What does an owner commit to at Griswold?
Griswold Home Care gives an owner a territory of 25,000 residents aged 65 and over.
Across 17 home care systems
How big are other systems' territories, next to Griswold's? →
How long you are in, and what leaving looks like
A standard Griswold territory holds 25,000 residents aged 65 and over.
Standard territory size, across the systems measuring it the same way
Every system here sizes on residents aged 65 and over.
2 systems between the highest and lowest are not drawn here. The full field is in the data table below.
›View data & method
| System | Residents aged 65+ |
|---|---|
| A Place At Home | about 40,000 |
| Amada Senior Care | 32,000–42,000 |
| Assisting Hands Home Care | at least 25,000 |
| BrightStar Care | at least 15,000 |
| CareBuilders at Home | 30,000–40,000 |
| ComForCare | 25,000–35,000 |
| FirstLight Home Care | about 25,000 |
| Griswold | 25,000 |
| Home Instead | 10,000 |
| HomeCare Advocacy Network | 30,000–50,000 |
| Homewatch CareGivers | 38,000–40,000 |
| HomeWell Care Services | 30,000–40,000 |
| Nurse Next Door | about 9,000 |
| One You Love Homecare | about 50,000 |
| Right at Home | at least 15,000 |
| Senior Helpers | 25,000–35,000 |
| SYNERGY HomeCare | about 20,000 |
Only systems that state a 65-and-over population are drawn: a system sizing on the whole population has measured something different, and the two are never ranked against each other. Where a filing says “at least” a number, the qualifier travels with the value.
What an owner has to hit, and what happens if they miss
What an owner may not do
- Services must comply with law, be limited to specified categories of care approved by GHC, and be rendered only under the GHC Marks.p. 40 ↗
- GHC may change the list of authorized services from time to time due to regulatory changes or other reasons.p. 40 ↗
- Franchisee must offer and sell only services required and authorized by GHC; may not offer any products or services not previously approved in writing.p. 40 ↗
- Products and services offered must meet GHC's standards and specifications.p. 40 ↗
- Franchisee may not expand its scope of service without GHC's prior written consent, which may be withheld for any reason.p. 41 ↗
- GHC reserves the right to develop other lines of business/products/services not part of the System; these additional services are voluntary and require GHC authorization.p. 41 ↗
- Franchisee is not restricted from providing non-competing services as part of other businesses that do not use the GHC name or in an individual capacity.p. 40 ↗
Griswold’s filing discloses 8 proceedings.
That is 4.0 per 100 locations, against 1.3 per 100 locations across the whole field. A count of proceedings mostly measures how large and how old a system is, which is why it is shown as a rate and never as a score.
- 2023 · AAA Case No. 01-23-0000-2034
Franchisee, one of the remaining franchisees operating under the Registry Business Model, filed a complaint for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking to be indemnified for losses caused by a now-resolved enforcement action against Franchisee by the Louisiana Department of Health in 2021.p. 16 ↗
- 2019 · settled · Case No. 471-04114-2019
Plaintiffs alleged negligence, gross negligence and common law fraud as a result of acts committed against Carolyn MacPhee by a former independent contractor of DeCoursin that was matched by DeCoursin with Carolyn MacPhee, as well as certain representations that were apparently made to Plaintiff.p. 15 ↗
- 2015 · dismissed · Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00737-WYD-KLM
Plaintiff alleged misrepresentation, breach of contract, fraud and/or violations of franchise laws, claiming he purchased a franchise based upon representations that GHC had a viable system under which non-medical home care providers operated as independent contractors and that GHC continued to represent it was not affected by changes in healthcare regulations, and that he was induced into a franchise agreement for a business substantially different than presented. Plaintiff sought damages in excess of $500,000.p. 14 ↗
5 earlier proceedings
- 2014 · Docket No. 14-cv-02560
Plaintiffs alleged claims arising under the California Franchise Investment Law, the California Franchise Relations Act (CFRA), and claims for fraud and breach of contract, asserting that a recent change in California law regarding payment of overtime wages to caregivers adversely impacted their Franchises and that Defendants misrepresented the manner in which the Franchise could be operated in California.p. 14 ↗
