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

CSL Techridge 2018, LLC

Austin, TX · ~67 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
14.0
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

CSL Techridge 2018, LLC runs at 369% 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.

CSL Techridge 2018, LLC: 14.0 TCR = 369% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

CSL Techridge 2018, LLC safety composite

CSL Techridge 2018, LLC scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 59% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 15%), 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

39/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 14.01 per 100 workers

Safer than 15% of industry peers

DART rate
C 2.24 per 100 workers

Safer than 59% 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

−237.9

2021→2024

CSL Techridge 2018, LLC injury rate improved

CSL Techridge 2018, LLC's TCR fell 237.9 from 242.4 in 2021 to 4.5 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2021 at 242.4 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.16× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2021=242.4 · 2022=30.7 · 2023=6.9 · 2024=4.5

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Austin, TX ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 14.0 · 369% of ind

  • DART 2.2 DART
  • RANK #426/470
  • PHOTO Brookdale Clarksville
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 12 inj
  • SIZE ~67 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Brookdale Clarksville (0.0 TCR gap)

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

CSL Techridge 2018, LLC in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows CSL Techridge 2018, LLC averages 14.0 TCR (369% 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

CSL Techridge 2018, LLC TCR series: 2021=242.4 · 2022=30.7 · 2023=6.9 · 2024=4.5 · BLS 3.8

Where CSL Techridge 2018, LLC falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 15% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Texas alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #426 safest of 470 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Texas.

CSL Techridge 2018, LLC (67 employees, TCR 14.0) 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 CSL Techridge 2018, LLC
CSL Techridge 2018, LLC (67 employees, TCR 14.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

CSL Techridge 2018, LLC 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 4.5 2.2 2 0 0
2023 6.9 4.6 3 0 0
2022 30.7 20.4 6 0 0
2021 242.4 0.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · TX · Austin

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 38,394 rated employers in Texas with headcount on file · 1,645 employers in Austin, TX · 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 Brookdale Clarksville 14.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Canopy Oaks 14.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookstone Estates of Effingham 14.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Auberge at Naperville 14.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Complex 2 67 FTE
STATE-SIZE Post Recycling 67 FTE
STATE-SIZE PT ARTH SABINE 67 FTE
STATE-SIZE Tolar - Northern District 67 FTE
CITY-NEAR Ensign Services 11,325 FTE
CITY-NEAR NA-US-TX-Austin-Giga Texas 8,621 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6017-Loc: CORP LOC - US Austin 6,911 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6017-CORP LOC - USA UNITED STATES - AST 5,272 FTE
NAT-TCR Epic Daytona 14.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Hillcrest Heights Healthcare Center 14.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Trulieve Tampa DC 14.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Trestlewood Blackfoot 14.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE 6221 Lisbon 67 FTE
NAT-SIZE Sugar Foods Corporation- Lithia Springs 67 FTE
NAT-SIZE Nyu Downstein 67 FTE
NAT-SIZE 4748 Omak 67 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.