Retirement communities, continuing care · Arizona

Joshua Spring Senior Living

Bullhead City, AZ · ~63 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
10.6
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Joshua Spring Senior Living runs at 280% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Retirement communities, continuing care workplace, earning a grade F.

Joshua Spring Senior Living: 10.6 TCR = 280% of Retirement communities, continuing care BLS 3.8 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Joshua Spring Senior Living safety composite

Joshua Spring Senior Living scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 27%), 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

38/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 10.63 per 100 workers

Safer than 27% of industry peers

DART rate
D 4.26 per 100 workers

Safer than 42% 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

−3.5

2019→2024

Joshua Spring Senior Living injury rate improved

Joshua Spring Senior Living's TCR fell 3.5 from 9.9 in 2019 to 6.4 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 18.1 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.4× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2019=9.9 · 2020=14.5 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=18.1 · 2023=14.9 · 2024=6.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Bullhead City, AZ ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 10.6 · 280% of ind

  • DART 4.3 DART
  • RANK #78/109
  • PHOTO The Bridge at Orlando
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 22 inj
  • SIZE ~63 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: The Bridge at Orlando (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Joshua Spring Senior Living in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Joshua Spring Senior Living averages 10.6 TCR (280% of the Retirement communities, continuing care BLS benchmark).

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

Joshua Spring Senior Living TCR series: 2019=9.9 · 2020=14.5 · 2021=0 · 2022=18.1 · 2023=14.9 · 2024=6.4 · BLS 3.8

Where Joshua Spring Senior Living falls in its industry

4,127 Retirement communities, contin establishments

Safer than 27% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Arizona alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #78 safest of 109 Retirement communities, contin employers in Arizona.

Joshua Spring Senior Living (63 employees, TCR 10.6) 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 Joshua Spring Senior Living
Joshua Spring Senior Living (63 employees, TCR 10.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Joshua Spring Senior Living has fewer employees than the Retirement communities, continuing care 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 6.4 4.3 3 0 0
2023 14.9 4.3 5 2 0
2022 18.1 3.0 6 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 14.5 11.6 4 1 0
2019 9.9 0.0 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · AZ · Bullhead City

4,127 Retirement communities, continuing care employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 9,594 rated employers in Arizona with headcount on file · 55 employers in Bullhead City, AZ · 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 The Bridge at Orlando 10.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Inspir Carnegie Hill 10.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Park Vista - The Legacy at Noel Manor 10.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Riverside Memory Care, LLC 10.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE South Plant 63 FTE
STATE-SIZE MG Building Systems LLC 63 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sollers Central Office 63 FTE
STATE-SIZE Procon Professional Concrete, LLC 63 FTE
CITY-NEAR 1370 366 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 1370 358 FTE
CITY-NEAR The Legacy Rehab and Care Center 173 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4915 159 FTE
NAT-TCR Kalamazoo Co. Sheriff's Office 10.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Beebe Landscape Services, Inc. 10.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Gustafson Logging Co. 10.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Hanes Mill Landfill 10.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Altenloh Brinck & Company 63 FTE
NAT-SIZE JND Mechanical 63 FTE
NAT-SIZE 62047 - Capstone Us Foods Lexington 63 FTE
NAT-SIZE Century Mold-OH 63 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.