Beverages, milk based (except dietary), manufacturing · Pennsylvania

Clover Farms Transportation Reading

Reading, PA · ~84 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
3.9
Avg TCR
3.3
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Clover Farms Transportation Reading runs at 118% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Beverages, milk based (except dietary), manufacturing workplace, earning a grade C.

Clover Farms Transportation Reading: 3.9 TCR = 118% of Beverages, milk based (except dietary), manufacturing BLS 3.3 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Clover Farms Transportation Reading safety composite

Clover Farms Transportation Reading scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 81% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 50%), 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).

C

64/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
C 3.9 per 100 workers

Safer than 57% of industry peers

DART rate
B 1.19 per 100 workers

Safer than 81% 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%).

TCR Δ

−0.9

2016→2021

Clover Farms Transportation Reading injury rate improved

Clover Farms Transportation Reading's TCR fell 0.9 from 3.3 in 2016 to 2.4 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2018 at 7.7 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0.31× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=3.3 · 2017=3.3 · 2018=7.7 · 2019=3.2 · 2020=3.6 · 2021=2.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 311511 · Reading, PA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 3.9 · 118% of ind

  • DART 1.2 DART
  • RANK #6/30
  • PHOTO COMO Plant
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 21 inj
  • SIZE ~84 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: COMO Plant (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Clover Farms Transportation Reading in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Clover Farms Transportation Reading averages 3.9 TCR (118% of the Beverages, milk based (except dietary), manufacturing BLS benchmark).

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

Clover Farms Transportation Reading TCR series: 2016=3.3 · 2017=3.3 · 2018=7.7 · 2019=3.2 · 2020=3.6 · 2021=2.4 · BLS 3.3

Where Clover Farms Transportation Reading falls in its industry

457 Beverages, milk based (except establishments

Safer than 57% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #6 safest of 30 Beverages, milk based (except employers in Pennsylvania.

Clover Farms Transportation Reading (84 employees, TCR 3.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 140 employees and a TCR of 4.5 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 0100200300400500 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Clover Farms Transportation Reading
Clover Farms Transportation Reading (84 employees, TCR 3.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 140 employees and a TCR of 4.5

Clover Farms Transportation Reading has fewer employees than the Beverages, milk based (except dietary), median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.5. 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
2021 2.4 1.2 2 0 0
2020 3.6 3.6 3 0 0
2019 3.2 1.1 3 0 0
2018 7.7 6.6 7 0 0
2017 3.3 3.3 3 0 0
2016 3.3 2.2 3 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

311511 · PA · Reading

457 Beverages, milk based (except dietary), manufacturing employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 303 employers in Reading, PA · 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 COMO Plant 3.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Jasper Products, LLC 3.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Hiland Dairy LLC 3.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Promised Land Texas 3.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE R.W. Sauder Inc 84 FTE
STATE-SIZE Wilkinsburg B 84 FTE
STATE-SIZE Kriger Pipeline, Incorporatated 84 FTE
STATE-SIZE UGI Archbald 84 FTE
CITY-NEAR READING HOSPITAL 5,693 FTE
CITY-NEAR SAO : Reading 2,203 FTE
CITY-NEAR A077 - Penn State Health St. Joseph Medical Center 1,764 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - TEN1 1,261 FTE
NAT-TCR Iowa DOT - Bureau Of Investigation 3.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Lahey Outpatient Center Danvers 3.9 TCR
NAT-TCR St. Elizabeth Healthcare and Rehabilitation 3.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Sutter Coast Hospital (410-041) 3.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE Wind River Rehab & Wellness 84 FTE
NAT-SIZE Washington Office 84 FTE
NAT-SIZE Burnett Ranches 84 FTE
NAT-SIZE Continuing Healthcare of Cuyahoga Falls 84 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: 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.