2618 North 27 Th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53210
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Care First II
Pros
The agency has professional, kind, and friendly staff, and respectful people who are eager to help.- They create a safe environment for all clients and employees.
- They welcome clients as they walk in.
- Honest First Personal Care Agency is a great company made up of very professional individuals who take pride in their work and treat everyone with respect and dignity.
Cons
They describe the hall rental venue as garbage.- They note there was no A/C inside despite 89-degree heat.
- They claim there were too many people, yet attendance was less than 100 and the thermostat was not on.
- They allege the agency steals money by paying on a monthly basis instead of every two weeks.
- They report transferring to another agency and waiting over a month for their last paycheck.
- They say the agency is unprofessional and loses documents.
- They describe the home care company as lousy, racially biased, unprofessional, unorganized, and unethical.
Review
Care First II in Milwaukee is best suited for families seeking in-home personal care with a soft-touch, provided there is strong external oversight and a willingness to demand accountability. The service may fit seniors who can tolerate sporadic administrative gaps but still value a respectful, on-site caregiving presence when staff are engaged. For anyone prioritizing consistent, transparent billing, predictable scheduling, and rock-solid reliability, alternatives are strongly advised. This is not a provider to trust blindly; it requires active governance by family members or a dedicated care manager who can press for clarity and discipline in operations.
Among the positives, some reviewers highlight professional, kind, and welcoming staff when they are on site, with an emphasis on creating a safe, respectful environment for clients. The perception of warmth and attentiveness can translate into meaningful daily interactions and genuine caregiver connections during visits. That light can shine brightly when the agency is functioning smoothly, suggesting that the core caregiving can be compassionate and competent even in a setting that otherwise presents significant administrative risk.
However, the drawbacks are severe enough to shape the overall value proposition in a decisively negative way. The most troubling themes center on financial and administrative integrity: reports of delayed pay cycles, a shift from biweekly to monthly payment practices, and persistent concerns about missing or mishandled documents. Additional reviews describe unprofessional, disorganized conduct and even accusations of unethical behavior. Allegations of racial bias further complicate trust, signaling a cultural and governance risk that may undermine the overall sense of safety and respect promised to families and residents.
These heavy cons serve to overwhelmingly offset the cited pros. A caregiver who is reliable and kind for a few visits is meaningful, but not at the expense of consistent, timely compensation, accurate record-keeping, and ethical stewardship of client funding. When visits can be interrupted by payroll disputes, or when vital documents go missing, the continuity and predictability of care become fragile. For seniors relying on dependable care schedules and clear, professional communication, the dissonance between on-site care quality and back-office dysfunction is a deal-breaker.
A practical decision framework helps families proceed with caution. If considering this provider, insist on a transparent, written billing policy with a guaranteed schedule (preferably biweekly) and explicit terms for any changes. Request contemporary references from several current clients, and verify that care plans, caregiver continuity, and escalation procedures are codified in a binding agreement. Require proof of licensing, ongoing compliance, and a formal process for handling complaints. Compare against other home-care agencies with reputations for billing discipline and documented, consistent caregiving, and, where appropriate, against assisted living communities that deliver integrated care and centralized administration.
In the end, Care First II warrants careful scrutiny and aggressive risk management. The positive impressions of responsive, caring staff cannot erase the impact of frequent financial missteps and administrative disarray. For families whose priority is steady scheduling, transparent billing, and uncompromised governance, pursuing alternatives is the prudent course. Consider other home-care options with track records of reliability, or shift attention to assisted living environments that couple on-site care with stronger administrative oversight, providing clearer governance, fewer opportunities for billing disputes, and a more predictable daily routine for residents.
4 resident community capacity
Assisted Living
Board and Care Home
Cable or satellite TV
Dining room
Fully furnished
Garden
Housekeeping services
Move-in coordination
Outdoor space
Telephone
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
General Mitchell International (9 miles away)
24-hour supervision
Activities of daily living assistance
Assistance with bathing
Assistance with dressing
Assistance with transfers
Diabetes diet
Meal preparation and service
Medication management
Special dietary restrictions
Transportation arrangement (medical)
Transportation to doctors appointments
Funding and Affording Assisted Living: A Thorough Overview
Assisted Living Expenses and Long-Term Care Insurance: A Comprehensive Exploration
Securing Financial Support for Assisted Living: A Comprehensive Overview