3442 Norris Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Rose Garden Care Home Costs & Pricing
Rose Garden Care Home offers competitive pricing for its residents, particularly when compared to the broader market in Sacramento County and across California. For semi-private rooms, Rose Garden charges $2,000 per month, significantly lower than the county average of $3,106 and the state average of $3,333. Similarly, their private rooms are priced at $2,800, which is considerably more affordable than the county's average of $3,686 and the state average of $3,939. This cost structure not only reflects a commitment to accessibility but also positions Rose Garden Care Home as a financially attractive option for families seeking quality care in a supportive environment.
| Floor plans | Rose Garden Care Home | Sacramento County | California |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semi-Private | $2,000 | $3,106 | $3,333 |
| Private | $2,800 | $3,686 | $3,939 |
Memory care communities with a similar price nearby
Overall Review of Rose Garden Care Home
Pros
The reviewer described Rose Garden as perfect for her sister who has dementia.
The reviewer noted that the sister could bring her dog with her.
Daniel stated that the situation would not be a problem and that he had dealt with similar behavior before.
The reviewer highlighted Daniel's experience in handling such cases as a positive reassurance.
Cons
The reviewer would have given no stars and urged others to stay far away from Rose Garden.
Rose Garden was deemed unsuitable for the sister with dementia, who was described as too hyper for the place.
The staff, especially Daniel, repeatedly claimed the sister’s behavior would not be a problem, which the reviewer viewed as misleading.
The sister had to be moved out the same day because she upset other residents.
The family did not receive a refund for deposits and fees, even 17 days later.
They had to hire an attorney to obtain the refund.
Review
Rose Garden Care Home in Sacramento is best suited for seniors who are largely stable, do not require specialized dementia care, and for families who place some value on a small, pet-friendly setting. The facility’s advertised openness to residents bringing a dog can feel attractive to families hoping to preserve that companionship, signaling a flexible, home-like atmosphere. Yet the practical takeaway is clear: this community appears to work best when behavioral and cognitive needs are minimal and predictable, and it struggles when those needs rise.
Those considering alternatives should pay particular attention to residents with dementia or any tendency toward hyperactivity or aggressive behavior. The experience described here shows that even with assurances from staff, a resident with significant behavioral challenges can trigger rapid, chaotic changes in placement and safety. For families needing steadfast commitments, transparent eligibility criteria, and reliable refunds, Rose Garden is not the dependable option. Memory-care communities with proven dementia protocols and clearer, written guarantees are a more prudent target for this level of care.
On the upside, the most tangible pro cited is the ability to accommodate a beloved pet, which reflects a genuine, if uneven, willingness to tailor to individual preferences. Staff claimed extensive experience with difficult behaviors, which could be interpreted as a potential strength in a calmer scenario. These elements, however, fail to offset the central risk demonstrated in the move-in episode: once the situation escalated, the facility could not sustain placement or honor financial commitments in a timely, trustworthy manner. The gap between verbal assurances and actual outcomes becomes the dominant factor for families evaluating this community.
From a decision-making standpoint, prospective residents should seek concrete, written proof of all behavioral policies before any commitment. Insist on a formal, documented care plan that outlines how staff would handle dementia-related agitation, aggression, or extreme hyperactivity, and require an explicit acceptance criteria and trial period. Demand clarity on pet policies with reserved language about contingencies if behavior changes. Crucially, obtain a written refund policy and a named contact responsible for financial issues, to avoid a repeat of the experience where refunds were delayed or withheld.
Financial and safety risk emerge as the decisive considerations. The family in the account faced a substantial financial commitment, a $3,450 move-in payment after an initial $500 deposit, and did not recover funds when the arrangement collapsed within hours. That kind of financial exposure, paired with the abrupt removal of a resident and its ripple effects on other residents, signals a fragile risk management posture. The episode points to potential gaps in communication, accountability, and preparedness to address unexpected behavioral escalations, all of which are unacceptable for families seeking stability and trust.
In the end, Rose Garden Care Home is not a prudent choice for families facing dementia-related care needs or for those who demand reliable, enforceable commitments. The strongest recommendation is to pursue alternatives with documented success in managing cognitive impairment and behavior, with transparent contracts and a track record of honoring deposits and refunds. For families considering Rose Garden, separate the hopeful impression of a cozy, dog-friendly setting from the hard realities of behavior management and financial protections, and choose a community where policies, promises, and practice align under scrutiny before any move is made.















How to Communicate with a Loved One Living with Dementia: 10 Supportive Strategies
Comprehensive Guide to VA Nursing Homes: A Crucial Long-Term Care Resource for Veterans
Estimating the Expenses of At-Home Dementia Care: A Detailed Exploration