Our House Adult Day Care Ctr in St. Augustine, FL

Pros

• The staff are very good and the facility is well maintained; they care about their residents.
• The staff are nice and helpful.
• The workers are great, and the property is beautiful.
• The place is wonderful to be involved with; the residences and staff are superb.
• The place is amazing.
• The ranch-type atmosphere offers lots of room to roam and keep the residents busy.
• The clients are great.

Cons

• The cottage was dirty and had a strong, unpleasant odor.
• Certain supervisors demonstrated extremely unprofessional and troubling behavior.
• Racist attitudes and remarks directed at Black staff members were observed and tolerated by the owners.
• There was little to no regard for staff safety, with clients allowed to mistreat or attack staff without consequences.
• Clients were routinely served cold-cut sandwiches, and basic hygiene tasks (like brushing clients’ teeth) were neglected.
• The educational programs were repetitive with no real engagement or growth.
• Favoritism created a toxic environment, leaving some staff feeling disrespected or undervalued.
• Some staff were rude and racist toward clients and each other; injuries were ignored, and safety/hygiene standards were not consistently upheld.

Review

Our House Adult Day Care Center in St. Augustine is best suited for families seeking an active, socially oriented daytime program for seniors who value a roomy, ranch‑like setting and a lively activity roster. The facility’s outdoor space and open layout invite movement, and reviews highlight engaged residents, friendly interactions among clients, and meaningful counseling and activity options such as music therapy. For families who want their loved one to be surrounded by smiling staff and peers, and who can tolerate the realities of day-program governance, this center can feel like a genuine community. The strongest positive signal is the evident care many staff express for residents and the genuine enthusiasm some teams bring to daily life and events.

This option deserves careful consideration for families who may need stronger oversight, more rigorous hygiene standards, and a consistently professional, discrimination-free environment. Several reviewers allege serious concerns about staff safety, unprofessional behavior by supervisors, and the owners’ level of engagement. Reports question whether racist attitudes are tolerated, and whether staff safety is adequately protected. Additional red flags include neglected hygiene tasks, inconsistent medical responses, and an atmosphere described by some as toxic or favoritism‑driven. A few families even advised against leaving a loved one there. These issues point to governance and culture gaps that cannot be dismissed as typical day-program volatility.

The balance of pros and cons is nuanced. On the positive side, many staff members come across as kind, capable, and genuinely invested in residents’ well‑being. The setting itself, ample space, a ranch-like vibe, and opportunities for residents to stay busy, appears to deliver meaningful engagement and companionship. Where care is steady, families note that residents seem to enjoy the social framework, activities, and the warmth of caretaking staff. Yet the more persistent and potentially dangerous concerns, ranging from safety lapses and basic hygiene neglect to allegations of mistreatment and poor escalation of injuries, dampen the appeal and undermine confidence in consistent quality. The couple of reviews praising improvements, such as shade installations to reduce sun exposure, show that leadership can respond, but the absence of uniform reliability across shifts remains a critical fault line.

Families evaluating this center should take concrete, proactive steps before committing. Visit during multiple periods to observe how staff interact with residents and how disruptions are handled. Request a transparent tour of safety protocols, incident reporting, and corrective action processes, and inquire about staff-to-resident ratios and turnover. Ask about any plans for cameras or other oversight tools, and verify how owners participate in daily operations and problem resolution. Speak to multiple families currently using the program and, if possible, request a recent tour of the cottage to assess cleanliness, odor, and overall condition. Confirm whether improvements claimed by the center, such as enhanced shade or refreshed facilities, were sustained and implemented consistently.

Environment and day-to-day care preferences matter greatly here. For families prioritizing social vitality and a warm, personable staff culture, this center can deliver moments of real connection and joy, especially where the staff’s passion is evident and programming is robust. Conversely, for those whose priority is a consistently pristine environment, rigorous hygiene, and zero tolerance for any mistreatment or governance gaps, alternatives may be the wiser path. The mixed experiences underscore that the environment can vary by shift and by leadership presence; what one family experiences as attentive care may feel like disarray to another, depending on who is on duty and how incidents are managed. A well‑informed choice hinges on aligning the loved one’s needs for safety, dignity, and consistent daily structure with the center’s demonstrated capacity to deliver those essentials.

In summary, Our House is a viable option for seniors who thrive on social programming, meaningful activities, and a caring, if imperfect, day program in a spacious setting. It is not a fit for families demanding unwavering safety, flawless hygiene, and unequivocal enforcement of respectful conduct by all staff and leadership. Pros about staff warmth, engagement, and a lively environment can offset some day-to-day pleasures for those who can tolerate governance ambiguities; but cons around safety, potential mistreatment, and inconsistent leadership weigh heavily for anyone prioritizing predictable, high‑standard care. The prudent course is to gather firsthand impressions, verify ongoing improvements, and compare with nearby programs that promise stronger accountability and cleaner, safer operations before deciding.