2339 Odell School Rd, Concord, NC 28027
To contact a resident: (704) 785-9501
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Concord House Costs & Pricing
At Concord House, residents can expect to find competitive monthly costs for both semi-private and one-bedroom accommodations. Specifically, the cost for a semi-private room is $1,900, significantly lower than the average rates in Cabarrus County at $3,167 and North Carolina state average of $3,584. For those interested in a one-bedroom option, Concord House charges $2,500 per month, also presenting a more budget-friendly alternative compared to Cabarrus County's average of $4,357 and North Carolina's statewide average of $4,055. This pricing structure reflects Concord House's commitment to providing quality living arrangements that are not only comfortable but also financially accessible compared to regional standards.
| Floor plans | Concord House | Cabarrus County | North Carolina |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semi-Private | $1,900 | $3,167 | $3,584 |
| 1 Bedroom | $2,500 | $4,357 | $4,055 |
Overall Review of Concord House
Pros
All residents have been placed safely.- Area churches and volunteers help out with the residents.
- Designated appropriations are allocated to meet the residents' basic needs.
Cons
It is disgusting.- It is dirty and infested with bugs and rodents.
- It was closed down by the state.
- This location should never be allowed to reopen.
Review
Concord House in Concord, North Carolina is a cautionary pick rather than a first-choice option for most seniors. It is best suited for families actively researching a group-home care model that leans on church and volunteer networks to support residents with limited independence, and who can tolerate financial and operational uncertainty. This setting relies more on community involvement than on a formal, well-funded care operation, and that distinction matters when evaluating continuity of care. For families that require predictable licensing, steady on-site staffing, and clear accountability, Concord House represents a high-risk option that demands careful due diligence before any commitment.
For those who may want to consider alternatives, the priority should be safety, licensing, and consistent, regulated care. The record includes state action to shut the facility down due to concerns about conditions, with residents relocated and the property left empty and up for sale. Volunteer support cannot substitute for licensed caregiving, medical oversight, or robust emergency procedures. Where medical needs exist, or where long-term stability is essential, scroll toward established assisted-living communities that demonstrate current licensure, transparent inspection histories, and reliable staffing patterns.
The most troubling red flags center on quality and regulatory history. Descriptions of filth, pests, and infestation point to serious sanitation problems. The fact that the site was closed by the state signals licensing and compliance failures that most families cannot afford to overlook. With no residents on site and a property on the market, the likelihood of sudden changes in operation or stable care can be high. In practical terms, this translates into risk for immediate relocation, disrupted routines, and potential gaps in routine medical supervision.
On the upside, the model did attract community involvement. Area churches and volunteers reportedly assisted with basic needs and daily support, which can help sustain residents who are not completely independent. This external support has value for companionship and social engagement. However, it does not replace licensed staff, trained caregiving, medication management, or professional oversight. In a setting where a resident has safety, dietary, or mobility challenges, reliance on volunteers creates a brittle safety net that can unravel under stress.
Given the gravity of the cons, the pros do not meaningfully offset the core deficiencies. Volunteered help and charitable support are commendable but insufficient when licensure, safety, and continuity are at stake. A facility must meet baseline standards for sanitation, staffing, emergency readiness, and regulatory compliance; Concord House’s history suggests those benchmarks were not consistently met. Families should interpret the limited, mixed reviews as a signal to proceed with extreme caution and to demand current, verifiable documentation on status, licensing, and inspection results before considering any form of commitment.
Ultimately, the decision comes down to risk tolerance and priorities. For most seniors, a licensed, well-maintained assisted living community with transparent oversight will deliver far greater assurance of safety and daily reliability. If Concord House is being considered, it should be viewed only as a learning reference about risks inherent in unregulated or unstable models, not as a viable primary choice. Visit concurrent alternatives, request written policies, talk to current residents or families, and verify the latest state records. In Concord, there are better options, communities with clear licensing, consistent staffing, and a track record of safe operations, worth pursuing instead of betting on a fragile volunteer-supported model.
Assisted Living
Activities on-site
Devotional services off-site
Indoor common areas
Charlotte Douglas International (20 miles away)
Ambulatory care
Diabetic care
Meals provided
Comprehensive Supportive Living Arrangements for Adults with Disabilities
Funding and Affording Assisted Living: A Thorough Overview
Assisted Living Expenses and Long-Term Care Insurance: A Comprehensive Exploration