Alarm systems sales combined with installation, repair, or monitoring services · North Carolina

CPI Security Charlotte Division

Charlotte, NC · ~410 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.9
Avg TCR
2.6
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

CPI Security Charlotte Division runs at 36% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Alarm systems sales combined with installation, repair, or monitoring services workplace, earning a grade A.

CPI Security Charlotte Division: 0.9 TCR = 36% of Alarm systems sales combined with installation, repair, or monitoring services BLS 2.6 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

CPI Security Charlotte Division safety composite

CPI Security Charlotte Division scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 75% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 37%), 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

55/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 0.93 per 100 workers

Safer than 75% of industry peers

DART rate
D 0.44 per 100 workers

Safer than 37% 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

−1.0

2016→2018

CPI Security Charlotte Division injury rate improved

CPI Security Charlotte Division's TCR fell 1.0 from 1.4 in 2016 to 0.4 in 2018. Peak filing year was 2016 at 1.4 TCR. In 2018, DART was 0.47× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=1.4 · 2018=0.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 561621 · Charlotte, NC AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.9 · 36% of ind

  • DART 0.4 DART
  • RANK #2/7
  • PHOTO Centennial, CO (SSS,…
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 8 inj
  • SIZE ~410 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Centennial, CO (SSS, CSS) (0.0 TCR gap)

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

CPI Security Charlotte Division in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows CPI Security Charlotte Division averages 0.9 TCR (36% of the Alarm systems sales combined with installation, repair, or monitoring services BLS benchmark).

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

CPI Security Charlotte Division TCR series: 2016=1.4 · 2018=0.4 · BLS 2.6

Where CPI Security Charlotte Division falls in its industry

161 Alarm systems sales combined w establishments

Safer than 75% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #2 safest of 7 Alarm systems sales combined w employers in North Carolina.

CPI Security Charlotte Division (410 employees, TCR 0.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 42 employees and a TCR of 1.7 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 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate CPI Security Charlotte Division
CPI Security Charlotte Division (410 employees, TCR 0.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 42 employees and a TCR of 1.7

CPI Security Charlotte Division has more employees than the Alarm systems sales combined with instal median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.7. 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
2018 0.4 0.4 2 0 0
2016 1.4 1.4 6 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

561621 · NC · Charlotte

161 Alarm systems sales combined with installation, repair, or monitoring services employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 2,058 employers in Charlotte, NC · 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 Centennial, CO (SSS, CSS) 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Hard Fire Suppression Systems, Inc. 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Westerville FS (SSS, CSS) 0.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Ohio - 105 0.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE Corning Life Sciences - Durham 410 FTE
STATE-SIZE Compression Technologies and Services : MFG-Mocksville, NC-USA 410 FTE
STATE-SIZE Nutanix-Durham NC 410 FTE
STATE-SIZE Twin Lakes Community 410 FTE
CITY-NEAR 1101-Carolinas Medical Center (1101) 8,444 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0001-Carolinas Medical Center 8,032 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4795-AA-CLT-CHARLOTTE-CLT-TRML 7,295 FTE
CITY-NEAR Novant Health Presbyterian Medical Center 4,973 FTE
NAT-TCR Dow Chemical Co - West Alexandria, Ohio 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR HBSHSENJ64 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Broussard ENK9 0.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Richmond Warehouse ENB9 0.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE TriMet Ruby Junction Operations Facility 410 FTE
NAT-SIZE RAI Crew CMH 410 FTE
NAT-SIZE San Bernardino (Casbe) 410 FTE
NAT-SIZE Temecula (Caper) 410 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: 2018, 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.