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

The Arbors at Chicopee

Chicopee, MA · ~70 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
12.4
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Arbors at Chicopee runs at 327% 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.

The Arbors at Chicopee: 12.4 TCR = 327% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Arbors at Chicopee safety composite

The Arbors at Chicopee scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 14%), 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

25/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 12.43 per 100 workers

Safer than 19% of industry peers

DART rate
F 10.61 per 100 workers

Safer than 14% 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

The Arbors at Chicopee: 2.7 → 10.6 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 42.1 TCR · DART/TCR 0.85× in 2024

The Arbors at Chicopee's TCR rose 7.9 from 2.7 in 2016 to 10.6 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 42.1 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.85× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Chicopee, MA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 12.4 · 327% of ind

  • DART 10.6 DART
  • RANK #61/80
  • PHOTO Terrace at the Chest…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 30 inj
  • SIZE ~70 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Terrace at the Chestnut Hill (0.0 TCR gap)

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

The Arbors at Chicopee in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows The Arbors at Chicopee averages 12.4 TCR (327% 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

The Arbors at Chicopee TCR series: 2016=2.7 · 2017=5.2 · 2018=15.4 · 2019=10.2 · 2020=5 · 2021=10.8 · 2022=42.1 · 2023=9.9 · 2024=10.6 · BLS 3.8

Where The Arbors at Chicopee falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 19% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Massachusetts alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #61 safest of 80 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Massachusetts.

The Arbors at Chicopee (70 employees, TCR 12.4) 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 The Arbors at Chicopee
The Arbors at Chicopee (70 employees, TCR 12.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

The Arbors at Chicopee has more 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 10.6 10.6 3 1 0
2023 9.9 4.9 2 2 0
2022 42.1 39.5 6 10 0
2021 10.8 5.4 4 0 0
2020 5.0 2.5 2 0 0
2019 10.2 7.6 4 0 0
2018 15.4 7.7 6 0 0
2017 5.2 5.2 2 0 0
2016 2.7 2.7 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · MA · Chicopee

4,127 Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,108 rated employers in Massachusetts with headcount on file · 104 employers in Chicopee, MA · 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 Terrace at the Chestnut Hill 12.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Silverado The Huntington - 227 12.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR NJ1531-BVSL-BV TENAFLY 12.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Lacey Creek Supportive Living 12.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE Holland Construction 70 FTE
STATE-SIZE Structures Derek International sa 70 FTE
STATE-SIZE Beacon Piping Co. Inc. 70 FTE
STATE-SIZE EAC 6280 North East Paving 70 FTE
CITY-NEAR MA-04 4,429 FTE
CITY-NEAR Consumer Product Distributors LLC dba J Polep Distribution Services 774 FTE
CITY-NEAR J Polep Distribution Services 686 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 5278 526 FTE
NAT-TCR Greenview 12.4 TCR
NAT-TCR W.L. Roenigk, Inc. - McKees Rocks 12.4 TCR
NAT-TCR W Los Angeles West Beverly Hills 12.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Amazon.com Services LLC - DML8 12.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Morgan Chevrolet 70 FTE
NAT-SIZE Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of Tampa Bay 70 FTE
NAT-SIZE Jostens Inc Sedalia 70 FTE
NAT-SIZE Valtra Inc. 70 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.