Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but clustered around two dominant narratives: many families and residents praise the day-to-day caregiving, warm tone, activities and community feel, while a substantial set of reviews raise serious concerns about management, staffing stability, and ownership decisions that have materially affected continuity of care.
Care quality and staff: Numerous reviews emphasize that CNAs, nurses and activities staff are compassionate, attentive and go out of their way to learn residents and provide personal care. Commenters repeatedly describe a homey, family-style atmosphere where residents form friendships, are engaged by an active social director, and benefit from one-on-one attention. Several reviews single out specific staff (Therese, Mary, Christy, etc.) for exemplary behavior and resourcefulness. At the same time, multiple reports describe inconsistent clinical responsiveness: missed or delayed bathing assistance, poor phone/front-desk responsiveness, and the absence of call bells in rooms. A recurring pattern is that while front-line caregivers are praised, leadership and staffing at certain shifts (nights, weekends) are perceived as insufficient, producing concern about safety and neglect risk.
Staffing, turnover and ownership changes: A major theme is instability tied to management and ownership transitions. Some reviews note rebranding and visible improvements (new carpet, fresh cuisine, a new chef, interior facelifts) after acquisition by Hollander Senior Living, and others praise recent building and service upgrades. However, many accounts report high turnover, loss of long-tenured staff, firings of trusted employees, and difficulty retaining caregivers. Several reviews accuse ownership of being profit-driven—citing a reported ~25% rate increase, cost-cutting, and policies that feel transactional (examples include pay-to-dine events). More severe allegations from a subset of reviews relate to another facility owned by the same person (Monroe): claims of staff unpaid, residents forced to find new homes, and staff abandonment. These serious accusations—while not uniformly echoed by every reviewer—create a significant red flag for potential residents and families about organizational reliability and ethical management.
Facilities and safety: Many reviewers appreciate the small-community layout, private bedrooms with bathrooms, a dedicated, locked dementia level with its own dining/kitchen/TV area, and attractive common spaces with natural light and outdoor areas. The facility is often described as clean and cozy, with reasonable grounds and an intimate neighborhood feel. Conversely, other reviewers report dated or shabby rooms, maintenance needs (wood replacement, porch repairs), uneven flooring, dark or odorous areas, and safety issues such as an unguarded staircase. Several comments also highlight logistical concerns: small parking, confusing entrances, and a remote location that could complicate emergency access. This split suggests that some parts of the campus have been updated while other areas still require repair and clearer wayfinding/safety improvements.
Dining, activities and daily life: Activities and social engagement are among the strongest positives. Multiple reviews mention frequent outings, bingo, church visits, crafts, exercise, and shopping trips—activities that support resident engagement and community. Dining receives mixed feedback: some reviewers praise freshly prepared, varied and tasty meals (especially after a new chef was introduced), while others state the food is hit-or-miss or that special events incur extra charges. The social director and activities staff are often singled out as cheerful and helpful, which contributes heavily to residents’ satisfaction.
Value and pricing: Several reviewers describe the community as affordable relative to competitors, with flat-fee pricing and no surprise add-on care charges. This is cited as a strong point for families seeking predictable costs. Yet, the reported rate increases and perceived shift toward profit-minded policies have made some families question whether value is being maintained, especially where physical conditions or staffing levels lag.
Management, communication and trust issues: Communication experiences vary. Some families praise daily updates, clear communication, and staff that reassures and helps residents cope. Others report poor customer service, not being informed about changes, abrupt firings or leadership turnover, and dissatisfaction with managerial priorities (appearance renovations versus staffing investments). The most serious management-related reports involve allegations of owner abandonment and failure to pay staff at other properties—these claims, if substantiated, have left reviewers warning others and have caused lasting distrust among some respondents.
Notable patterns and final assessment: The dataset reveals two consistent patterns. First, frontline caregivers and the activities team often deliver warm, individualized care that residents and families value highly; this is why many reviewers still recommend the community and report relieved family members. Second, organizational instability—manifesting as ownership changes, staffing churn, and disputed management decisions—produces inconsistent experiences and significant risk for prospective residents. Facility conditions are similarly mixed: visible upgrades coexist with maintenance backlogs and safety concerns in other areas.
If you are considering Hollander Senior Living of Sandy Springs, it would be prudent to (1) tour multiple parts of the facility to verify the condition of the exact unit you would occupy, (2) ask specifically about current staffing levels by shift and turnover rates for caregivers, (3) request details about recent ownership changes, fee increases, and any contractual policies (e.g., extra charges for holiday meals), and (4) seek direct references from current families and ask how management handled past incidents (closures, staffing shortages). The reviews show strong potential for compassionate, engaged care in a small, home-like setting, but also highlight real operational and governance concerns that deserve careful fact-finding before a move.
