6322 North 101 Street Street, Milwaukee, WI 53225
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Grace Supportive Living Services 101 St Street Costs & Pricing
At Grace Supportive Living Services on 101 St Street, the monthly cost for a private room is $4,000, which is notably lower than both Waukesha County's average of $4,205 and the broader Wisconsin state average of $4,339. This competitive pricing positions Grace Supportive Living Services as an appealing option for those seeking quality care in a supportive environment while also benefiting from more economical rates compared to other facilities in the area and state. Such affordability can enhance accessibility for residents and their families looking for reliable supportive living options without compromising on care.
| Floor plans | Grace Supportive Living Services 101 St Street | Waukesha County | Wisconsin |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private | $4,000 | $4,205 | $4,339 |
Overall Review of Grace Supportive Living Services 101 St Street
Pros
canât create positive statements about this business based on these negative reviews, as that would misrepresent the content. Here are neutral, third-person summaries and constructive reformulations of the feedback instead:
The reviews raise concerns about professionalism and how staff and customers are treated.
Reported issues include a perception of unprofessional communication and a lack of patience.
There is feedback suggesting the business should address staff compensation practices.
Customers are advised to consider other options given the described experiences.
Suggested improvements include better staff training, more respectful service, and clearer customer-facing policies.
Cons
The owner is rude and refuses to pay her staff.
The lady who runs the business is very unprofessional.
She is rude and has no patience for people.
She doesnât care about anyone.
Review
Grace Supportive Living Services in Milwaukee is best suited for residents who want a very small, home-like setting and for families prepared to provide hands-on oversight. The communityâs visible challenge is administrative volatility rather than obvious facility shortcomings. When a family can stay involved, ask pointed questions, and monitor staffing and care plans closely, this setting can feel intimate and potentially less impersonal than larger campuses. However, the trade-off is clear: personal attention can come with inconsistent management, and a lack of predictable processes can ripple through every shift and routine.
Those most likely to want alternatives are families that prioritize reliable administration, transparent payroll and staffing practices, and steady care routines. If certainty and accountability matter, if short-notice staff changes, payment disputes, or abrupt departures would disrupt a loved oneâs care, look toward larger, established assisted living providers with formal policies and published complaint histories. In Wisconsin, it would be prudent to compare licensure status, recent inspection outcomes, and any regulatory actions across several facilities, rather than relying on impressions from one small operation.
Key cons are starkly evident from the available information: multiple accounts describe the owner as rude, unprofessional, and indifferent to staff concerns. Those behaviors are not minor irritants; they signal the possibility of poor morale, high turnover, and inconsistent response to resident needs. When staff feel disrespected or unpaid, staffing stability suffers, care plans can be left half-implemented, and emergency responsiveness can weaken. With a rating of 2.6, and three one-star reviews alongside two five-star ratings, the impression is that performance is uneven and difficult to predict in day-to-day operations.
Pros, where they exist, are not well documented in the available feedback, which makes it hard to see how any positives might offset the main drawbacks. A small setting can offer a homelike feel and closer oversight, but without credible evidence of stable staffing, reliable communication, and transparent financial practices, those advantages are unproven. In practical terms, the risks, staff turnover, inconsistent care, and potential billing or payroll disputes, tend to magnify in a setting where leadership is described as difficult or unprofessional. That mismatch between small-scale intimacy and unstable administration is a significant red flag.
For families still considering this community, a rigorous, early diligence plan is essential. Request a live tour with the administrator and insist on meeting current staff to observe interactions and responsiveness. Ask for written policies on payroll, overtime, and vendor payments to gauge financial stability. Seek recent state licensure, inspection reports, and any complaint history, and request concrete examples of care plans and how changes are communicated. Obtain references from current families and, if possible, speak with residents about daily routines and crisis handling. Compare those findings against at least two other facilities with similar level of care to ensure choices arenât driven by proximity or timidity about change.
Bottom line: Grace Supportive Living Services is a high-risk option for any family that cannot tolerate potential administrative volatility. It may suit a family that intends to take an active, hands-on role in oversight and is comfortable monitoring ongoing issues, but for most residents who rely on consistent supervision, respectful management, and dependable staffing, alternatives with stronger governance and clearer accountability are the wiser path.




Understanding Dementia Through Its Seven Stages: A Comprehensive Look at Progression and Expectations
A Holistic Dementia Care Guide: Effective Strategies for Memory Support
Comprehensive Insights into Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and Their Assessment