Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities · North Carolina

Spring Arbor of Greensboro

Greensboro, NC · ~75 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
8.7
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Spring Arbor of Greensboro runs at 228% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities workplace, earning a grade F.

Spring Arbor of Greensboro: 8.7 TCR = 228% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Spring Arbor of Greensboro safety composite

Spring Arbor of Greensboro scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 39%), 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).

D

44/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 8.66 per 100 workers

Safer than 39% of industry peers

DART rate
D 4 per 100 workers

Safer than 44% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% 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

−10.2

2022→2024

Spring Arbor of Greensboro injury rate improved

Spring Arbor of Greensboro's TCR fell 10.2 from 14.2 in 2022 to 4.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 14.2 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.46× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2022=14.2 · 2023=7.8 · 2024=4.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Greensboro, NC ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 8.7 · 228% of ind

  • DART 4.0 DART
  • RANK #256/356
  • PHOTO Crest View Manor
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 19 inj
  • SIZE ~75 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Crest View Manor (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Spring Arbor of Greensboro in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Spring Arbor of Greensboro averages 8.7 TCR (228% of the Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS benchmark).

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

Spring Arbor of Greensboro TCR series: 2022=14.2 · 2023=7.8 · 2024=4 · BLS 3.8

Where Spring Arbor of Greensboro falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 39% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #256 safest of 356 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in North Carolina.

Spring Arbor of Greensboro (75 employees, TCR 8.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2 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 0100200300 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Spring Arbor of Greensboro
Spring Arbor of Greensboro (75 employees, TCR 8.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Spring Arbor of Greensboro has more employees than the Assisted-living facilities without on-si median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 7.2. 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 4.0 4.0 3 0 0
2023 7.8 7.8 6 0 0
2022 14.2 7.1 10 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · NC · Greensboro

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 920 employers in Greensboro, NC · 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 Crest View Manor 8.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Reynolda Road 8.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Spring AL MC Care Properties, LLC 8.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR 2248-63045 8.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE FARM 75 FTE
STATE-SIZE AGRICULTURAL-FARMING 75 FTE
STATE-SIZE Electric Systems 75 FTE
STATE-SIZE D.R. Horton, Inc. - Raleigh South 75 FTE
CITY-NEAR MHCMH-Cone-Moses H Cone Memorial Hospital 3,806 FTE
CITY-NEAR Guilford County Local Government - All Employees 3,270 FTE
CITY-NEAR Guilford County Local Government 3,194 FTE
CITY-NEAR NCGRE - GREENSBORO HUB 2,447 FTE
NAT-TCR Woodstock Il - 3191 8.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Central Transport - 782 8.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Bolingbrook Il - 3508 8.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Autism Learning Partners SLA-WLA 8.7 TCR
NAT-SIZE Motogistics Logistics Inc 75 FTE
NAT-SIZE Highland Glen 75 FTE
NAT-SIZE Citizens Logistics LLC 75 FTE
NAT-SIZE Concord California 75 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.