Cafeteria food services contractors (e.g., government office cafeterias, hospital cafeterias, school cafeterias) · Arizona

Davis Monthan

Tucson, AZ · ~92 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
10.6
Avg TCR
3.0
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Davis Monthan runs at 352% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Cafeteria food services contractors (e.g., government office cafeterias, hospital cafeterias, school cafeterias) workplace, earning a grade F.

Davis Monthan: 10.6 TCR = 352% of Cafeteria food services contractors (e.g., government office cafeterias, hospital cafeterias, school cafeterias) BLS 3.0 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Davis Monthan safety composite

Davis Monthan scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 70% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 9%), 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).

D

41/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 10.55 per 100 workers

Safer than 9% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 70% 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

−7.9

2016→2020

Davis Monthan injury rate improved

Davis Monthan's TCR fell 7.9 from 7.9 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2018 at 26.2 TCR. In 2020, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=7.9 · 2017=11.3 · 2018=26.2 · 2019=7.4 · 2020=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 722310 · Tucson, AZ ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 10.6 · 352% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #132/152
  • PHOTO 4021-500435800
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 19 inj
  • SIZE ~92 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: 4021-500435800 (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Davis Monthan in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Davis Monthan averages 10.6 TCR (352% of the Cafeteria food services contractors (e.g., government office cafeterias, hospital cafeterias, school cafeterias) BLS benchmark).

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

Davis Monthan TCR series: 2016=7.9 · 2017=11.3 · 2018=26.2 · 2019=7.4 · 2020=0 · BLS 3.0

Where Davis Monthan falls in its industry

6,952 Cafeteria food services contra establishments

Safer than 9% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Arizona alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #132 safest of 152 Cafeteria food services contra employers in Arizona.

Davis Monthan (92 employees, TCR 10.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 43 employees and a TCR of 3.5 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 0200400600800 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Davis Monthan
Davis Monthan (92 employees, TCR 10.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 43 employees and a TCR of 3.5

Davis Monthan has more employees than the Cafeteria food services contractors (e.g median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.5. 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
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 7.4 4.9 3 0 0
2018 26.2 19.7 4 0 0
2017 11.3 2.8 8 0 0
2016 7.9 4.7 4 1 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

722310 · AZ · Tucson

6,952 Cafeteria food services contractors (e.g., government office cafeterias, hospital cafeterias, school cafeterias) 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 4021-500435800 10.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR T.J. SAMSON COMM HOSP 10.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Pioneer College Caterers, Inc. - Unit 011/Allen University 10.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR SODEXO AT LEWIS UNIV CHARLIE S PLACE 10.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Paradise Valley Office Bldg A 92 FTE
STATE-SIZE Meritage Homes of Colorado 92 FTE
STATE-SIZE Mosaic Prescott Office 92 FTE
STATE-SIZE Prescott Foothills 92 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 157 Quickchek Food Store 157 10.6 TCR
NAT-TCR 3495-11DA027 10.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Tft #520 10.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Southern Worcester County Administration Office 10.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Suddath Relocation Systems of Oregon LLC 92 FTE
NAT-SIZE Oakleaf Village of Toledo 92 FTE
NAT-SIZE Manufacturing 92 FTE
NAT-SIZE SBS Industries 92 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: 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.