14087 198Th Street, Jim Falls, WI 54748
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Autumn Oaks Costs & Pricing
Autumn Oaks offers a range of accommodations with monthly costs that significantly exceed both the county and state averages. For a semi-private room, residents at Autumn Oaks pay $10,290, matching the rate in Chippewa County but starkly higher than Wisconsin's average of $3,977. Similarly, private rooms at Autumn Oaks are priced at $13,290 - once again aligning with Chippewa County rates while dwarfing the state's average of $4,339. The studio option is also costly at $13,290, compared to Chippewa County's more affordable rate of $6,713 and Wisconsin's average of $3,999. These figures suggest that while Autumn Oaks may provide premium services or amenities that justify its pricing structure, prospective residents should carefully consider their budget against local and state alternatives before making a decision.
| Floor plans | Autumn Oaks | Chippewa County | Wisconsin |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semi-Private | $10,290 | $10,290 | $3,977 |
| Private | $13,290 | $13,290 | $4,339 |
| Studio | $13,290 | $6,713 | $3,999 |
Overall Review of Autumn Oaks
Pros
It is a good place for loved ones.
It offers a smaller, home-like environment that allows closer attention to families.
Cons
The facility is described as the worst assisted living place ever.
They warn not to send family or anyone there.
They report there are roaches in the facility.
Dinner isnât served until 8 pm, residents arenât cared for properly, and it smells.
They allege a third-shift caretaker/meds lady verbally abused and harassed residents, including the partnerâs dad.
The caretaker would not give him his meds and even locked him out of the building when he went out for a smoke.
Review
Autumn Oaks in Jim Falls is best suited for families seeking a compact, home-like assisted living option where caregivers can devote real, visible attention to each resident. The smaller scale can translate into a warmer, more personal feel than larger campuses, with residents-and-family members often able to establish a familiar routine and stronger daily connections with staff. The community profile is a tale of two realities: several highly favorable experiences sit alongside troubling reports that cannot be dismissed, signaling that the environment can be genuinely comforting for some while presenting serious safety questions for others.
Those considering alternatives should recognize early that safety and basic quality-control gaps are non-negotiable concerns here. If safeguarding against staff misconduct, consistent medication administration, and reliable daily operations are priorities, another facility with stronger documented safeguards may be prudent. The strongest red flag in the public feedback is a serious allegation of abusive behavior by a caregiver, coupled with reports of medication issues. When safety incidents exist, they demand hard scrutiny and compelling evidence of corrective action before anyone comfortable with risk proceeds.
On the upside, the most cited strength is the intimate, family-like setting that enables more hands-on oversight. Families often value the ability to observe care patterns up close, influence daily routines, and feel connected to caregiving decisions, benefits that can be hard to achieve in larger communities. The favorable reviews imply residents benefit from a quieter, more personal atmosphere, where staff can respond promptly and a sense of belonging can take root. For residents who thrive on consistency, predictability, and visible caregiver attention, this environment has meaningful, tangible upside.
Yet the major drawbacks cannot be minimized. The failures described, medication mismanagement, instances of abuse, and a staff member allegedly locking a resident out, strike at the core expectations of any assisted living arrangement. Add to that reports of pests, delayed dinners, and hygiene lapses, and the picture shifts from âcozy and attentiveâ to âunacceptably risky.â These conditions can rapidly erode trust, escalate safety concerns, and undermine the very intimacy that draws families to this kind of setting. In practice, the gravity of these complaints often eclipses the perceived warmth of the smaller home feel.
Given the tension between appealing intimacy and serious safety red flags, the decision hinges on risk tolerance and due-diligence results. For a family that can insist on transparent staffing patterns, frequent oversight, routine audits, access to incident logs, and verifiable corrective actions, Autumn Oaks might still be workable as a niche option. For most others, especially those with fragile or medication-dependent loved ones, the risk profile argues strongly toward alternative communities with proven, enforceable safety standards and cleaner operations.
When proceeding, focus on concrete assurances: request current staff rosters and training records, insist on seeing recent medication administration practices, ask to review any formal incident reports, and tour the kitchen and living areas with a critical eye toward cleanliness and odor control. Check state inspection results, incident histories, and whether corrective actions have been completed for any cited deficiencies. Above all, compare Autumn Oaks against other facilities with stronger track records in safeguarding residents, consistent care, and hygienic environments. The choice should prioritize safety and reliability first, then weigh the value of a small, home-like setting as a meaningful secondary benefit.





Comprehensive Insights into Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and Their Assessment
Medicare Coverage for Assisted Living: An In-Depth Exploration
Choosing the Right Senior Care: A Detailed Exploration of Assisted Living and Nursing Homes