Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities · Massachusetts

Concord Park

Concord, MA · ~64 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
17.4
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Concord Park runs at 459% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities workplace, earning a grade F.

Concord Park: 17.4 TCR = 459% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Concord Park safety composite

Concord Park scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 84% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 8%), 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).

D

45/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 17.44 per 100 workers

Safer than 8% 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

−32.0

2016→2024

Concord Park injury rate improved

Concord Park's TCR fell 32.0 from 32.0 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 37.2 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=32.0 · 2017=6.0 · 2018=10.3 · 2019=11.8 · 2020=19.9 · 2021=26.4 · 2022=37.2 · 2023=13.3 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Concord, MA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 17.4 · 459% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #191/210
  • PHOTO B-X Yarmouth LLC
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 36 inj
  • SIZE ~64 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: B-X Yarmouth LLC (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Concord Park in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Concord Park averages 17.4 TCR (459% 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

Concord Park TCR series: 2016=32 · 2017=6 · 2018=10.3 · 2019=11.8 · 2020=19.9 · 2021=26.4 · 2022=37.2 · 2023=13.3 · 2024=0 · BLS 3.8

Where Concord Park falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 8% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Massachusetts alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #191 safest of 210 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Massachusetts.

Concord Park (64 employees, TCR 17.4) 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 Concord Park
Concord Park (64 employees, TCR 17.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Concord Park has more employees than the Assisted-living facilities without on-si median and a higher 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 13.3 13.3 1 5 0
2022 37.2 37.2 0 13 0
2021 26.4 26.4 1 12 0
2020 19.9 18.3 6 6 0
2019 11.8 11.8 5 1 0
2018 10.3 6.2 5 0 0
2017 6.0 6.0 3 0 0
2016 32.0 2.0 15 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · MA · Concord

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,108 rated employers in Massachusetts with headcount on file · 20 employers in Concord, MA · 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 B-X Yarmouth LLC 17.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR SGSARA-SLMS-SG SARASOTA 17.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR HSRE PACIFICA HILLSBOROUGH 17.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Rockbridge Oaks 17.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE System 7 Wolfers, Inc.-Beverly Office 64 FTE
STATE-SIZE kleeberg Mechanical Services LLC 64 FTE
STATE-SIZE William F. Lynch Co., Inc. 64 FTE
STATE-SIZE Industrial Transfer & Storage, Inc. 64 FTE
CITY-NEAR Emerson Hospital 1,870 FTE
CITY-NEAR Newbury Court Retiement Community 310 FTE
CITY-NEAR National Grape Cooperative - Welch's Corporate 250 FTE
CITY-NEAR Minute Man Arc for Human Services, Inc. 216 FTE
NAT-TCR Sandborn Tree Service, Inc 17.4 TCR
NAT-TCR 24 - Mason City 17.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Hillsides YMO 17.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Jolley Acres HealthCare Center 17.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Lexington Facility 64 FTE
NAT-SIZE Stark Truss Co., Inc. Washington Courthouse, OH 64 FTE
NAT-SIZE Koppers Millington Operations 64 FTE
NAT-SIZE DT 64 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.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.