Building cleaning services, janitorial · New Jersey

Harvard Services Group of NJ

Iselin, NJ · ~230 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
1.0
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Harvard Services Group of NJ runs at 22% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Building cleaning services, janitorial workplace, earning a grade A.

Harvard Services Group of NJ: 1.0 TCR = 22% of Building cleaning services, janitorial BLS 4.5 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Harvard Services Group of NJ safety composite

Harvard Services Group of NJ scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 91% 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).

B

76/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0.98 per 100 workers

Safer than 91% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 78% 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

−2.3

2016→2024

Harvard Services Group of NJ injury rate improved

Harvard Services Group of NJ's TCR fell 2.3 from 2.3 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2016 at 2.3 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=2.3 · 2017=2.1 · 2018=1.6 · 2019=2.0 · 2020=0.7 · 2021=0.0 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 561720 · Iselin, NJ AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 1.0 · 22% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #6/101
  • PHOTO QSI Wilkesboro Cook
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 15 inj
  • SIZE ~230 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: QSI Wilkesboro Cook (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Harvard Services Group of NJ in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Harvard Services Group of NJ averages 1.0 TCR (22% of the Building cleaning services, janitorial BLS benchmark).

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

Harvard Services Group of NJ TCR series: 2016=2.3 · 2017=2.1 · 2018=1.6 · 2019=2 · 2020=0.7 · 2021=0 · 2022=0 · 2023=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 4.5

Where Harvard Services Group of NJ falls in its industry

4,064 Building cleaning services, ja establishments

Safer than 91% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New Jersey alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #6 safest of 101 Building cleaning services, ja employers in New Jersey.

Harvard Services Group of NJ (230 employees, TCR 1.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 3.2 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 02004006008001,000 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Harvard Services Group of NJ
Harvard Services Group of NJ (230 employees, TCR 1.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 56 employees and a TCR of 3.2

Harvard Services Group of NJ has more employees than the Building cleaning services, janitorial median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.2. 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 0.7 0.0 1 0 0
2019 2.0 1.0 4 0 0
2018 1.6 1.1 3 0 0
2017 2.1 0.7 3 0 0
2016 2.3 0.6 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

561720 · NJ · Iselin

4,064 Building cleaning services, janitorial employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 11,201 rated employers in New Jersey with headcount on file · 20 employers in Iselin, NJ · 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 QSI Wilkesboro Cook 1.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR River Oaks Hospital - EVS 1.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR SODEXO AT SANOFI RIDGEFIELD JANITORIAL 1.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Fayette Janitorial LLC- Accomac 1.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE South Jersey Gas: Atlantic City 230 FTE
STATE-SIZE Gerdau Sayreville 230 FTE
STATE-SIZE Trumpf Photonics Inc 230 FTE
STATE-SIZE Zimmer Biomet Tribecular Metal Technology 230 FTE
CITY-NEAR USA - Iselin, S Wood 454 FTE
CITY-NEAR Metropark Facility 304 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2636-NEW JERSEY.ISELIN 271 FTE
CITY-NEAR Harvard Protection Services LLC of New Jersey 154 FTE
NAT-TCR Wheat Ridge Container 1.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Library Services 1.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Eleanor Beard Studio, LLC 1.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Landsman Real Estate Services 1.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE MKS Wilmington 230 FTE
NAT-SIZE Orion 230 FTE
NAT-SIZE Menasha Packaging Company - PPS Neenah 230 FTE
NAT-SIZE Springfield Plywood 230 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, 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.