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

The Arbors at Greenfield

Greenfield, MA · ~61 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
14.2
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Arbors at Greenfield runs at 374% 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 Greenfield: 14.2 TCR = 374% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Arbors at Greenfield safety composite

The Arbors at Greenfield 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

22/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 14.2 per 100 workers

Safer than 14% of industry peers

DART rate
F 14.11 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

The Arbors at Greenfield: 10.4 → 14.1 TCR

Peak year 2017 @ 23.0 TCR · DART/TCR 0.99× in 2024

The Arbors at Greenfield's TCR rose 3.7 from 10.4 in 2016 to 14.1 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2017 at 23.0 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.99× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

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

Grade F · TCR 14.2 · 374% of ind

  • DART 14.1 DART
  • RANK #66/80
  • PHOTO The Linden at Danvers
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 30 inj
  • SIZE ~61 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: The Linden at Danvers (0.0 TCR gap)

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

The Arbors at Greenfield in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows The Arbors at Greenfield averages 14.2 TCR (374% 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 Greenfield TCR series: 2016=10.4 · 2017=23 · 2018=12 · 2019=14.5 · 2020=14 · 2021=5.7 · 2022=20 · 2023=14.2 · 2024=14.1 · BLS 3.8

Where The Arbors at Greenfield falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 14% 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 #66 safest of 80 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in Massachusetts.

The Arbors at Greenfield (61 employees, TCR 14.2) 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 Greenfield
The Arbors at Greenfield (61 employees, TCR 14.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

The Arbors at Greenfield 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 14.1 14.1 2 3 0
2023 14.2 8.5 2 3 0
2022 20.0 20.0 3 4 0
2021 5.7 5.7 2 0 0
2020 14.0 2.8 3 2 0
2019 14.5 0.0 5 0 0
2018 12.0 6.0 4 0 0
2017 23.0 2.9 6 2 0
2016 10.4 6.9 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · MA · Greenfield

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 · 37 employers in Greenfield, 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 The Linden at Danvers 14.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Arden Courts of Avon 14.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Windcrest on Van Dorn 14.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR spring Meadows Naperville 14.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE M. Holland & Sons Construction, Inc. 61 FTE
STATE-SIZE P. J. Albert, Inc. 61 FTE
STATE-SIZE 5020 - Halifax, MA 61 FTE
STATE-SIZE Manafort Transit 61 FTE
CITY-NEAR BFMC - Baystate Franklin Medical Center 726 FTE
CITY-NEAR FMC - Baystate Franklin Medical Center 722 FTE
CITY-NEAR SWM - Greenfield, MA 265 FTE
CITY-NEAR SWM Intl. 261 FTE
NAT-TCR Barmona Logistics LLC 14.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Odin Health and Rehab Center 14.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Conwaste Recogido San Juan Avenidas 14.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal 14.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Yuma Feedlot 61 FTE
NAT-SIZE Station 61 FTE
NAT-SIZE WT Gardner & Sons Inc 61 FTE
NAT-SIZE 42 Eighty Four Dr 61 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.