Marie's Board & Care 2 in Phoenix, AZ

Senior living communities with a similar price nearby

• from +$300 / mo

  Pinnacle Peak Assisted Living

  5 from 47 reviews

  $2,800 to $3,100 / month

  5.9 miles away
• from +$125 / mo

  The Eldercare Home Of Tempe

  5 from 44 reviews

  $2,625 to $3,412 / month

  20.2 miles away
• from +$450 / mo

  Endeavor AL I

  5 from 34 reviews

  $2,950 to $4,200 / month

  1.5 miles away
• from +$400 / mo

  Royal Paradise Care

  5 from 30 reviews

  $2,900 to $3,800 / month

  20.3 miles away
• from -$100 / mo

  Golden Touch One Adult Care Home

  5 from 29 reviews

  $2,400 to $5,800 / month

  23.4 miles away

Pros

• They provided respite on very short notice and communicated excellently every day.
• The staff have been very good, helpful, and accommodating.
• The community keeps her room and the facility very clean and nice.
• The meals are good and she enjoys them.
• It has been a good experience and it is recommended.
• They have gone above and beyond to help her adjustment go well and have been on top of her medication and care.
• The owner Marie was on top of things and easy to communicate with.

Cons

• The facility is disgusting and not a place to put a loved one.
• It smells, and the staff are angry and uncaring.
• The aunt was overmedicated and left alone in a dirty, smelly bedroom with a caregiver who seemed to care very little.
• There is a lack of professionalism and human empathy for a person at the end of life.
• The facility could be cleaner, and there are few activities, with no music therapy or similar engagement.

Review

Marie’s Board & Care 2 is best suited for families seeking a small, home-like setting with hands-on owner involvement and dependable, direct communication, especially when a rapid respite stay is needed. Multiple reviewers point to the ability to arrange care on short notice and to daily updates that keep families closely connected. The setting appeals to clients who prefer a less institutional atmosphere and a straightforward, transparent care routine, with the added benefit of Spanish-speaking staff for families who value that language accommodation. In short, it serves well for seniors who want simplicity, accessibility, and a personal touch from leadership.

However, alternatives should be considered for families whose top priorities include spotless cleanliness, consistently professional oversight, and robust end-of-life care. One highly troubling review describes a dirty, smelly room, anger and indifference from staff, and a loved one who was reportedly overmedicated and left unattended in pain. While that account may be outliers in some opinions, it is a potent reminder that oversight and culture can vary in a small home setting. Other concerns surface as well: inconsistent cleanliness in some reviews and mixed remarks about activity programming, with some accounts noting plentiful engagement and others lamenting limited options. For families prioritizing rigorous standards across all domains, a more established or larger facility may be preferable.

On the positive side, several families report a generally decent, clean environment and meals that residents enjoy, with staff who are responsive and helpful. Medication management is described as well-handled, and the day-to-day oversight tends to be reliable. The owner, Marie, emerges as a clear strength, visible, reachable, and proactive, an important advantage in a smaller home where leadership directly shapes the care experience. The homey feel, plus the ability to accommodate cultural or language needs, further supports a sense of comfort and trust for those who want a straightforward routine without the formality of a bigger campus.

Still, the downsides deserve careful scrutiny. Cleanliness is not universally praised, and at least one report notes room and facility cleanliness as an ongoing concern. The most severe critique highlights a breakdown in compassion and professionalism during end-of-life moments, underscoring the risk that a small operation cannot uniformly guarantee the level of clinical sensitivity some families require. Activity programming is another variable: while some residents benefit from engaging schedules, others experience sparse stimulation and limited opportunities for enrichment such as music therapy or structured programs. For seniors who rely on meaningful daily activity and consistent therapeutic offerings, these gaps can be meaningful.

The practical takeaway hinges on fit. The strongest pros, quick respite access, transparent daily communication, attentive medication oversight, and a genuinely home-like environment led by an involved owner, can offset drawbacks for families with tight timelines, cultural or language needs, and a preference for a intimate setting. For those who prize spotless environments, unwavering cleanliness discipline, and consistently proactive end-of-life care, however, this community may fall short and alternatives should be explored. The decision should weigh the value of direct lines to leadership and a personal touch against the potential variability in cleanliness, staffing consistency, and activity breadth.

For families seriously considering this community, the next steps are concrete. Schedule an on-site tour and focus on current resident living conditions, rooms, odors, and shared spaces, and speak with several staff members about daily routines, medication oversight, and end-of-life protocols. Verify language coverage across shifts, not just during daytime hours, and request a short-term respite stay to judge fit before any longer commitment. Talk to multiple current families to gauge consistency of care and responsiveness. If the checks align with a comfortable, controllable environment and a homey atmosphere that values clear communication, Marie’s Board & Care 2 can be a solid, practical choice. If not, continue the search with sharper criteria tailored to cleanliness, compassionate care, and a richer activity calendar.