Continuing care retirement communities · Arizona

Tucson Mather Management, LLC

Tucson, AZ · ~498 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
12.0
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Tucson Mather Management, LLC runs at 316% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Continuing care retirement communities workplace, earning a grade F.

Tucson Mather Management, LLC: 12.0 TCR = 316% of Continuing care retirement communities BLS 3.8 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Tucson Mather Management, LLC safety composite

Tucson Mather Management, LLC scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 21%), 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

34/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 12 per 100 workers

Safer than 21% of industry peers

DART rate
D 4.84 per 100 workers

Safer than 38% 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

−4.1

2016→2023

Tucson Mather Management, LLC injury rate improved

Tucson Mather Management, LLC's TCR fell 4.1 from 10.7 in 2016 to 6.7 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2022 at 74.0 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0.4× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=10.7 · 2017=12.5 · 2018=18.1 · 2021=12.1 · 2022=74.0 · 2023=6.7

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · Tucson, AZ ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 12.0 · 316% of ind

  • DART 4.8 DART
  • RANK #84/109
  • PHOTO Channing House
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 92 inj
  • SIZE ~498 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Channing House (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Tucson Mather Management, LLC in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Tucson Mather Management, LLC averages 12.0 TCR (316% 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

Tucson Mather Management, LLC TCR series: 2016=10.7 · 2017=12.5 · 2018=18.1 · 2021=12.1 · 2022=74 · 2023=6.7 · BLS 3.8

Where Tucson Mather Management, LLC falls in its industry

4,127 Continuing care retirement com establishments

Safer than 21% 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 #84 safest of 109 Continuing care retirement com employers in Arizona.

Tucson Mather Management, LLC (498 employees, TCR 12.0) 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 0200400600 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Tucson Mather Management, LLC
Tucson Mather Management, LLC (498 employees, TCR 12.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

Tucson Mather Management, LLC 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
2023 6.7 4.8 10 1 0
2022 74.0 6.2 10 98 0
2021 12.1 4.4 10 9 0
2018 18.1 9.7 27 1 0
2017 12.5 7.9 19 0 0
2016 10.7 3.4 16 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · AZ · Tucson

4,127 Continuing care retirement communities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 9,594 rated employers in Arizona with headcount on file · 1,150 employers in Tucson, 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 Channing House 12.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Holstein Senior Living 12.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Rosewood Villa Assisted Living 12.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Buffalo Valley Lutheran Village Personal Care 12.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE City of Phoenix E80 Library 498 FTE
STATE-SIZE Frist Transit West 55506 499 FTE
STATE-SIZE DEPCOM Power, Scottsdale 500 FTE
STATE-SIZE Navajo Generating Station 495 FTE
CITY-NEAR University of Arizona 18,951 FTE
CITY-NEAR Raytheon_Tucson_AZ_Airport Site 9,878 FTE
CITY-NEAR Tucson Medical Center 4,407 FTE
CITY-NEAR U.S. Border Patrol Sector - Tucson 3,989 FTE
NAT-TCR Chase River Road CTS 12.0 TCR
NAT-TCR SeaWorld (SWF) 12.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Sugiyo USA, Inc. 12.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Holstein Senior Living 12.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE Santa Monica Seafood 498 FTE
NAT-SIZE 414583-Lehigh Valley Pa P&Dc 498 FTE
NAT-SIZE 4795-AA-PIT-PITTSBURGH-PIT-TRML 498 FTE
NAT-SIZE Walters Wholesale Electric 498 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, 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.