Continuing care retirement communities · Michigan

Clark Retirement Community

Grand Rapids, MI · ~189 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
8.9
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
1
Fatality
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Clark Retirement Community runs at 233% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Continuing care retirement communities workplace, earning a grade F.

Clark Retirement Community: 8.9 TCR = 233% of Continuing care retirement communities BLS 3.8 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Clark Retirement Community safety composite

Clark Retirement Community scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 37% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 1%), 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

25/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 8.87 per 100 workers

Safer than 37% of industry peers

DART rate
F 6.47 per 100 workers

Safer than 27% of industry peers

Fatalities
F 1

Safer than 1% 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

Clark Retirement Community: 2.5 → 8.6 TCR

Peak year 2020 @ 24.5 TCR · DART/TCR 0.73× in 2024

Clark Retirement Community's TCR rose 6.1 from 2.5 in 2019 to 8.6 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2020 at 24.5 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.73× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Grand Rapids, MI ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 8.9 · 233% of ind

  • DART 6.5 DART
  • RANK #51/97
  • PHOTO Edgewood Jamestown llc
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 51 inj
  • SIZE ~189 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Edgewood Jamestown llc (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Clark Retirement Community in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Clark Retirement Community averages 8.9 TCR (233% 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

Clark Retirement Community TCR series: 2019=2.5 · 2020=24.5 · 2021=6.1 · 2022=4.8 · 2023=6.6 · 2024=8.6 · BLS 3.8

Where Clark Retirement Community falls in its industry

4,127 Continuing care retirement com establishments

Safer than 37% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #51 safest of 97 Continuing care retirement com employers in Michigan.

Clark Retirement Community (189 employees, TCR 8.9) 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 Clark Retirement Community
Clark Retirement Community (189 employees, TCR 8.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Clark Retirement Community 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 8.6 6.5 12 0 0
2023 6.6 4.4 9 0 0
2022 4.8 3.2 6 0 0
2021 6.1 3.8 8 0 0
2020 24.5 22.0 12 28 1
2019 2.5 0.6 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · MI · Grand Rapids

4,127 Continuing care retirement communities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 1,006 employers in Grand Rapids, MI · 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 Edgewood Jamestown llc 8.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR CONCORD PLACE 8.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR The Ivy at Watertown 8.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR St. John's United - Billings Heights Wyndstone 8.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE M.U.E. 189 FTE
STATE-SIZE La Colombe- Norton Shores 189 FTE
STATE-SIZE Dow Chemical - Michigan Operations - Auburn Plant 189 FTE
STATE-SIZE May Mobility 189 FTE
CITY-NEAR SHHG-GR BUTTERWORTH CA 9,012 FTE
CITY-NEAR SH Butterworth Hospital 7,397 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mercy Health Saint Mary's Hospital-MH-MI 2,914 FTE
CITY-NEAR Steelcase - Grand Rapids / Kentwood 2,817 FTE
NAT-TCR Dominican Village 8.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Elkader Care Center 8.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Jones Wholesale Lumber Company, Inc. 8.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Viking Construction 8.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Supply Chain Montana Precision Products 189 FTE
NAT-SIZE Care One at Randolph 189 FTE
NAT-SIZE Hudson Technologies 189 FTE
NAT-SIZE Werner Gourmet Meat Snacks Inc. 189 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.