Third Way Ctr in Denver, CO

Senior living communities with a similar price nearby

• from -$160 / mo

  Newland House

  5 from 10 reviews

  $4,800 to $5,300 / month

  11.1 miles away
• from -$960 / mo

  Classic Living Homes, Inc.

  4.9 from 15 reviews

  $4,000 to $4,500 / month

  21.2 miles away
• from -$760 / mo

  Loving Care Assisted Living Services LLC

  4.8 from 23 reviews

  $4,200 / month

  9.8 miles away
• from +$240 / mo

  Serenity House Assisted Living Portland Drive

  4.8 from 16 reviews

  $5,200 to $6,500 / month

  10.6 miles away
• from +$240 / mo

  Serenity House Assisted Living Hunters Hill

  4.8 from 11 reviews

  $5,200 to $6,500 / month

  11.7 miles away

Pros

• The staff are among the most caring people, truly caring about the kids.
• Third Way helps many kids reach where they want to be, with staff who push them to be their best and help them work through their challenges.
• The staff are good people who care about the kids, aiming for their best even when they’re tough.
• Third Way Lincoln has helped residents for years, with caring and understanding staff and therapists who keep them accountable.
• Third Way helped a nephew graduate high school and stay off drugs, teaching him to make better decisions and manage his life.
• People are grateful to Third Way for teaching young people how to succeed in life.

Cons

• They describe the facility as abusive and controlling, with staff abusing their power.
• They claim residents are starved, insulin is withheld, and staff lie to get their way.
• They say the staff are rude and terrorize children by weaponizing their trauma.
• They state the facility offers little real independence, with phone use controlled and passwords required.
• They allege theft by staff, including stealing a phone and money from residents.
• They consider the place worse than a juvenile system facility or halfway house, with excessive distress and little freedom.

Review

This community is best suited for families seeking a highly structured, accountability-driven program for older youth, particularly those with juvenile-system involvement or pronounced behavioral challenges who respond to clear boundaries and measurable progress. The reviews consistently highlight caring staff and therapists who push residents to confront their issues and build real-life skills. When functioning as intended, the program appears to deliver tangible outcomes: graduates who finish high school, acquire resumes, secure employment, and move into their own living arrangements. For families willing to endure a demanding environment in exchange for concrete life skills and demonstrable progress, Third Way Center can be a catalyst for lasting change.

At the same time, serious caveats require attention. Some reviewers urge caution for families seeking a more autonomous, nonrestrictive, or gently therapeutic approach. A subset of comments describe a climate that feels punitive or controlling, with reports of power imbalances, limited personal freedoms, and intense oversight. In particular, criticisms directed at the Lincoln location emphasize what some families view as coercive dynamics, including restrictions on phone use and other personal rights. These accounts suggest alternatives may be worth exploring for youth who may not thrive under strict, high-control protocols or who have safety concerns about staff behavior.

The strongest positives, staff who care deeply, a culture of accountability, and a focus on practical outcomes, can meaningfully offset the tougher elements for the right participant. Dedicated clinicians and residential staff are repeatedly praised for their commitment, willingness to push residents toward improvement, and ability to connect on a human level. For youths who want structure as a platform for growth, the combination of firm expectations, consistent accountability, and targeted life-skills coaching (resume writing, budgeting, job readiness) can translate into real, self-sustaining gains after placement ends. In such cases, the program’s outcomes, graduation, work readiness, and independent living, carry significant weight.

Yet the cons cannot be dismissed. The most troubling reports describe environments that feel coercive or punitive, with residents recounting severe restrictions on communication, curtailment of autonomy, or even experiences that resemble harsh disciplinary practices. Instances of alleged mistreatment or neglect, ranging from restricted meals or personal liberties to accusations of manipulation and abuse, underscore the risk that some youths may experience the program as damaging rather than transformative. These allegations, while not universal across all reviews, create a serious safety and trust deficit for families evaluating options, particularly when the facility is perceived as having inconsistent safeguards or oversight.

Practical decisions should hinge on a careful assessment of fit. Prospective families should prioritize direct observations and candid conversations: what is the day-to-day routine, how are boundaries enforced, what is the target for independence by graduation, and how does aftercare look? Ask about staff turnover, individual treatment plans, and how residents’ voices are heard within the program. Investigate licensing, complaint histories, and how safety concerns are addressed. Clarify how medical needs, such as diabetes or other chronic conditions, are managed, and verify that any concerns about coercive practices are promptly reviewed by licensing or independent oversight bodies. A proactive, information-rich visit is essential.

Ultimately, Third Way Center presents a stark dichotomy: a high-pidelity, outcome-focused program with deeply caring staff and a track record of meaningful life gains, versus a climate some families perceive as overly controlling or abusive. For families prioritizing clear accountability, tangible skills, and a proven pathway to independent living, the positives may justify the potential downsides. For those who prize autonomy, safety, and a consistently non-punitive treatment style, this option should be weighed against alternatives that emphasize gentler approaches and broader youth-centered supports. The decision hinges on the youth’s temperament, the family’s tolerance for intensity, and the degree to which lasting independence is the primary objective.