Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities · Connecticut

Sheltering Arms Residential

Norwich, CT · ~23 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
9.8
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Sheltering Arms Residential runs at 258% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities workplace, earning a grade F.

Sheltering Arms Residential: 9.8 TCR = 258% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Sheltering Arms Residential safety composite

Sheltering Arms Residential scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 6%), 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

27/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 9.82 per 100 workers

Safer than 31% of industry peers

DART rate
F 17.6 per 100 workers

Safer than 6% 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

Sheltering Arms Residential: 0.6 → 17.6 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 18.6 TCR · DART/TCR 1.79× in 2024

Sheltering Arms Residential's TCR rose 17.0 from 0.6 in 2016 to 17.6 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 18.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 1.79× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Norwich, CT ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 9.8 · 258% of ind

  • DART 17.6 DART
  • RANK #21/43
  • PHOTO The Springs at Sherw…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 8 inj
  • SIZE ~23 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: The Springs at Sherwood (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Sheltering Arms Residential in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Sheltering Arms Residential averages 9.8 TCR (258% of the Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS benchmark).

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

Sheltering Arms Residential TCR series: 2016=0.6 · 2017=18.3 · 2018=0 · 2019=13.3 · 2020=0 · 2021=13.6 · 2022=18.6 · 2023=6.4 · 2024=17.6 · BLS 3.8

Where Sheltering Arms Residential falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 31% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Connecticut alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #21 safest of 43 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Connecticut.

Sheltering Arms Residential (23 employees, TCR 9.8) 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 Sheltering Arms Residential
Sheltering Arms Residential (23 employees, TCR 9.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Sheltering Arms Residential has fewer employees than the Assisted-living facilities with on-site 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 17.6 17.6 1 2 0
2023 6.4 0.0 1 0 0
2022 18.6 18.6 0 3 0
2021 13.6 13.6 0 2 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 13.3 0.0 2 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 18.3 0.0 3 0 0
2016 0.6 0.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · CT · Norwich

4,127 Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,008 rated employers in Connecticut with headcount on file · 63 employers in Norwich, CT · 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 Springs at Sherwood 9.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Vista 9.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Homewood at Frederick MD, INC 9.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Rose Arbor and Wildflower Lodge 9.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE InnoConn Construction Management LLC 23 FTE
STATE-SIZE OWI Contractors, LLC 23 FTE
STATE-SIZE Andrew Ansaldi Company 23 FTE
STATE-SIZE Cocchiola Paving Inc 23 FTE
CITY-NEAR BACKUS HOSPITAL 1,819 FTE
CITY-NEAR The William W Backus Hospital 1,604 FTE
CITY-NEAR The Arc Eastern Connecticut 467 FTE
CITY-NEAR SNE Southern New England 329 FTE
NAT-TCR Grinnell 9.8 TCR
NAT-TCR The Springs at Sherwood 9.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Landscape (0704) 9.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Arborwood Lodge 9.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE 191 Woodlawn Ave. 23 FTE
NAT-SIZE CAM2 International, LLC 23 FTE
NAT-SIZE Store #83 23 FTE
NAT-SIZE Senior Center - Center 50+ 23 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, 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.