Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities · California

Willow Springs Senior Living

Redding, CA · ~62 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
12.4
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Willow Springs Senior Living runs at 327% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities workplace, earning a grade F.

Willow Springs Senior Living: 12.4 TCR = 327% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Willow Springs Senior Living safety composite

Willow Springs Senior Living scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 4%), 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

22/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 12.41 per 100 workers

Safer than 20% of industry peers

DART rate
F 19.39 per 100 workers

Safer than 4% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% 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

Willow Springs Senior Living: 5.4 → 19.4 TCR

Peak year 2021 @ 61.9 TCR · DART/TCR 1.56× in 2022

Willow Springs Senior Living's TCR rose 14.0 from 5.4 in 2020 to 19.4 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2021 at 61.9 TCR. In 2022, DART was 1.56× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Redding, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 12.4 · 327% of ind

  • DART 19.4 DART
  • RANK #446/635
  • PHOTO WPB-SLMS-SC PALM BEA…
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 10 inj
  • SIZE ~62 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: WPB-SLMS-SC PALM BEACHES (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Willow Springs Senior Living in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Willow Springs Senior Living averages 12.4 TCR (327% of the Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS benchmark).

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

Willow Springs Senior Living TCR series: 2020=5.4 · 2021=61.9 · 2022=19.4 · BLS 3.8

Where Willow Springs Senior Living falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 20% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #446 safest of 635 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in California.

Willow Springs Senior Living (62 employees, TCR 12.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2 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 0100200300 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Willow Springs Senior Living
Willow Springs Senior Living (62 employees, TCR 12.4) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Willow Springs Senior Living has more employees than the Assisted-living facilities without on-si median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 7.2. 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
2022 19.4 19.4 1 6 0
2021 61.9 45.2 9 17 0
2020 5.4 5.4 0 2 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · CA · Redding

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 207 employers in Redding, CA · 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 WPB-SLMS-SC PALM BEACHES 12.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Littleton 12.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Graham 12.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Highlands 12.4 TCR
STATE-SIZE Zipper Farms, Inc. 62 FTE
STATE-SIZE Crain Marketing, Inc. 62 FTE
STATE-SIZE Maricopa Orchards, LLC 62 FTE
STATE-SIZE WESTLAND ORCHIDS 62 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6403-64030151 1,894 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mercy Medical Center Redding 1,789 FTE
CITY-NEAR 64030151-151001 MERCY MEDICAL CENTER REDDING 1,704 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2643-64030151-151001 1,662 FTE
NAT-TCR Gulf Stream Plant 53 12.4 TCR
NAT-TCR HG406 12.4 TCR
NAT-TCR 480334-Arl-Watson Community Sta 12.4 TCR
NAT-TCR Geary Pacific Corporation - Denver Branch 12.4 TCR
NAT-SIZE Reserve at Oswego 62 FTE
NAT-SIZE Auberge at Lake Zurich 62 FTE
NAT-SIZE Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P. 62 FTE
NAT-SIZE KLS Invista SC 62 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: 2022, 2021, 2020. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.