Continuing care retirement communities · California

Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association

San Rafael, CA · ~84 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
11.8
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association runs at 312% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Continuing care retirement communities workplace, earning a grade F.

Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association: 11.8 TCR = 312% of Continuing care retirement communities BLS 3.8 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association safety composite

Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 9%), 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

24/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 11.85 per 100 workers

Safer than 21% of industry peers

DART rate
F 14.1 per 100 workers

Safer than 9% 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

Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association: 0.2 → 15.4 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 28.9 TCR · DART/TCR 1.19× in 2023

Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association's TCR rose 15.2 from 0.2 in 2017 to 15.4 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2022 at 28.9 TCR. In 2023, DART was 1.19× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · San Rafael, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 11.8 · 312% of ind

  • DART 14.1 DART
  • RANK #144/216
  • PHOTO JFH Management
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 63 inj
  • SIZE ~84 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: JFH Management (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association averages 11.8 TCR (312% of the Continuing care retirement communities BLS benchmark).

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

Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association TCR series: 2017=0.2 · 2018=0.1 · 2019=15 · 2020=9 · 2021=14.4 · 2022=28.9 · 2023=15.4 · BLS 3.8

Where Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association falls in its industry

4,127 Continuing care retirement com establishments

Safer than 21% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #144 safest of 216 Continuing care retirement com employers in California.

Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association (84 employees, TCR 11.8) 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 Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association
Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association (84 employees, TCR 11.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Smith Ranch Homes Homeowners' Association has more employees than the Continuing care retirement communities 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
2023 15.4 14.1 7 5 0
2022 28.9 27.5 10 10 0
2021 14.4 8.6 10 0 0
2020 9.0 6.0 6 0 0
2019 15.0 8.2 10 1 0
2018 0.1 0.1 6 0 0
2017 0.2 0.2 14 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · CA · San Rafael

4,127 Continuing care retirement communities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 115 employers in San Rafael, 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 JFH Management 11.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Grand JiVante 11.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR The Springs at Whitefish 11.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Bickford of Bexley 11.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE montalvo farms 84 FTE
STATE-SIZE Hansen Custom Farming, LLC 84 FTE
STATE-SIZE Hilarides Dairy 84 FTE
STATE-SIZE McIntyre Labor Service, LLC. 84 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2032-02121151 1,372 FTE
CITY-NEAR Bay Area Community Resources 1,180 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0206-02621151 1,007 FTE
CITY-NEAR 02821151 SAN RAFAEL HOSPITAL 834 FTE
NAT-TCR Les Schwab Tire Center-Post Falls 11.8 TCR
NAT-TCR LivGenerations Agritopia 11.8 TCR
NAT-TCR HG1030 11.8 TCR
NAT-TCR GP Cleanout (Loretto) 11.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE East Side Jersey Dairy 84 FTE
NAT-SIZE Cornerstone 84 FTE
NAT-SIZE Wildwood Linen Service 84 FTE
NAT-SIZE Parts Authority Rockville Centre 84 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: 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.