns about the organization's practices has, in at least one instance, provoked a threatening legal response rather than a constructive dialogue about the issues raised. The author emphasizes that such retaliation concerns are not merely a private grievance but a matter that touches the use of taxpayer funds and the rights of citizens to seek information and redress for public services.

From the outset, the author frames the experience as a denial of essential aid despite clear qualifying circumstances. The narrative describes months of denial or delay in receiving assistance that should have been available, with the impact of that delay felt acutely in times of hardship. When retaliation or abuse was reported, the response, according to the account, did not address the underlying concerns; instead, the organization allegedly denied services and even engaged legal resources to coerce or intimidate the reviewer. The tone is one of distress about how a system meant to aid vulnerable families can, in the reviewer's view, become a mechanism that suppresses accountability rather than fostering it.

Within the critique, there is a sharper focus on leadership and oversight. The author points to Tamara Bohannon (referred to as Tamara or Tami Bohannon) and argues that under her leadership the organization has strayed from its mission and, in the reviewer's view, has engaged in practices that abuse government programs while leaving families in need to suffer. The narrative extends to the Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH), naming individuals such as Kathie Blodgett and Joan Serviss as figures who supposedly had authority to intervene but chose inaction. The claim is that there exists a systemic pattern whereby retaliation, abuse, and corruption went unaddressed, allowing the organization to continue benefiting from public housing programs at the expense of vulnerable families. The reviewer contends that these dynamics reflect a broader problem of how public funds intended to help communities can instead be leveraged in ways that undermine those very communities.

A substantial portion of the accounts centers on the lived realities of safety and basic human needs in program services. Mold-contaminated housing, inadequate food, and insufficient cleaning supplies are described as persistent problems in the group homes connected with the program. The reviewer portrays a landscape in which families endure months of unsafe living conditions even as licensing checks occur or as higher-ups allegedly pretend to monitor the situation only when enforcement visits are imminent. The portrayal includes specific, vivid details - clients who go months without showers or whose basic hygiene necessities are neglected, and even descriptions of individual living conditions (such as long toenails hindering mobility) that underline the harshness of the reported neglect. The Healthy Homes Program is singled out as an area where the reviewer believes health and safety protections were compromised rather than upheld, with the sense that oversight or decisive intervention from ADOH leadership was absent or insufficient.

Yet the collection of experiences is not uniformly negative. Interwoven with allegations of mistreatment and bureaucratic dysfunction are moments that highlight the organization's capacity for good and the people who have found value in its services. Some reviews speak positively of certain staff members or volunteers and describe programs that help seniors and disabled or low-income individuals. There are mentions of supportive staff in some cases, as well as expressions of gratitude from volunteers who have delivered gifts or engaged in community service, indicating that not all interactions were negative. Phrases such as "this is the best organization I've had the honor and privilege to serve with in the community," and references to individuals like Tatum and Cherise being appreciated for their work, reveal a more hopeful side to the organization's public image. Others describe the organization as a valuable resource for information, housing assistance, or support in navigating available programs, despite continuing concerns about accessibility and responsiveness.

The narrative also contains accounts of operational weaknesses that repeatedly surface across different voices. Difficulties with reaching staff by phone, delays in returning calls or processing paperwork, and reports of inconsistent responsiveness are highlighted as recurring frustrations. There are specific anecdotes about home improvement projects that went awry - illustrating a disconnect between the intention to improve living conditions and the execution of those improvements. One reviewer recounts a situation where contractors allegedly punched holes in ceilings and doors, installing a vent in a way that caused further damage, and then dismissing cosmetic fixes as not part of their scope. The sentiment here is not merely about cost or efficiency but about the broader impact on residents' daily lives and the trust that families place in a program designed to help them stay safely in their homes.

Taken together, these accounts sketch a complicated portrait of a program that is at once a lifeline for some and a source of profound concern for others. The author argues that Arizona's public resources intended to safeguard vulnerable families are at risk of being misused or mishandled, leading to unsafe housing conditions, delays in essential aid, and a pattern of retaliation against those who speak up. The call to action - reiterated throughout - the emphasis on accountability, oversight, and reform. Specific recommendations include accountability for leadership and a reexamination of how funds are allocated and monitored, alongside ensuring that families receive timely and adequate services without fear of retaliation. The overarching plea is for a system in which public funds are truly dedicated to serving the community and where concerns - from residents and volunteers alike - are met with transparent, constructive responses rather than intimidation or inaction.

Restaurants

• Arby's (0.2 miles)
• Sonic Drive-In (1.5 miles)
• McDonald's (2.7 miles)
• Slim Chickens (2.7 miles)
• Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers (3.1 miles)
• Wendy's (3.8 miles)
• Old Town Hot Pot (4.2 miles)

Physicians

• Kaiser Permanente Smokey Hill Pharmacy (0.4 miles)
• VA Jewell Clinic (3.2 miles)
• Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers (3.7 miles)
• The Medical Center of Aurora (4 miles)
• Health Images (4.2 miles)
• Euflora (4.9 miles)
• Health Images At Southlands (5 miles)

Pharmacies

• Walgreens (1 miles)
• Walgreens (1.2 miles)
• Walgreens (1.4 miles)
• Lightshade (2.4 miles)
• Walgreens (2.6 miles)
• Walgreens (2.8 miles)
• Walgreens (2.8 miles)

Cafes

• Starbucks (1 miles)
• Dutch Bros Coffee (3.4 miles)
• Starbucks (5.5 miles)
• Black Rock Coffee Bar (5.6 miles)
• Starbucks (6.4 miles)
• Starbucks (7.1 miles)

Parks

• Sagebrush Park (1.4 miles)
• Cherry Creek State Park- Off Leash Dog Area (1.9 miles)
• Spring Creek Park - Arapahoe Cty (2.2 miles)
• Cherry Creek Dog Park (2.2 miles)
• Tall Grass (2.8 miles)
• Great Plains Park (3.5 miles)
• Centennial Center Park (3.8 miles)

Theaters

• AMC Arapahoe Crossing 16 (3 miles)
• AMC DINE-IN Southlands 16 (5 miles)

Places of Worship

• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (5.7 miles)

Transportation

• Arapahoe Light Rail Station (5.8 miles)

Hospitals

• Adventist Health System/Sunbelt (6.4 miles)
• Children's Hospital Colorado at Parker Adventist Hospital Emergency Care Parker (6.4 miles)