Overall sentiment: The reviews present a mixed but strongly polarized picture of Excell Center. A substantial portion of reviewers describe very positive, formative experiences — calling their time there the "best experience of childhood," praising specific staff members by name (Opal, Mr. Dahlgren, Sandy, Danny, Jesse), and highlighting home-like features such as the town house setting, Linwood and Smith houses, a pool, and animal interactions (notably "Wilbur the pig"). These reviewers emphasize gratitude toward staff, memorable social experiences, and meaningful learning. At the same time, several reviews raise serious safety and maintenance concerns: reports of fights and bullying, staff failing to intervene during altercations, and descriptions of the place as "run down" or "very nasty." Because of these opposing clusters of sentiment, the overall picture is inconsistent — many former residents remember Excell Center very fondly, while others report troubling episodes that impacted their experience.
Staff and care quality: Staff are one of the clearest dividing lines in the reviews. Numerous reviewers offer effusive praise for staff and individual employees, crediting them with transformative, supportive care. Specific names are called out (Opal and Mr. Dahlgren) and multiple reviewers use words like "great staff," "great employees," and express personal gratitude. Conversely, multiple accounts describe staff inaction during fights or bullying; reviewers explicitly state that staff "did nothing to stop" incidents or "failed to intervene." These conflicting reports indicate uneven staff performance or situational lapses in supervision and de-escalation. The pattern suggests strong individual caregivers are present, but there may be inconsistencies in training, staffing levels, or incident response protocols that leave some residents feeling unsafe.
Safety, behavior, and incident handling: A recurring negative theme is safety. Several summaries mention physical fights and bullying, and some reviews say staff failed to stop these incidents. Related consequences reported include being "written up" after an incident and feeling "stuck longer" at the facility as a result. A few remarks use very strong language — "place is criminal" — signaling serious dissatisfaction and perhaps trauma from negative events. These comments point to the need for clearer, more consistent behavior management and incident-response practices. The presence of bullying and fights, combined with perceived staff inaction, is likely the most significant concern emerging from the reviews and is a key factor differentiating positive from negative experiences.
Facilities, upkeep, and environment: Positive references to the physical environment include descriptions of homelike houses (town house, Linwood, Smith) and amenities such as a pool, along with animal-related activities that some residents valued. At the same time, several reviewers describe the property as "ran down," with "bad upkeep" and in "poor condition" compared with its past. These maintenance concerns can affect residents' daily quality of life and may contribute to perceptions of neglect or poor management. The conflicting comments suggest that some houses or time periods were well-kept and pleasant while others suffered from deterioration.
Activities, social life, and therapeutic elements: Many reviewers emphasize meaningful social interactions and activities. Animal contact (Wilbur the pig mentioned specifically) and a group-home, home-like setting appear to have contributed to positive developmental experiences for several residents. Reviewers who had good experiences repeatedly mention learning a lot, making good memories, and feeling the environment was supportive and fun. There are no explicit mentions of dining services or clinical therapies in the provided summaries, so no reliable conclusions can be drawn about those aspects from this dataset.
Management and variability: Several reviews name managers or long-standing staff (Opal, Mr. Dahlgren) positively, indicating that leadership and particular employees can have a strong beneficial impact. However, the variability across reviews — from "best experience" to "very nasty" and allegations of criminality — suggests inconsistent oversight or widely varying experiences between houses or time periods. Some dwellings are singled out positively (Smith house as "the best"), implying inter-house differences in culture, staffing, or maintenance.
Patterns and implications: The most prominent pattern is polarization: many reviewers have strongly positive recollections centered on caring staff, animals, and a home-like environment, while a smaller but significant group reports safety incidents, poor staff response, and facility deterioration. Missing details in these summaries include specifics about medical care, dining, staff-to-resident ratios, or formal clinical programming, so assessment in those areas is limited. Based on the reviews, priority areas for improvement would likely be strengthening incident response and behavior management, standardizing staff training across houses, and addressing maintenance problems to reduce physical deterioration that undermines residents' experiences.
Summary conclusion: Excell Center appears to have an environment capable of providing highly positive, formative experiences when staffed and maintained well; however, the facility also shows signs of inconsistency, with reports of fights, staff inaction, and poor upkeep that have negatively affected some residents. Prospective residents or families should weigh the strong positive testimonials and personal praise for named staff against the documented safety and maintenance concerns, and ask the facility about current staffing, training, incident protocols, and house-specific conditions before making decisions.
