Residential property managing · Minnesota

Great Lakes Management Laurel Village

Minneapolis, MN · ~20 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.6
Avg TCR
1.4
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Great Lakes Management Laurel Village runs at 41% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Residential property managing workplace, earning a grade A.

Great Lakes Management Laurel Village: 0.6 TCR = 41% of Residential property managing BLS 1.4 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Great Lakes Management Laurel Village safety composite

Great Lakes Management Laurel Village scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 95% 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).

B

79/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0.58 per 100 workers

Safer than 95% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 80% 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%).

Great Lakes Management Laurel Village held a steady TCR band

Great Lakes Management Laurel Village's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.0 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2019 at 4.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=0.0 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=4.6 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 531311 · Minneapolis, MN AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 0.6 · 41% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #2/26
  • PHOTO PRI
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 1 inj
  • SIZE ~20 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: PRI (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Great Lakes Management Laurel Village in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Great Lakes Management Laurel Village averages 0.6 TCR (41% of the Residential property managing BLS benchmark).

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

Great Lakes Management Laurel Village TCR series: 2017=0 · 2018=0 · 2019=4.6 · 2020=0 · 2021=0 · 2022=0 · 2023=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 1.4

Where Great Lakes Management Laurel Village falls in its industry

500 Residential property managing establishments

Safer than 95% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #2 safest of 26 Residential property managing employers in Minnesota.

Great Lakes Management Laurel Village (20 employees, TCR 0.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 71 employees and a TCR of 4.5 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 02004006008001,000 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Great Lakes Management Laurel Village
Great Lakes Management Laurel Village (20 employees, TCR 0.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 71 employees and a TCR of 4.5

Great Lakes Management Laurel Village has fewer employees than the Residential property managing median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.5. 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 4.6 4.6 1 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

531311 · MN · Minneapolis

500 Residential property managing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 1,321 employers in Minneapolis, MN · 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 PRI 0.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR StoryPoint Novi 0.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Corporate 0.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Concord Management of NY LLC 0.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE C74 20 FTE
STATE-SIZE MNSGA-SEL-SELECT GENETICS ADMIN' 20 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bees Minnesota 20 FTE
STATE-SIZE Glyndon 20 FTE
CITY-NEAR University of Minnesota Twin Cities 22,522 FTE
CITY-NEAR MN950 MN TELECOMMUTER 12,021 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0501 - City Center 8,459 FTE
CITY-NEAR Hennepin County Medical Center 7,030 FTE
NAT-TCR AN Tipp City Ohio 0.6 TCR
NAT-TCR DPR Construction - Southern California 0.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Aerojet Rocketdyne - Stennis 0.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Corp 701 0.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Farm 20 FTE
NAT-SIZE Wire Division 20 FTE
NAT-SIZE FERMA Newark Shop 20 FTE
NAT-SIZE Patterson Ice Center LLC 20 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.