655 Woodside Road, Green Bay, WI 54311
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Angels On Humboldt Building 1
Cons
Carrington Commons' facilities and management are described as poor.- They can’t keep staff.
- They promote staff into managers who don’t know how to care for residents.
- It’s a nasty, dirty facility.
- Management is seen hanging out outside of work, drinking and partying with company money.
- The reviewer would not recommend anyone move their families there.
- The food is bad.
- Amanda, a manager, treats residents poorly, and her boss does nothing about it.
- Ashley, the owner, parties with young management and shows no respect for staff.
- Staff concerns are not listened to.
- It should be taken from Ashley and given to someone who truly cares about residents and the facilities.
- They should not recommend this community to loved ones.
- Ms. Rodríguez allegedly hung up on a caller; the interaction was unprofessional and rude.
Review
This community is best suited for budget-focused families who can commit to vigilant oversight and are prepared to tolerate meaningful lapses in care, cleanliness, and staff responsiveness. The pattern of feedback circulating about similar Green Bay settings suggests that strong governance and steady, respectful resident care are not reliably present. Families evaluating Angels On Humboldt Building 1 should enter with a clear plan to verify staffing stability, daily operations, and resident treatment before making any commitment. In short, this option is most defensible only for those who can act as full-time advocates and who accept elevated risk as part of a lower price point.
The strongest warning signs in the reviews point to chronic staffing instability and management turnover. Reported conditions describe facilities where staff are overwhelmed, leadership is inconsistent, and turnover undermines continuity of care. When managers lack frontline caregiving experience or fail to retain qualified aides, residents miss familiar faces, routines degrade, and care tasks fall through the cracks. This pattern is reinforced by claims that leadership behaviors extend beyond professional boundaries, with concerns about professionalism, respect for residents, and accountability going unaddressed. Taken together, these dynamics erode trust in daily safety and long-term wellbeing.
Cleanliness and resident dignity emerge as equally troubling themes. Multiple accounts portray dirty, poorly maintained environments where basic hygiene and sacrosanct spaces for residents are not consistently prioritized. Food quality and meal service are described as substandard, which compounds the risk that residents lose appetite, energy, or essential nutrition. When facility culture appears to tolerate or overlook inappropriate conduct by management, residents can become involuntary witnesses to disrespectful treatment. In a setting where staff morale and pride in the environment matter to ongoing quality, these issues create a cycle of dissatisfaction that is hard to reverse without decisive leadership and structural changes.
Despite the lack of clearly defined, positive takeaways in the reviews, the most important counterpoint for families to weigh is whether the potential cost savings are worth the elevated risk. The absence of credible, durable advantages, such as consistently high-quality meals, reliable staff, proactive care planning, or transparent governance, means the downsides carry disproportionate weight. A 1-star rating across multiple reviews signals a fundamental mismatch between what families need and what the community delivers. This is not a nuance; it is a signal that harsh due diligence is non-negotiable for anyone considering this option.
Alternatives should be seriously considered for anyone with standard expectations of assisted living: reliable staffing, consistent daily routines, clean facilities, respectful interactions, and transparent management. Families with higher medical needs, cognitive impairment requiring secure supervision, or those who cannot engage in constant oversight will likely find better outcomes elsewhere. Look for communities with lower turnover among caregivers and leadership, documented quality improvements, and strong resident-family communication channels. If Angels On Humboldt Building 1 remains on the table, demand a concrete guarantee of stability: a stable administrator, a guaranteed caregiver-to-resident ratio, and a proven plan to address cleanliness and meal quality before any move-in.
In the end, the prudent stance is to approach Angels On Humboldt Building 1 with rigorous diligence and a readiness to walk away if critical assurances cannot be secured. The reviews underline a reality where care quality, resident experience, and operational discipline did not meet expectations in comparable settings. Families should prioritize facilities with demonstrable accountability, ongoing staff training, and a track record of respectful, clean, well-fed environments. If those elements cannot be confirmed through tours, references, and trial experiences, alternatives deserve immediate serious consideration.
15 resident community capacity
Assisted Living
Board and Care Home
Memory Care
Cable or satellite TV
Dining room
Fully furnished
Garden
Housekeeping services
Move-in coordination
Outdoor space
Telephone
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
Austin Straubel International (11 miles away)
24-hour supervision
Activities of daily living assistance
Assistance with bathing
Assistance with dressing
Assistance with transfers
Diabetes diet
Hospice waiver
Meal preparation and service
Medication management
Mental wellness program
Special dietary restrictions
Transportation arrangement (medical)
Transportation to doctors appointments
Clean facility with friendly, attentive staff in a small, secure setting.
Illuminating Insights About Alzheimer's Disease: Ten Crucial Realities
A Thorough Discussion of Medications Potentially Linked to Dementia Risk
Why Do Dementia Patients Sleep So Much? Understanding Oversleeping, Stages, and Care Approaches