Housing programs, planning and development, government · California

HCIDLA Garland Bldg.

Los Angeles, CA · ~494 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
1.1
Avg TCR
3.2
Industry avg
1
Fatality
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

HCIDLA Garland Bldg. runs at 35% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Housing programs, planning and development, government workplace, earning a grade A.

HCIDLA Garland Bldg.: 1.1 TCR = 35% of Housing programs, planning and development, government BLS 3.2 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

HCIDLA Garland Bldg. safety composite

HCIDLA Garland Bldg. scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 81% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 1%), 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

47/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 1.11 per 100 workers

Safer than 81% of industry peers

DART rate
D 1.55 per 100 workers

Safer than 42% of industry peers

Fatalities
F 1

Safer than 1% 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%).

HCIDLA Garland Bldg. held a steady TCR band

HCIDLA Garland Bldg.'s TCR held near 0.1 from 1.6 in 2017 to 1.6 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2017 at 1.6 TCR. In 2023, DART was 1.4× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=1.6 · 2020=0.5 · 2021=0.5 · 2022=1.4 · 2023=1.6

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 925110 · Los Angeles, CA AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 1.1 · 35% of ind

  • DART 1.6 DART
  • RANK #1/8
  • PHOTO Housing and Communit…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 20 inj
  • SIZE ~494 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Housing and Community Development (0.0 TCR gap)

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

HCIDLA Garland Bldg. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows HCIDLA Garland Bldg. averages 1.1 TCR (35% of the Housing programs, planning and development, government BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-09-26

HCIDLA Garland Bldg. TCR series: 2017=1.6 · 2020=0.5 · 2021=0.5 · 2022=1.4 · 2023=1.6 · BLS 3.2

Where HCIDLA Garland Bldg. falls in its industry

54 Housing programs, planning and establishments

Safer than 81% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #1 safest of 8 Housing programs, planning and employers in California.

HCIDLA Garland Bldg. (494 employees, TCR 1.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 employees and a TCR of 4.2 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 0200400600800 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate HCIDLA Garland Bldg.
HCIDLA Garland Bldg. (494 employees, TCR 1.1) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 employees and a TCR of 4.2

HCIDLA Garland Bldg. has more employees than the Housing programs, planning and developme median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.2. 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
2023 1.6 1.6 5 0 0
2022 1.4 0.2 5 2 1
2021 0.5 0.0 0 1 0
2020 0.5 0.3 2 0 0
2017 1.6 0.6 8 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

925110 · CA · Los Angeles

54 Housing programs, planning and development, government employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 2,064 employers in Los Angeles, CA · 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 Housing and Community Development 1.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR PHA - Central Admin Office/Scattered Sites 1.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR City of Greensboro Planning Department 1.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Fresno D.A.R.M. Division 1.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE DC4 DC4 STOCKTON CA 494 FTE
STATE-SIZE Morley Builders Inc 494 FTE
STATE-SIZE Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority - Chaboya Division 493 FTE
STATE-SIZE City of Gardena 493 FTE
CITY-NEAR Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. 50,317 FTE
CITY-NEAR UC Los Angeles 40,333 FTE
CITY-NEAR LADWP 11,717 FTE
CITY-NEAR Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 10,346 FTE
NAT-TCR Specialists in Rehabilitation Medicine 1.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Western Albemarle High School 1.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Berry Global, Inc. 1.1 TCR
NAT-TCR Massey Electric, Inc 1.1 TCR
NAT-SIZE Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Lake Tahoe 494 FTE
NAT-SIZE Morton College 494 FTE
NAT-SIZE Kuehne + Nagel Inc. (NYC-6310) 494 FTE
NAT-SIZE Force Pressure Control, LLC 494 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: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.