Continuing care retirement communities · Oregon

The Springs at Sherwood

Sherwood, OR · ~105 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
9.8
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Springs at Sherwood runs at 258% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Continuing care retirement communities workplace, earning a grade F.

The Springs at Sherwood: 9.8 TCR = 258% of Continuing care retirement communities BLS 3.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Springs at Sherwood safety composite

The Springs at Sherwood scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 70% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 31%), 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

50/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 9.82 per 100 workers

Safer than 31% of industry peers

DART rate
C 1.08 per 100 workers

Safer than 70% 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%).

TCR Δ

−1.0

2016→2024

The Springs at Sherwood injury rate improved

The Springs at Sherwood's TCR fell 1.0 from 5.4 in 2016 to 4.3 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2017 at 17.5 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.11× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=5.4 · 2017=17.5 · 2018=10.8 · 2019=10.4 · 2020=12.0 · 2021=9.4 · 2022=13.9 · 2023=4.6 · 2024=4.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Sherwood, OR ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 9.8 · 258% of ind

  • DART 1.1 DART
  • RANK #62/92
  • PHOTO Sheltering Arms Resi…
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 58 inj
  • SIZE ~105 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Sheltering Arms Residential (0.0 TCR gap)

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

The Springs at Sherwood in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows The Springs at Sherwood averages 9.8 TCR (258% 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 Sherwood TCR series: 2016=5.4 · 2017=17.5 · 2018=10.8 · 2019=10.4 · 2020=12 · 2021=9.4 · 2022=13.9 · 2023=4.6 · 2024=4.3 · BLS 3.8

Where The Springs at Sherwood falls in its industry

4,127 Continuing care retirement com establishments

Safer than 31% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Oregon alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #62 safest of 92 Continuing care retirement com employers in Oregon.

The Springs at Sherwood (105 employees, TCR 9.8) 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 The Springs at Sherwood
The Springs at Sherwood (105 employees, TCR 9.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

The Springs at Sherwood 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
2024 4.3 1.1 4 0 0
2023 4.6 2.3 4 0 0
2022 13.9 5.0 11 0 0
2021 9.4 7.5 5 0 0
2020 12.0 4.0 9 0 0
2019 10.4 6.9 6 0 0
2018 10.8 7.2 6 0 0
2017 17.5 8.8 10 0 0
2016 5.4 1.8 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · OR · Sherwood

4,127 Continuing care retirement communities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 8,031 rated employers in Oregon with headcount on file · 62 employers in Sherwood, OR · 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 Sheltering Arms Residential 9.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Vista 9.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Homewood at Frederick MD, INC 9.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Rose Arbor and Wildflower Lodge 9.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE Seattle Construction 105 FTE
STATE-SIZE Chaucer Foods INC 105 FTE
STATE-SIZE Heritage Specialty Foods 105 FTE
STATE-SIZE Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co. 105 FTE
CITY-NEAR Asplundh Tree Expert LLC 434 FTE
CITY-NEAR Asplundh Tree Expert, LLC - 169 362 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 4176 283 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4176 274 FTE
NAT-TCR Grinnell 9.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Sheltering Arms Residential 9.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Landscape (0704) 9.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Arborwood Lodge 9.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE PORTLAND 105 FTE
NAT-SIZE Emporium Hardwoods Operating Company LLC 105 FTE
NAT-SIZE CH Services 105 FTE
NAT-SIZE Oryana Community Co-op 105 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.