Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities · North Carolina

Alamance House

Burlington, NC · ~59 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.9
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Alamance House runs at 129% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities workplace, earning a grade D.

Alamance House: 4.9 TCR = 129% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Alamance House safety composite

Alamance House scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 84% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 50%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

C

70/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 4.89 per 100 workers

Safer than 69% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 84% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

TCR Δ

−3.6

2016→2024

Alamance House injury rate improved

Alamance House's TCR fell 3.6 from 6.5 in 2016 to 2.9 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2020 at 10.5 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=6.5 · 2017=4.1 · 2018=3.7 · 2019=7.0 · 2020=10.5 · 2021=7.0 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=2.3 · 2024=2.9

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Burlington, NC ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 4.9 · 129% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #134/356
  • PHOTO Ranch Estates of Sco…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 21 inj
  • SIZE ~59 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Ranch Estates of Scottsdale (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · North Carolina employers → · Look up another →

Alamance House in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Alamance House averages 4.9 TCR (129% of the Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Alamance House TCR series: 2016=6.5 · 2017=4.1 · 2018=3.7 · 2019=7 · 2020=10.5 · 2021=7 · 2022=0 · 2023=2.3 · 2024=2.9 · BLS 3.8

Where Alamance House falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 69% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #134 safest of 356 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in North Carolina.

Alamance House (59 employees, TCR 4.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 0100200300 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Alamance House
Alamance House (59 employees, TCR 4.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Alamance House has more employees than the Assisted-living facilities without on-si median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 7.2. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 2.9 0.0 1 0 0
2023 2.3 2.3 1 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 7.0 0.0 3 0 0
2020 10.5 8.4 5 0 0
2019 7.0 1.8 4 0 0
2018 3.7 1.8 2 0 0
2017 4.1 4.1 2 0 0
2016 6.5 4.3 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · NC · Burlington

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 148 employers in Burlington, NC · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR Ranch Estates of Scottsdale 4.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Pine Haven Christian Home - Haven Drive Campus 4.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Revere Court of Portland 4.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Windsor Manor - Algona 4.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE The Christman Company - NC 59 FTE
STATE-SIZE Pike Mississippi Statewide Operations 59 FTE
STATE-SIZE Rifenburg North Carolina, LLC 59 FTE
STATE-SIZE North Carolina - 03 59 FTE
CITY-NEAR National OnDemand, Inc 511 FTE
CITY-NEAR Twin Lakes Community 410 FTE
CITY-NEAR York Road 398 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lutheran Retirement Ministries of Alamance County 373 FTE
NAT-TCR Marywood Heights 4.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Enterprise 5461 4.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Pine Haven Christian Home - Haven Drive Campus 4.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Die Co., Inc 4.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE ARS, a Tecta America Company, LLC. 59 FTE
NAT-SIZE Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation 59 FTE
NAT-SIZE McGriff Cullman Plant 59 FTE
NAT-SIZE CCSF, Animal Care & Control 59 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.

Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.

Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.