St. Anne Assisted Living Home II in Anchorage, AK

Memory care communities with a similar price nearby

• About the same

  Jewel Lake Assisted Living Home

  4.9 from 14 reviews

  $5,000 / month

  2.9 miles away
• About the same

  My Father's Home Assisted Living

  4.7 from 14 reviews

  $5,000 / month

  4.6 miles away
• About the same

  St Anne Assisted Living Home

  4.6 from 22 reviews

  $5,000 / month

  1.8 miles away

Pros

• The staff were able to answer questions, and the community was clean.
• The community is clean and well-maintained.
• The staff are caring and attentive to residents' needs.
• The community offers a lot of activities for residents and features a varied menu.
• The environment is nice, and the facility has friendly staff.
• Visitors would recommend this community to other families.

Cons

• The facility is described as the worst AHL ever, and the owner/administrator is labeled a bold-faced liar.
• The treatment of residents is deplorable.
• On the night the reviewer’s mother died, the on-site business license was expired.
• The lack of communication skills by the supposed caregivers is heartbreaking, and there were no employee certifications, identification, resident status, or Social Security cards observed.
• If the caregivers cannot speak English, they cannot read medication instructions.
• Residents do not have an awake caregiver at night.

Review

St. Anne Assisted Living Home II in Anchorage is best suited for families seeking a small, home-like setting where residents receive personal attention from a dedicated, visibly caring staff. The community tends to appeal to seniors who prefer a compact, intimate atmosphere over larger campuses, and to families that want direct access to caregivers and a straightforward, low-friction tour-and-enroll process. With a 4.1 rating from seven reviews, the signals are clear: this is not a factory-style operation, but a tightly run house that aims to feel like a family environment. The emphasis on cleanliness, approachable staff, and a familiar routine makes it a good match for residents who thrive on predictability and daily engagement in a cozy setting.

Still, not every family will want to place a loved one here without scrutinizing a few critical factors. A standout reason to consider alternatives is the reliability of governance and regulatory practices. One highly troubling review alleges management misrepresentation, a potentially expired license on the premises the night a resident died, and broader concerns about caregiver qualifications, communication, and nighttime staffing. While others report warmly on the facility and staff, these claims create a shadow over the community’s oversight and raise legitimate questions about what is happening behind the scenes. For families with high safety, compliance, or transparency expectations, a thorough second look is essential.

On the upside, multiple reviews consistently praise the core daily living environment: staff who are described as caring and attentive, a clean and well-maintained facility, and menus with variety alongside available activities. Tour experiences are positive, with staff capable of answering questions and a sense that the home environment is welcoming and well-kept. This combination, cleanliness, a friendlier staff demeanor, and meaningful activities, delivers real value for residents who want dependable routine, social opportunities, and predictable meals. That consistency matters for families seeking a low-stress transition and ongoing day-to-day quality of life.

The primary red flags, however, revolve around governance and nighttime coverage. The most serious concern centers on claims about regulatory compliance and nighttime caregiving, specifically, the absence of an awake caregiver during night hours and questions about caregiver certifications and language proficiency. These issues matter because they touch on safety, medication management, and the ability to respond promptly to emergencies. Even with strong daytime care and activity programs, those gaps can translate into real risk if not addressed. Prospective residents should verify the current license status, confirm that on-site staff hold appropriate certifications, and ensure there is reliable awake coverage at night before making commitments.

The way the good and the bad balance out comes down to what families can tolerate and what they demand from a trusted caregiver relationship. If daily life is measured by warmth, cleanliness, and stimulating activities, St. Anne II delivers on those fronts and can be an excellent fit for residents who don’t require intensive medical oversight and who value a homey vibe. For families who insist on rock-solid regulatory transparency, explicit night-time safety protocols, and clear English-language communication with every caregiver, the cons may outweigh the pros until verifiable assurances are in place. The best approach is to treat the visit as a risk assessment as much as a tour: press for up-to-date licensing information, observe nighttime routines if possible, and request to meet the administrator directly to gauge responsiveness and openness.

In the end, a clear, action-oriented decision plan should guide the choice. If the administrator can provide current licensure documentation, demonstrate ongoing caregiver training, and articulate a dependable night-shift plan with awake coverage, St. Anne II can be a strong option for families prioritizing a warm, intimate environment and proven daytime engagement. If those assurances cannot be obtained promptly, or if regulatory and night-care concerns remain unresolved after discussion and site visits, it would be prudent to explore other small- to mid-size communities or larger facilities with a more transparent governance track record. The right choice hinges on balancing the proven daily-life strengths with rigorous verification of safety, oversight, and reliability at night.