Continuing care retirement communities · Michigan

Covenant Living at the Great Lakes

Grand Rapids, MI · ~197 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
4.0
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Covenant Living at the Great Lakes runs at 106% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Continuing care retirement communities workplace, earning a grade C.

Covenant Living at the Great Lakes: 4.0 TCR = 106% of Continuing care retirement communities BLS 3.8 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Covenant Living at the Great Lakes safety composite

Covenant Living at the Great Lakes scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 77% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 51%), 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

65/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 4.03 per 100 workers

Safer than 77% of industry peers

DART rate
C 2.42 per 100 workers

Safer than 60% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% 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%).

Covenant Living at the Great Lakes held a steady TCR band

Covenant Living at the Great Lakes's TCR held near 0.2 from 2.6 in 2021 to 2.4 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 6.8 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.6× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2021=2.6 · 2022=6.8 · 2023=4.3 · 2024=2.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Grand Rapids, MI ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade C · TCR 4.0 · 106% of ind

  • DART 2.4 DART
  • RANK #18/97
  • PHOTO Legend of Hutchinson
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 18 inj
  • SIZE ~197 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Legend of Hutchinson (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Covenant Living at the Great Lakes in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Covenant Living at the Great Lakes averages 4.0 TCR (106% of the Continuing care retirement communities BLS benchmark).

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

Covenant Living at the Great Lakes TCR series: 2021=2.6 · 2022=6.8 · 2023=4.3 · 2024=2.4 · BLS 3.8

Where Covenant Living at the Great Lakes falls in its industry

4,127 Continuing care retirement com establishments

Safer than 77% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #18 safest of 97 Continuing care retirement com employers in Michigan.

Covenant Living at the Great Lakes (197 employees, TCR 4.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9 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 050100150200250 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Covenant Living at the Great Lakes
Covenant Living at the Great Lakes (197 employees, TCR 4.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Covenant Living at the Great Lakes has more employees than the Continuing care retirement communities median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 6.9. 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 2.4 2.4 3 0 0
2023 4.3 4.3 5 0 0
2022 6.8 6.8 7 0 0
2021 2.6 0.9 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · MI · Grand Rapids

4,127 Continuing care retirement communities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 1,006 employers in Grand Rapids, MI · 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 Legend of Hutchinson 4.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Pittsfield Manor 4.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR The Grove of Toledo 4.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Vickie Berry 4.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Michigan Regional Office - Bahou 197 FTE
STATE-SIZE ITC Operations-219 197 FTE
STATE-SIZE Westlake Pipe & Fittings 197 FTE
STATE-SIZE Rayconnect Inc. 197 FTE
CITY-NEAR SHHG-GR BUTTERWORTH CA 9,012 FTE
CITY-NEAR SH Butterworth Hospital 7,397 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mercy Health Saint Mary's Hospital-MH-MI 2,914 FTE
CITY-NEAR Steelcase - Grand Rapids / Kentwood 2,817 FTE
NAT-TCR Rifenburg North Carolina, LLC 4.0 TCR
NAT-TCR 6407 Mayaguez 4.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Oahu 4.0 TCR
NAT-TCR 4654 Waynesboro 4.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE Metalcraft of Mayville 197 FTE
NAT-SIZE Fill-Rite Company (FTW) 197 FTE
NAT-SIZE Raid Admin 197 FTE
NAT-SIZE Foss Energy Services 197 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. 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.