- 2014 · settled · Case No.1-14-0001-4884
Plaintiffs re-alleged their claims in the Anderson v. Griswold International action, including misrepresentation, breach of contract, fraud and/or violations of franchise laws.p. 15 ↗
- 2012 · decided by a court · Cause No. 11-0248 CD
The Indiana Secretary of State, Securities Division, alleged that the respondents made false representations of material facts and/or omitted to state material facts in violation of the Indiana Franchise Act and/or 16 CFR 436.5 (a), (b) and (c). Relief sought included restitution, civil penalties, damages and a permanent ban from franchising in the state of Indiana.p. 15 ↗
- 2008 · SEC-2008-00036 and SEC-2009-00032
The Virginia Division alleged that Griswold Special Care, Inc. and its principal, Kent C. Griswold, violated the Virginia Franchise Act by offering or granting franchises in Virginia prior to registration, by failing to provide franchisees with the required franchise agreement and franchise disclosure document, and by violating the terms of the settlement order in Case Nos. SEC-2004-00001 and SEC-2004-00002.p. 13 ↗
- 2003 · SEC-2004-00001 and SEC-2004-00002
The Virginia Division alleged that Special Care, Inc. offered and granted a franchise in which it provided a disclosure document to the prospective purchaser which contained an untrue statement of material fact in violation of Section 13.1-563(b) of the Virginia Franchise Act and filed an inappropriate document with the Virginia Division.p. 13 ↗
How to read these terms
- Contract language does not summarize. Where a filing states a term in words, those words are what we publish, with the page they are on. Only the handful of terms that are genuinely numbers get compared with other systems.
- A territory is only comparable to one measured the same way. Some systems size on residents aged 65 and over, some on the whole population. We keep those apart and never rank one against the other.
- Disclosed cases are not a score. A count of proceedings mostly measures how big and how old a system is. We publish what each filing discloses, in its own words, with a rate per hundred locations so the count is not mistaken for a verdict.
›The numbers behind this page
What the agreement says about the minimums
- Brand fund you must pay: “Thereafter, you must pay GHC the greater of $75/week or 1% of Gross Receipts.”
- Local marketing you must spend: “You are required to spend at least $12,000 per year on local marketing, promotional and advertising activities.”
- Royalty you owe regardless: “The shortfall fee is calculated by taking the Annual Royalty set forth in the table above and subtracting from that amount the amount you paid in royalties during the applicable calendar year.”
- Sales you must reach: “Starting in the second calendar year after the opening date, you are required to achieve certain annual minimum sales quotas (“Annual Sales Performance Metric”) as set forth in the table below:”
The proceedings, as the filing describes them
- “The interim award included damages in the amount of $2,601,840 plus reasonable counsel fees and costs equal to $1,614,263.21.”
- “GHC did not admit any liability and paid Plaintiffs $34,848.25 in exchange for a release of claims.”
- “GHC denied all claims. On or about May 19, 2016, the case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement described below under "Global Settlement Agreement."”
- “On or about May 19, 2016, the case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement described below under "Global Settlement Agreement."”
- “GHC agreed to pay a lump sum of $700,000 to all plaintiffs and claimants.”
- “pay a civil penalty in the amount of $8,000 and pay the costs of investigation of the Administrative Complaint in the amount of $5,000.”
- “The Virginia Division's allegations were neither admitted nor denied.”
- “The Virginia Division's allegations were neither admitted or denied by Griswold Special Care, Inc.”
What this filing does not disclose
- Nothing material to this question is missing from this filing.
Every term on this page is read from Griswold’s own 2026 disclosure document, and the wording is the filing’s rather than ours. Territory sizes are compared only with systems measuring on the same basis. Disclosed proceedings are shown as the filing describes them, with their status where the filing states one. Source ↗
Once a month: what moved in the filings, which systems changed their agreements, and what it means for owners.