Retirement communities, continuing care · Connecticut

The Watermark at East Hill

Southbury, CT · ~183 workers · 8 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
8.9
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Watermark at East Hill runs at 234% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Retirement communities, continuing care workplace, earning a grade F.

The Watermark at East Hill: 8.9 TCR = 234% of Retirement communities, continuing care BLS 3.8 · 8y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Watermark at East Hill safety composite

The Watermark at East Hill scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 60% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 36%), 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

48/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 8.88 per 100 workers

Safer than 36% of industry peers

DART rate
C 2.36 per 100 workers

Safer than 60% 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

−9.8

2016→2023

The Watermark at East Hill injury rate improved

The Watermark at East Hill's TCR fell 9.8 from 13.0 in 2016 to 3.1 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2016 at 13.0 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0.27× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=13.0 · 2017=10.8 · 2018=9.1 · 2019=7.0 · 2020=11.9 · 2021=9.7 · 2022=6.3 · 2023=3.1

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Southbury, CT ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 8.9 · 234% of ind

  • DART 2.4 DART
  • RANK #17/43
  • PHOTO The Ivy at Watertown
  • BOOK 8y book
  • INJ 80 inj
  • SIZE ~183 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: The Ivy at Watertown (0.0 TCR gap)

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

The Watermark at East Hill in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows The Watermark at East Hill averages 8.9 TCR (234% 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

The Watermark at East Hill TCR series: 2016=13 · 2017=10.8 · 2018=9.1 · 2019=7 · 2020=11.9 · 2021=9.7 · 2022=6.3 · 2023=3.1 · BLS 3.8

Where The Watermark at East Hill falls in its industry

4,127 Retirement communities, contin establishments

Safer than 36% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Connecticut alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #17 safest of 43 Retirement communities, contin employers in Connecticut.

The Watermark at East Hill (183 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 The Watermark at East Hill
The Watermark at East Hill (183 employees, TCR 8.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

The Watermark at East Hill has more 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
2023 3.1 2.4 4 0 0
2022 6.3 4.5 7 0 0
2021 9.7 4.8 12 0 0
2020 11.9 10.2 14 0 0
2019 7.0 7.0 9 0 0
2018 9.1 1.7 11 0 0
2017 10.8 3.6 11 1 0
2016 13.0 8.0 12 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · CT · Southbury

4,127 Retirement communities, continuing care employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,008 rated employers in Connecticut with headcount on file · 20 employers in Southbury, CT · 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 Ivy at Watertown 8.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR St. John's United - Billings Heights Wyndstone 8.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Pine Run Village 8.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR ACTS Retirement-Life Communities-The Evergreens 8.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. 183 FTE
STATE-SIZE Lifeway Mobility Holdings, LLC 183 FTE
STATE-SIZE 2954 183 FTE
STATE-SIZE 087718-STAMFORD PO 183 FTE
CITY-NEAR SBR 937 FTE
CITY-NEAR DDS West Region STS 745 FTE
CITY-NEAR DDS West Region - STS 599 FTE
CITY-NEAR Southbury Shoprite 246 FTE
NAT-TCR Kruczek Construction Inc. 8.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Hammond's Candies Since 1920, II LLC 8.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Kenai Princess Wilderness Lodge 8.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Indian Creek Stone Products, Inc. 8.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Support Center 183 FTE
NAT-SIZE 0729 - Hackensack Nj Bus Ctr 183 FTE
NAT-SIZE Unit #0699 183 FTE
NAT-SIZE Streets/San. 2010 W. 500 So. 183 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: 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.