Retirement communities, continuing care · New York

Good Shepherd Village at Endwell

Endwell, NY · ~176 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
9.6
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Good Shepherd Village at Endwell runs at 252% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Retirement communities, continuing care workplace, earning a grade F.

Good Shepherd Village at Endwell: 9.6 TCR = 252% of Retirement communities, continuing care BLS 3.8 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Good Shepherd Village at Endwell safety composite

Good Shepherd Village at Endwell scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 16%), 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).

F

31/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 9.59 per 100 workers

Safer than 32% of industry peers

DART rate
F 9.55 per 100 workers

Safer than 16% 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%).

TCR Δ

−0.8

2016→2024

Good Shepherd Village at Endwell injury rate improved

Good Shepherd Village at Endwell's TCR fell 0.8 from 10.3 in 2016 to 9.6 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 14.2 TCR. In 2024, DART was 1× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=10.3 · 2018=11.1 · 2020=11.5 · 2021=4.4 · 2022=6.1 · 2023=14.2 · 2024=9.6

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Endwell, NY ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 9.6 · 252% of ind

  • DART 9.6 DART
  • RANK #71/98
  • PHOTO The Ivy at Ellington
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 47 inj
  • SIZE ~176 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: The Ivy at Ellington (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Good Shepherd Village at Endwell in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Good Shepherd Village at Endwell averages 9.6 TCR (252% of the Retirement communities, continuing care BLS benchmark).

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

Good Shepherd Village at Endwell TCR series: 2016=10.3 · 2018=11.1 · 2020=11.5 · 2021=4.4 · 2022=6.1 · 2023=14.2 · 2024=9.6 · BLS 3.8

Where Good Shepherd Village at Endwell falls in its industry

4,127 Retirement communities, contin establishments

Safer than 32% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New York alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #71 safest of 98 Retirement communities, contin employers in New York.

Good Shepherd Village at Endwell (176 employees, TCR 9.6) 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 Good Shepherd Village at Endwell
Good Shepherd Village at Endwell (176 employees, TCR 9.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Good Shepherd Village at Endwell has more employees than the Retirement communities, continuing care median and a higher 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 9.6 9.6 3 9 0
2023 14.2 14.2 3 14 0
2022 6.1 3.8 7 1 0
2021 4.4 4.4 4 1 0
2020 11.5 8.8 10 3 0
2018 11.1 9.8 9 0 0
2016 10.3 8.4 11 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · NY · Endwell

4,127 Retirement communities, continuing care employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 21,008 rated employers in New York with headcount on file · 10 employers in Endwell, NY · 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 The Ivy at Ellington 9.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR ALLEN PLACE 9.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Arden Courts of Annandale 9.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Silverado Bellingham - 464 9.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Walden (formerly Ampac Paper LLC) 176 FTE
STATE-SIZE Duro Dyne New York 176 FTE
STATE-SIZE BMW of Manhattan 176 FTE
STATE-SIZE GlacierPoint Bronx 176 FTE
CITY-NEAR Binghamton 1,670 FTE
CITY-NEAR Town of Union 160 FTE
CITY-NEAR 217 145 FTE
CITY-NEAR Southern Tier Insulations 101 FTE
NAT-TCR E & B PAVING LLC - Bridge 9.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Amazon.com Services LLC - DUR3 9.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Amazon.com Services LLC - DMI6 9.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Neutron Products, Inc. 9.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Jupiter Bach 176 FTE
NAT-SIZE CHRISTUS Mother Frances Hospital Tyler - EVS 176 FTE
NAT-SIZE 2505-Marriott Teaneck 176 FTE
NAT-SIZE Ply-Gem Variform 176 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, 2018, 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.