Executive and legislative office combinations · South Carolina

Charleston County

North Charleston, SC · ~2,601 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
5.5
Avg TCR
3.2
Industry avg
1
Fatality
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Charleston County runs at 173% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Executive and legislative office combinations workplace, earning a grade D.

Charleston County: 5.5 TCR = 173% of Executive and legislative office combinations BLS 3.2 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Charleston County safety composite

Charleston County scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 42% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 7%), 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

33/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 5.52 per 100 workers

Safer than 41% of industry peers

DART rate
D 2.59 per 100 workers

Safer than 42% of industry peers

Fatalities
F 1

Safer than 7% 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

−1.1

2017→2023

Charleston County injury rate improved

Charleston County's TCR fell 1.1 from 5.4 in 2017 to 4.3 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2018 at 7.6 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0.47× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=5.4 · 2018=7.6 · 2019=5.6 · 2020=5.4 · 2022=4.8 · 2023=4.3

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 921140 · North Charleston, SC ABOVE-IND · LARGE

Grade D · TCR 5.5 · 173% of ind

  • DART 2.6 DART
  • RANK #19/28
  • PHOTO GENERAL SESSIONS COURT
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 706 inj
  • SIZE ~2,601 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: GENERAL SESSIONS COURT (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Charleston County in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Charleston County averages 5.5 TCR (173% of the Executive and legislative office combinations BLS benchmark).

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

Charleston County TCR series: 2017=5.4 · 2018=7.6 · 2019=5.6 · 2020=5.4 · 2022=4.8 · 2023=4.3 · BLS 3.2

Where Charleston County falls in its industry

239 Executive and legislative offi establishments

Safer than 41% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.8.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to South Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #19 safest of 28 Executive and legislative offi employers in South Carolina.

Charleston County (2,601 employees, TCR 5.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 282 employees and a TCR of 4.8 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 01,0002,0003,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Charleston County
Charleston County (2,601 employees, TCR 5.5) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 282 employees and a TCR of 4.8

Charleston County has more employees than the Executive and legislative office combina median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.8. 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 4.3 2.6 87 4 0
2022 4.8 3.3 97 3 0
2020 5.4 4.3 112 8 1
2019 5.6 4.5 123 4 0
2018 7.6 5.2 150 16 0
2017 5.4 4.0 137 11 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

921140 · SC · North Charleston

239 Executive and legislative office combinations employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,610 rated employers in South Carolina with headcount on file · 256 employers in North Charleston, SC · 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 GENERAL SESSIONS COURT 5.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Village of Palatine 5.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR County of Stanly 5.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR County of El Dorado 5.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Horry County Government 2,603 FTE
STATE-SIZE Palmetto Health Baptist 2,617 FTE
STATE-SIZE MUSC Health Kershaw 2,555 FTE
STATE-SIZE ZF Transmissions Gray Court 2,672 FTE
CITY-NEAR Palmetto Goodwill Services 1,105 FTE
CITY-NEAR Trident Medical Center 1,015 FTE
CITY-NEAR SRC Charleston ISS Division 815 FTE
CITY-NEAR Charleston Paper Mill 744 FTE
NAT-TCR Duval Cty #6 5.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Fiesta # 61 5.5 TCR
NAT-TCR Saratoga Star Aquatics LLC 5.5 TCR
NAT-TCR DOCO, Inc. 5.5 TCR
NAT-SIZE 088 Texas Health Physicians Group 2,601 FTE
NAT-SIZE Logan Health Medical Center (formerly Kalispell Regional Medical Center) 2,601 FTE
NAT-SIZE Adventist Health Shady Grove Medical Center 2,600 FTE
NAT-SIZE Saulsbury Industries Inc. 2,602 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, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.