Skilled nursing facilities · California

Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home

San Francisco, CA · ~776 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
4.6
Avg TCR
6.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home runs at 70% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Skilled nursing facilities workplace, earning a grade B.

Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home: 4.6 TCR = 70% of Skilled nursing facilities BLS 6.5 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home safety composite

Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 69% 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

60/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 4.56 per 100 workers

Safer than 69% of industry peers

DART rate
C 2.98 per 100 workers

Safer than 55% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home: 3.4 → 4.3 TCR

Peak year 2020 @ 9.5 TCR · DART/TCR 0.65× in 2021

Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home's TCR rose 0.9 from 3.4 in 2016 to 4.3 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2020 at 9.5 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0.65× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623110 · San Francisco, CA AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade B · TCR 4.6 · 70% of ind

  • DART 3.0 DART
  • RANK #134/739
  • PHOTO MID WILSHIRE HEALTH …
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 194 inj
  • SIZE ~776 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: MID WILSHIRE HEALTH CARE CENTER (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home averages 4.6 TCR (70% of the Skilled nursing facilities BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-09-26

Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home TCR series: 2016=3.4 · 2017=3.1 · 2018=4.5 · 2019=2.5 · 2020=9.5 · 2021=4.3 · BLS 6.5

Where Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home falls in its industry

15,252 Skilled nursing facilities establishments

Safer than 69% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.6.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #134 safest of 739 Skilled nursing facilities employers in California.

Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home (776 employees, TCR 4.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 106 employees and a TCR of 6.6 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 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home
Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home (776 employees, TCR 4.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 106 employees and a TCR of 6.6

Hebrew Home of the Aged dba Jewish Home has more employees than the Skilled nursing facilities median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 6.6. 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 4.3 3.0 36 2 0
2020 9.5 8.3 44 39 0
2019 2.5 2.3 22 0 0
2018 4.5 4.0 39 0 0
2017 3.1 2.6 26 0 0
2016 3.4 2.3 27 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623110 · CA · San Francisco

15,252 Skilled nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 1,144 employers in San Francisco, CA · 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 MID WILSHIRE HEALTH CARE CENTER 4.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Manzanita Healthcare Center 4.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Meridian Lakewood 4.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Life Care Centers of Aurora 4.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE North America Fulfillment Centers (FCs) : LGB4 776 FTE
STATE-SIZE Amazon.com Services LLC - ONT1 776 FTE
STATE-SIZE Wawanesa General Insurance Company 776 FTE
STATE-SIZE CMS Telstar 777 FTE
CITY-NEAR UC San Francisco 18,070 FTE
CITY-NEAR DoorDash, Inc. 12,430 FTE
CITY-NEAR UC San Francisco Health 12,262 FTE
CITY-NEAR SFO - Airport United Airlines Offices 11,622 FTE
NAT-TCR Illini Power Products 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR St Clair Plant 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Weaver Boatworks, Inc. 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Municipal & Contractors Sealing Products 4.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Mayo Medical Labs/Mayo Collaborative Services 776 FTE
NAT-SIZE T.RAD North America, Inc. 776 FTE
NAT-SIZE Dexcom, Inc Mesa, AZ 776 FTE
NAT-SIZE Comm HVAC NA and EMEA : MFG-Lexington, KY-USA 776 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.