Day care centers for disabled persons, the elderly, and persons diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities · Massachusetts

Whites Path CCI

South Yarmouth, MA · ~149 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
7.6
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Whites Path CCI runs at 201% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Day care centers for disabled persons, the elderly, and persons diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities workplace, earning a grade F.

Whites Path CCI: 7.6 TCR = 201% of Day care centers for disabled persons, the elderly, and persons diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities BLS 3.8 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Whites Path CCI safety composite

Whites Path CCI scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 25%), 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

40/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 7.63 per 100 workers

Safer than 25% of industry peers

DART rate
D 1.5 per 100 workers

Safer than 50% 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

Whites Path CCI: 5.8 → 7.5 TCR

Peak year 2018 @ 10.8 TCR · DART/TCR 0.2× in 2020

Whites Path CCI's TCR rose 1.7 from 5.8 in 2016 to 7.5 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2018 at 10.8 TCR. In 2020, DART was 0.2× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 624120 · South Yarmouth, MA ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 7.6 · 201% of ind

  • DART 1.5 DART
  • RANK #28/45
  • PHOTO Home Instead
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 26 inj
  • SIZE ~149 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Home Instead (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Whites Path CCI in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Whites Path CCI averages 7.6 TCR (201% of the Day care centers for disabled persons, the elderly, and persons diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities BLS benchmark).

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

Whites Path CCI TCR series: 2016=5.8 · 2017=6.3 · 2018=10.8 · 2020=7.5 · BLS 3.8

Where Whites Path CCI falls in its industry

1,320 Day care centers for disabled establishments

Safer than 25% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Massachusetts alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #28 safest of 45 Day care centers for disabled employers in Massachusetts.

Whites Path CCI (149 employees, TCR 7.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 4.5 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 05001,0001,5002,0002,500 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Whites Path CCI
Whites Path CCI (149 employees, TCR 7.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 4.5

Whites Path CCI has more employees than the Day care centers for disabled persons, t median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.5. 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
2020 7.5 1.5 5 0 0
2018 10.8 10.8 10 0 0
2017 6.3 6.3 6 0 0
2016 5.8 3.5 5 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

624120 · MA · South Yarmouth

1,320 Day care centers for disabled persons, the elderly, and persons diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 10,108 rated employers in Massachusetts with headcount on file · 18 employers in South Yarmouth, 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 Home Instead 7.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Community Visions, LLC 7.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR 348 - Rural Community Concept 7.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR CS Rolla 7.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE USA MA Devens 149 FTE
STATE-SIZE Seaboard Folding Box 149 FTE
STATE-SIZE Thermo Fisher Scientific- Chelmsford, MA 149 FTE
STATE-SIZE Beacon MedTech Solutions 149 FTE
CITY-NEAR 100022 137 FTE
CITY-NEAR WHITE S PATH-MA55 127 FTE
CITY-NEAR STOP & SHOP 100022 127 FTE
CITY-NEAR NAI-0033-0033-03692 FAC-03692-SOUTH YARMOUTH-MA 126 FTE
NAT-TCR Schiff's Restaurant Service, Inc 7.6 TCR
NAT-TCR West Burnside Store 7.6 TCR
NAT-TCR The Laurels of Rockford 7.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Sonitrol Nevada 7.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Industrial Tectonics Bearings 149 FTE
NAT-SIZE Recticel North America, Inc. - Tuscaloosa 149 FTE
NAT-SIZE Spice Chain Corp. 149 FTE
NAT-SIZE Greeheck Fan 149 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: 2020, 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.