7511 East 39Th Street, Tucson, AZ 85730
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Aslan Adult Care Home Costs & Pricing
Aslan Adult Care Home offers competitive rates for its accommodations compared to the broader market in Pima County and the state of Arizona. For a semi-private room, residents at Aslan Adult Care Home can expect to pay $2,500 per month, which is notably lower than the county average of $2,805 and the state average of $2,820. Those opting for a private room will find Aslan's rate of $3,500 to be slightly below both Pima County's average of $3,332 and Arizona's average of $3,345. This pricing structure positions Aslan Adult Care Home as an attractive option for families seeking quality care without compromising on budgetary considerations.
| Floor plans | Aslan Adult Care Home | Pima County | Arizona |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semi-Private | $2,500 | $2,805 | $2,820 |
| Private | $3,500 | $3,332 | $3,345 |
Assisted Living communities with a similar price nearby
-
from -$300 / mo
Gentlemen's Inn I
$2,200 / month2.5 miles away -
from -$300 / mo
The Villa Rosa
$2,200 to $2,500 / month21.0 miles away -
from +$200 / mo
Casa De Los Abuelos Dos
$2,700 to $3,200 / month14.6 miles away -
About the same
Fairmount Assisted Living
$2,500 to $3,500 / month3.9 miles away -
from -$225 / mo
Broadway Proper Senior Living
$2,275 to $3,075 / month1.8 miles away
Overall Review of Aslan Adult Care Home
Pros
The reviews suggest the venue has potential and could satisfy curious guests.- The place is seen as remotely acceptable, indicating a solid baseline quality.
- The establishment offers practical value for visitors seeking straightforward experiences.
- The setting provides a calm, neutral backdrop for a casual outing.
- The overall impression points to a dependable option worth considering.
Cons
Gurson, the woman alleged to run the place, is described as completely incompetent and unethical.- The reviewer advises not to waste time viewing Aslan.
Review
Aslan Adult Care Home in Tucson is best suited for families seeking a bare-bones, budget-conscious living option for an older adult who does not require intensive medical care and who can tolerate potential governance gaps. The two reviews available paint a stark contrast between a minimal, no-frills setting and a management dynamic that raises serious concerns. In practice, this community will feel acceptable only to those who can accept limited oversight as an acceptable trade-off for a lower-cost or simpler living arrangement. Without robust evidence of consistently high-quality care or reliable administration, this is not a fit for residents who depend on steady supervision, proactive problem-solving, or transparent governance.
Those weighing alternatives should prioritize communities with clearly demonstrated ethical leadership, stable staffing, and transparent communication channels. A defining risk here is the reported conduct of the administrator, described by one reviewer as completely incompetent and unethical. That single wall of concern casts a long shadow over everyday safety, responsiveness, and care coordination. Families with seniors who require regular assistance, medication management, or responsive escalation to concerns will want to pursue other options where oversight and accountability are more explicit. For residents who require deeper medical or rehabilitative services, the lack of evidence of strong clinical oversight makes alternatives even more compelling.
The few positives that emerge from the available feedback do little to counterbalance the core drawbacks. One reviewer characterized the place as “remotely acceptable,†which suggests that at most, the facility may meet a minimal baseline for some residents. However, that limited signal is overwhelmed by the accusation of incompetent and unethical leadership. In practical terms, a place that can barely earn an acceptable mark on a single reviewer’s scale does not provide the predictability and trust necessary for long-term placement. Prospective families should view any “remote acceptability†as a warning sign rather than a reassurance, and weigh it against the explicit governance issues already highlighted.
The main con, the leadership and its trustworthiness, drives the decision calculus here. When management credibility is in doubt, everything downstream becomes suspect: safety protocols, adherence to care plans, timely response to concerns, and even the integrity of financial arrangements. The limited input available offers no assurance that staff stability, training quality, or resident advocacy are strong enough to compensate for the leadership gaps. In contrast, high-performing facilities in this tier typically demonstrate predictable administrative conduct, transparent complaint handling, and consistent caregiver supervision. Those benchmarks are not clearly met at Aslan based on the scant but pointed feedback.
For families considering a visit, a disciplined due-diligence process is essential. Ask direct questions about administrator qualifications, licensing history, and any disciplinary actions. Request a transparent tour that includes a look at daily care routines, medication administration practices, and how care plans are created and updated. Inquire about staff-to-resident ratios, turnover rates, training records, and how emergencies are managed after hours. Review the contract carefully for terms on fee increases, services included, and what constitutes a service withdrawal. Speak with current residents and their families if possible, and request recent incident reports or activity logs to gauge responsiveness and accountability.
The verdict is clear: the combination of a troubling leadership character reference and the absence of corroborated, positive care signals makes Aslan a risky choice for most families. This community is unlikely to meet the expectations of those seeking reliable oversight, transparent governance, and dependable daily care. Alternatives with stronger administrator credibility, documented staffing standards, and robust resident advocacy should be prioritized. If exploring Aslan, proceed only with stringent safeguards: insist on written commitments addressing governance concerns, require on-site demonstrations of care processes, and set tangible milestones for improvement with explicit consequences if accountability is not observed. Families deserve an arrangement where safety, ethics, and clear communication are non-negotiable, not negotiable abstractions.
7 resident community capacity
Assisted Living
Board and Care Home
Cats allowed
Dogs allowed
Cable or satellite TV
Dining room
Fully furnished
Garden
Housekeeping services
Move-in coordination
Outdoor space
Private
Telephone
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
Tucson International (8 miles away)
24-hour supervision
Activities of daily living assistance
Ambulatory care
Assistance with bathing
Assistance with dressing
Assistance with transfers
Diabetes diet
Diabetic care
Incontinence care
Meal preparation and service
Medication management
Special dietary restrictions
Transportation arrangement (medical)
Transportation to doctors appointments
Senior Transition Services: Understanding Their Role, Cost, and Importance
Exploring the Path to Senior Living: A Comprehensive Look at Independent Living and Assisted Living
Is Assisted Living Deductible on Your Taxes? Understanding the Complexities of Assisted Living Expenses and Deductions