1712 Brasleton Highway, Lawrenceville, GA 30043
To contact a resident: (770) 995-4447
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Good Shepherd Senior Living Costs & Pricing
Good Shepherd Senior Living offers competitive pricing for its residents, particularly when compared to both Gwinnett County and the broader state of Georgia. For semi-private rooms, the monthly cost at Good Shepherd is $2,100, significantly lower than the county average of $2,530 and slightly below the state average of $2,529. Similarly, in terms of private accommodations, Good Shepherd's monthly fee of $2,700 stands favorably against Gwinnett County's rate of $2,551 and Georgia's average of $2,864. These pricing structures not only highlight Good Shepherd's commitment to affordability but also position it as an attractive option for those seeking quality senior living without straining their budgets.
| Floor plans | Good Shepherd Senior Living | Gwinnett County | Georgia |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semi-Private | $2,100 | $2,530 | $2,529 |
| Private | $2,700 | $2,551 | $2,864 |
Overall Review of Good Shepherd Senior Living
Pros
The facility is very lovely and clean.
It is highly recommended for loved ones.
It is very clean and nicely decorated.
It features a nice enclosed back yard and pleasant views from the front.
The lower level provides wheelchair access and an electric ramp.
Baths are monitored and body wash is required.
The capacity is six residents.
It may be the most comfortable option here.
Review
Best suited for seniors who want a small, home-like assisted living experience where relationships with staff feel personal and the daily routine stays calm and predictable. Good Shepherd Senior Living in Lawrenceville operates as a tightly knit, six-resident home rather than a sprawling campus, and that arrangement appeals particularly to couples or individuals who value intimate oversight, frequent direct contact with the leadership team, and a setting that looks and feels clean, well-maintained, and quietly reassuring. The emphasis on a neat interior, tasteful decor, and a pleasant outdoor space, an enclosed back yard plus inviting front views, creates an environment where comfort and dignity are palpable from the first impression.
Those weighing alternatives should consider options that offer a larger resident population, more expansive programming, or broader medical support. Families seeking a broader social calendar, diversified activities, or more intensive clinical services may find a small, six-occupant home less suitable. Similarly, residents who want a longer horizon of independence with a wider range of on-site amenities could be better served by communities that function more like traditional campuses rather than a single-family residence adapted for care. If constant exposure to a broader community and more structured activity schedules are priorities, alternatives deserve serious consideration.
The strongest positives are tangible and well aligned with careful caregiving. The facility’s cleanliness and thoughtful presentation stand out, reinforced by quiet, tasteful décor that reinforces dignity and ease of comfort. The enclosed yard and scenic views add value for residents who appreciate outdoor time without leaving a contained, secure space. Accessibility is prioritized on the lower level with a wheelchair-friendly layout and an electric ramp, which broadens independence for residents with mobility limitations. Safety routines, such as monitoring baths and the practice of body wash, signal a clear commitment to reducing risk while preserving daily comfort. The small capacity of six can translate into a sense of belonging and predictability that many families prize.
These strengths, however, sit alongside the reality that a six-bed residence inherently limits social options, activity variety, and the pace at which new needs can be scaled or accommodations adjusted. The intimate setting means less shadow staff coverage than larger facilities, which can translate into tighter scheduling or slower responses if multiple issues arise simultaneously. Yet the reviews indicate high engagement from the director and the live-in healthcare provider, which helps mitigate these concerns by ensuring quick, consistent attention and continuity of care. In this sense, the pros compensate for the most practical drawbacks: when stability, safety, and a warm, homey atmosphere top the priority list, the model delivers.
From a decision-maker’s perspective, Good Shepherd presents a compelling fit for families prioritizing intimate, safety-forward care over the bells and whistles of a bigger campus. It excels when the goal is clear, compassionate supervision delivered in a private, nearly private-home environment, where residents are known by name and routines feel predictable. The trade-offs, limited peers, a narrower activity slate, and a compact staff footprint, recede in importance for those who value direct access to a small team that truly knows their loved one. For others, the absence of larger programming and additional medical resources means exploring options that can scale with growing needs is prudent.
In practical terms, families considering Good Shepherd should plan a visit focused on staffing dynamics and care plans, not just ambience. Confirm caregiver ratios during peak times, ask about the continuity of the live-in provider, and discuss how medical needs are coordinated if a situation evolves. In parallel, assess how important a broader community experience is relative to the comfort of a single, devoted care team. If the decision hinges on the combination of spotless presentation, intimate setting, and high caregiver visibility, this community stands out as a strong choice. If, instead, a larger network of peers, more extensive programming, or integrated clinical services are non-negotiable, steering toward other Lawrenceville options is advised.









Senior Move Management: Understanding the Role, Value, and Associated Costs
Weight Training for Seniors: Building Strength and Vitality
Understanding the Sandwich Generation: Stress and Responsibilities for Multigenerational Caregivers