1101 W. Hamilton St. Suite 373, Allentown, PA 18103
To contact a resident: (888) 990-4555
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Age In Place - Lehigh/Northampton Region
Pros
Two caregivers were really good.- There were a couple of caregivers who performed very well.
Cons
The agency is described as the worst the reviewers have ever experienced.- The caregivers sent to attend their family member were horrible.
- The staff are described as the worst people the reviewers have ever dealt with.
- The managers never respond to questions, concerns, or problems.
- They would not leave an animal in the agency's care.
- Only two caregivers were good; the rest, including office staff, are horrible.
- They urge others to stay far away from the agency.
- There was no communication and no caregiver was ever met.
- A complaint was filed against the agency.
Review
This community is best suited for families that can tolerate a high degree of hands-on oversight and are prepared to act as the primary coordinator of care. The core value appears to hinge on a small pool of caregivers who can deliver solid, capable help when matched, but the success of that arrangement depends on consistently reliable communication and responsive leadership. In practice, success here rests on a proactive family member or outside care manager who can continuously monitor visits, intervene when issues arise, and secure replacements quickly. For clients who can maintain that level of oversight without lapsing into gaps or ambiguity, there is a path to workable care, but it is narrow and demands vigilance.
Those considering alternatives should take to heart that this option is not a safe bet for families seeking dependable, transparent operations. If steady communication, predictable scheduling, and timely problem resolution are non-negotiable, this agency warrants cross-examination or a strong preference for other providers. The combination of inconsistent responses and difficulty in meeting or coordinating with caregivers signals a fundamental misalignment with what many families expect from in-home support. In short, for anyone prioritizing reliability and proactive service, other agencies should be explored first.
The limited but real upside rests on the presence of a couple of competent caregivers who demonstrate what good, respectful care looks like in practice. When those individuals are on duty, the quality of care can be solid, making it clear that capable staff exists within the agency. However, these positive examples are not reliably sustained. The contrast between high-performing aides and the broader team underscores a systemic issue: dependability cannot be assumed, and inconsistent staffing erodes confidence and hampers ongoing care planning. The pros here depend almost entirely on the luck of caregiver assignment on any given day.
The principal drawbacks are systemic and substantial. The office staff and leadership are described as unresponsive, with questions, concerns, and complaints left unanswered for extended periods. Families report being strung along for weeks, with no opportunity to meet any caregiver before care begins. This creates a troubling absence of continuity, making it difficult to establish trust, track progress, or adjust care plans in a timely manner. The risk is not just inconvenience; it is potential safety and well-being risk when expectations are not clearly set and met, and when reliable oversight is absent.
Practically, families facing this evaluation should demand concrete safeguards before engaging long-term. Require a formal, written care plan with detailed caregiver assignments, responsible supervisor contact, and a guaranteed cadence of communication, preferably daily brief notes and weekly summaries. Insist on a trial period during which both client and family can assess compatibility, with clear criteria for continuing or replacing caregivers. Ensure an escalation path that includes a responsive manager, and confirm a reliable backup system for caregiver absences. Ask for references from current clients and a documented commitment to addressing concerns within 24 to 48 hours.
In the end, the decision hinges on tolerance for risk versus need for hands-on control. If a family cannot or will not invest substantial time into supervising care, this provider is unlikely to meet expectations and could lead to ongoing frustration and dissatisfaction. For those prioritizing reliability, transparency, and a consistent care team, it is prudent to pursue alternatives with stronger reputations for communication, staffing stability, and proactive problem resolution. The choice should favor agencies that demonstrate accountability, predictable processes, and visible commitment to the resident’s daily well-being.
Lehigh Valley International (5 miles away)
A Comprehensive Exploration of Common Misunderstandings about Powers of Attorney
Senior Move Management: Understanding the Role, Value, and Associated Costs
Weight Training for Seniors: Building Strength and Vitality