Fencing contractors (except electronic containment fencing for pets) · Florida

Florida Detention Systems, Inc.

Melrose, FL · ~41 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
2.6
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Florida Detention Systems, Inc. runs at 93% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Fencing contractors (except electronic containment fencing for pets) workplace, earning a grade C.

Florida Detention Systems, Inc.: 2.6 TCR = 93% of Fencing contractors (except electronic containment fencing for pets) BLS 2.8 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Florida Detention Systems, Inc. safety composite

Florida Detention Systems, Inc. scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 73% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 41%), 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)
D 2.6 per 100 workers

Safer than 41% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 73% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% 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

Florida Detention Systems, Inc.: 0.0 → 4.7 TCR

Peak year 2024 @ 4.7 TCR · DART/TCR 0× in 2024

Florida Detention Systems, Inc.'s TCR rose 4.7 from 0.0 in 2022 to 4.7 in 2024. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 238990 · Melrose, FL AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 2.6 · 93% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #59/106
  • PHOTO Southway Crane & Rig…
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 3 inj
  • SIZE ~41 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Southway Crane & Rigging - North Augusta Branch (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Florida Detention Systems, Inc. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Florida Detention Systems, Inc. averages 2.6 TCR (93% of the Fencing contractors (except electronic containment fencing for pets) BLS benchmark).

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

Florida Detention Systems, Inc. TCR series: 2022=0 · 2023=3.1 · 2024=4.7 · BLS 2.8

Where Florida Detention Systems, Inc. falls in its industry

1,634 Fencing contractors (except el establishments

Safer than 41% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Florida alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #59 safest of 106 Fencing contractors (except el employers in Florida.

Florida Detention Systems, Inc. (41 employees, TCR 2.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 employees and a TCR of 1.9 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 05001,0001,500 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate Florida Detention Systems, Inc.
Florida Detention Systems, Inc. (41 employees, TCR 2.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 employees and a TCR of 1.9

Florida Detention Systems, Inc. has fewer employees than the Fencing contractors (except electronic c median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 1.9. 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
2024 4.7 0.0 2 0 0
2023 3.1 0.0 1 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

238990 · FL · Melrose

1,634 Fencing contractors (except electronic containment fencing for pets) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 26,569 rated employers in Florida with headcount on file · 3 employers in Melrose, FL · 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 Southway Crane & Rigging - North Augusta Branch 2.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Hercules Fence Company Inc. - Norfolk 2.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Gulf States Protective Coatings, INC. 2.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Gorgas Fossil Plant 2.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Oceans, Reefs & Aquariums, LLC 41 FTE
STATE-SIZE CO1 Cocoa Service Center 41 FTE
STATE-SIZE Odessa Transmission Operations 41 FTE
STATE-SIZE Eagle Trace 41 FTE
CITY-NEAR 1808-00203000-1654 92 FTE
CITY-NEAR GROVIN CONSTRUCTION 39 FTE
NAT-TCR Building Envelope Systems 2.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Ring Container Little Rock 2.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Tom's Riverside #775 2.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Shannon Precision Fastener - Holly Manufacturing 2.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Hillyard Co. - Delaware Valley 41 FTE
NAT-SIZE Hillyard Co. - Kentucky 41 FTE
NAT-SIZE Five Star Orthodontic Lab/Supply 41 FTE
NAT-SIZE Thermaseal/Lakeside 41 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: 2024, 2023, 2022. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.