St. Daniel's Home For The Elderly II in Claremont, CA

Memory care communities with a similar price nearby

• from +$495 / mo

  Cadence Brea

  5 from 47 reviews

  $3,995 to $5,500 / month

  17.6 miles away
• About the same

  Genesis Manor VI

  5 from 16 reviews

  $3,600 to $4,200 / month

  6.8 miles away
• About the same

  Comfort Keepers Home Care

  5 from 14 reviews

  $3,500 to $6,500 / month

  16.9 miles away
• from -$500 / mo

  Best Elderly Care I

  4.9 from 44 reviews

  $3,000 to $3,500 / month

  22.8 miles away
• About the same

  Genesis Manor I

  4.9 from 14 reviews

  $3,600 to $4,200 / month

  6.0 miles away

Pros

• The facility is doing a pretty good job so far.
• The resident is happy with the food.
• St. Daniel's is a nice and pleasant place.
• St. Daniel's offers great activities.
• The staff are considerate, nice, and caring toward residents.
• The facility is larger and roomier than other options, and does not feel as cramped.

Cons

• The facility is run down.
• The clients lack caregivers who walk with them in the community to keep them safe.
• The owner is rarely present and is very rude.
• The front yard has trash in it most of the time.
• The parking lot is run down.
• There is a need for state oversight to ensure the clients are being cared for properly.
• Visitors should conduct surprise visits at various times to ensure their loved ones are safe and cared for.

Review

St. Daniel's Home For The Elderly II in Claremont is best suited for families that prize social vitality, a roomy, home-like atmosphere, and consistently warm, attentive caregiving. The community earns high marks for an active programming calendar and a layout that feels less cramped than many peers. It tends to appeal to residents who thrive on engagement, companionship, and a sense of everyday community, while allowing families to tolerate some variability in day-to-day administrative visibility in exchange for a more lived-in, personable setting. Those with significant medical needs requiring constant oversight or impeccably maintained grounds should seriously consider alternatives. The right fit is a resident who values meaningful activities and interpersonal care and can commit to regular, possibly unscheduled, visits to gauge ongoing quality and safety.

On the care and engagement front, the positives are substantial. Families consistently praise the staff for warmth, consideration, and attentiveness, and residents tend to respond positively to caregivers who seem genuinely invested in well-being. The activities program is highlighted as a standout feature, providing structure, social opportunities, and stimulation that translate into better mood and quality of life. The facility’s space is noticeably roomier than many peers, reducing crowding and allowing for more comfortable interaction and movement. Food quality also gets frequent, strong mentions, an improvement over hospital-style meals that matters for daily satisfaction. Together, these strengths create a compelling value proposition for families who prioritize daily life quality and social engagement, reinforced by an overall high rating and multiple five-star endorsements.

Nevertheless, a cautionary review draws attention to notable drawbacks that must be weighed. The facility is described as run down in appearance, with outdoor spaces that occasionally look neglected and parking areas showing wear. More concerning is a sense that caregivers do not routinely walk with residents in the community, which can raise safety considerations and impact perceived supervision. The owner’s limited visible presence and a perception of sharp or unwelcoming management further complicate reliability in oversight. The reviewer also calls for external checks to ensure appropriate care. While this is not the consensus across all feedback, it signals real gaps in visible accountability that cannot be ignored when evaluating risk, especially for families seeking consistent, hands-on reassurance.

These pros and cons do not cancel each other out; they simply tilt the calculation in favor of different priorities. The staff’s caring ethos, meaningful activities, and a larger, more comfortable home environment can offset some concerns about ambiance and management visibility by delivering measurable daily-life benefits: engagement, companionship, and satisfaction with meals and space. Yet the safety implications of less visible supervision persist, particularly during shifts when not all caregivers are in clear view. For families where constant, proactive oversight is non-negotiable, this tension becomes a pivotal deciding factor. The question is whether the engagement gains compensate for potential lapses in perceived day-to-day control.

For those who cannot tolerate inconsistencies in administration or upkeep, it makes sense to explore alternatives with more transparent oversight and more polished surroundings. Prospective residents who require steady administrator visibility, stronger grounds maintenance, and predictable staffing patterns should compare a facility’s leadership presence, caregiver ratios, and recent state inspection records before committing. This community can still be a strong match for the right person, one who values enrichment and sociability and can tolerate some variability in management touchpoints, provided visits are used strategically to verify ongoing quality and safety on an ongoing basis.

Ultimately, the recommendation centers on fit and risk tolerance. A resident who thrives on a lively schedule, enjoys a larger, more comfortable living space, and responds well to friendly caregivers will find substantial value here, especially when regular tours and observation confirm that the care quality remains consistently high. The prudent path is to schedule a thorough tour, review current activity calendars and meal plans, and ask for clear caregiver-to-resident ratios and shift patterns. If the anticipated benefits of engagement and space align with acceptable levels of administrative visibility and grounds upkeep, St. Daniel's can be a solid, even compelling, option. If not, the prudent move is to compare alternatives that promise tighter supervision and maintenance without sacrificing the core benefits of companionship and enrichment.