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

Fountain View of Portage

Portage, MI · ~34 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
7.5
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Fountain View of Portage runs at 196% 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.

Fountain View of Portage: 7.5 TCR = 196% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Fountain View of Portage safety composite

Fountain View of Portage scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 31%), 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

43/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 7.46 per 100 workers

Safer than 48% of industry peers

DART rate
F 5.9 per 100 workers

Safer than 31% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Fountain View of Portage: 3.7 → 5.9 TCR

Peak year 2017 @ 19.2 TCR · DART/TCR 0.79× in 2021

Fountain View of Portage's TCR rose 2.2 from 3.7 in 2016 to 5.9 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2017 at 19.2 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0.79× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Portage, MI ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 7.5 · 196% of ind

  • DART 5.9 DART
  • RANK #117/201
  • PHOTO Bethesda North Pointe
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 10 inj
  • SIZE ~34 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Bethesda North Pointe (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Fountain View of Portage in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Fountain View of Portage averages 7.5 TCR (196% 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

Fountain View of Portage TCR series: 2016=3.7 · 2017=19.2 · 2018=12.2 · 2019=3.7 · 2020=0 · 2021=5.9 · BLS 3.8

Where Fountain View of Portage falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 48% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #117 safest of 201 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Michigan.

Fountain View of Portage (34 employees, TCR 7.5) 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 Fountain View of Portage
Fountain View of Portage (34 employees, TCR 7.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Fountain View of Portage has fewer 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
2021 5.9 5.9 1 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 3.7 3.7 1 0 0
2018 12.2 4.1 3 0 0
2017 19.2 14.4 4 0 0
2016 3.7 3.7 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · MI · Portage

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 136 employers in Portage, 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 Bethesda North Pointe 7.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR WILLOWS WHITNEY PLACE MEDWAY 7.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Central 7.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Fort Collins 7.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE GS Ashley LLC 34 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sportel Greenhouses, LLC 34 FTE
STATE-SIZE Coldwater 34 FTE
STATE-SIZE Dearborn Industrial Generation LLC 34 FTE
CITY-NEAR Stryker Instruments - 1941 2,914 FTE
CITY-NEAR Stryker Medical 2,059 FTE
CITY-NEAR Summit Polymers, Inc. 1,619 FTE
CITY-NEAR Stryker Corporation Shared Services 768 FTE
NAT-TCR PrairieLand Partners - Winfield 7.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Ridout - Door 7.5 TCR
NAT-TCR CAC 7.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Staples FC Lithia Springs GA 7.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE 4769-328-Pottery Barn 34 FTE
NAT-SIZE Southwest Specialty Coatings Inc. 34 FTE
NAT-SIZE 4769-6094-West Elm 34 FTE
NAT-SIZE 4769-6255-Williams Sonoma 34 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: 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.