Continuing care retirement communities · Montana

The Springs at Grand Park

Billings, MT · ~51 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
17.1
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Springs at Grand Park runs at 450% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Continuing care retirement communities workplace, earning a grade F.

The Springs at Grand Park: 17.1 TCR = 450% of Continuing care retirement communities BLS 3.8 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Springs at Grand Park safety composite

The Springs at Grand Park scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (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 17.11 per 100 workers

Safer than 9% of industry peers

DART rate
F 9.93 per 100 workers

Safer than 15% 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 Springs at Grand Park: 16.4 → 24.8 TCR

Peak year 2021 @ 24.8 TCR · DART/TCR 0.58× in 2023

The Springs at Grand Park's TCR rose 8.4 from 16.4 in 2016 to 24.8 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2021 at 24.8 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0.58× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Billings, MT ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 17.1 · 450% of ind

  • DART 9.9 DART
  • RANK #19/27
  • PHOTO Brookdale Virginia B…
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 50 inj
  • SIZE ~51 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Brookdale Virginia Beach (0.0 TCR gap)

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

The Springs at Grand Park in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows The Springs at Grand Park averages 17.1 TCR (450% 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

The Springs at Grand Park TCR series: 2016=16.4 · 2017=9.6 · 2018=12 · 2019=7.1 · 2020=18.6 · 2021=24.8 · 2022=23.4 · 2023=24.8 · BLS 3.8

Where The Springs at Grand Park falls in its industry

4,127 Continuing care retirement com establishments

Safer than 9% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Montana alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #19 safest of 27 Continuing care retirement com employers in Montana.

The Springs at Grand Park (51 employees, TCR 17.1) 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 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate The Springs at Grand Park
The Springs at Grand Park (51 employees, TCR 17.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

The Springs at Grand Park has fewer 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 24.8 9.9 10 0 0
2022 23.4 13.0 9 0 0
2021 24.8 17.8 7 0 0
2020 18.6 8.0 7 0 0
2019 7.1 7.1 3 0 0
2018 12.0 4.8 5 0 0
2017 9.6 0.0 4 0 0
2016 16.4 13.7 5 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · MT · Billings

4,127 Continuing care retirement communities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 1,536 rated employers in Montana with headcount on file · 327 employers in Billings, MT · 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 Brookdale Virginia Beach 17.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Colonial Gardens 17.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Heartlands Retirement Community - Ellicott City II, Inc 17.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Manor Care Health Services Lely Palms 17.1 TCR
STATE-SIZE Michels Pipeline Inc-MT-Missoula 51 FTE
STATE-SIZE Great Falls 51 FTE
STATE-SIZE Woodshop 51 FTE
STATE-SIZE Everlast Climbing Industries DBA Spectrum Aquatics 51 FTE
CITY-NEAR Billings Clinic Hospital 2,366 FTE
CITY-NEAR St. Vincent Healthcare 1,860 FTE
CITY-NEAR Billings Clinic Downtown Campus 1,223 FTE
CITY-NEAR St. John's Lutheran Ministries 651 FTE
NAT-TCR Peak Resources-Pinelake 17.1 TCR
NAT-TCR 6962-SWY-0029-0029-02065 17.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Bed Bath and Beyond Fort Lauderdale 17.1 TCR
NAT-TCR CCFC Police/OEM 17.1 TCR
NAT-SIZE Granite City Electric Supply Co Chicopee 51 FTE
NAT-SIZE Hanwha Advanced Materials America LLC. Monroe 51 FTE
NAT-SIZE 40288 Capstone Gfs Grand Rapids 51 FTE
NAT-SIZE BrandSafway Solutions, LLC - Orlando Branch 51 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, 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.