Other Direct Selling Establishments · Pennsylvania

Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District

Lancaster, PA · ~23 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
11.3
Avg TCR
3.4
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District runs at 332% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Other Direct Selling Establishments workplace, earning a grade F.

Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District: 11.3 TCR = 332% of Other Direct Selling Establishments BLS 3.4 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District safety composite

Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 5%), 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).

F

16/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 11.3 per 100 workers

Safer than 5% of industry peers

DART rate
F 11.22 per 100 workers

Safer than 5% 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

−7.2

2016→2019

Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District injury rate improved

Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District's TCR fell 7.2 from 18.4 in 2016 to 11.2 in 2019. Peak filing year was 2016 at 18.4 TCR. In 2019, DART was 0.99× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=18.4 · 2017=4.7 · 2018=10.9 · 2019=11.2

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 454390 · Lancaster, PA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 11.3 · 332% of ind

  • DART 11.2 DART
  • RANK #3/4
  • PHOTO Roaring Spring Water…
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 9 inj
  • SIZE ~23 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Roaring Spring Water Gettysburg (0.3 TCR gap)

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

Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District averages 11.3 TCR (332% of the Other Direct Selling Establishments BLS benchmark).

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

Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District TCR series: 2016=18.4 · 2017=4.7 · 2018=10.9 · 2019=11.2 · BLS 3.4

Where Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District falls in its industry

212 Other Direct Selling Establish establishments

Safer than 5% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.1.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #3 safest of 4 Other Direct Selling Establish employers in Pennsylvania.

Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District (23 employees, TCR 11.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 37 employees and a TCR of 4.1 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 050100150200250 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District
Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District (23 employees, TCR 11.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 37 employees and a TCR of 4.1

Lancaster Pa/Central Pa District has fewer employees than the Other Direct Selling Establishments median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.1. 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
2019 11.2 11.2 2 0 0
2018 10.9 5.4 2 0 0
2017 4.7 4.7 1 0 0
2016 18.4 18.4 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

454390 · PA · Lancaster

212 Other Direct Selling Establishments employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 450 employers in Lancaster, PA · 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 Roaring Spring Water Gettysburg 11.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR PLANT 4-MASPETH NY 10.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR 2077-US FF NW FAIRVIEW PARK BRANCH 10.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR OKLAHOMA CITY OK - CB TRUCK PARKING 10.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE Mt. Parnell Fisheries Co. 23 FTE
STATE-SIZE Hickory Run Energy, LLC 23 FTE
STATE-SIZE CPV Fairview LLC 23 FTE
STATE-SIZE Valley Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. - Corporate Office 23 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lancaster General Health, LGH Hospital 7,424 FTE
CITY-NEAR LGHealth 7,215 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lancaster General Hospital 6,528 FTE
CITY-NEAR Lancaster General Medical Group 1,436 FTE
NAT-TCR Richco Structres 11.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Seaford Center 11.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Amzl : Dna1 11.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Bend Thrift Store 11.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Lino Lakes, Mn - Retail 23 FTE
NAT-SIZE Vanburen, Ar 23 FTE
NAT-SIZE Hartville, Oh 23 FTE
NAT-SIZE Lake City, Fl(High Springs) Shuttle 23 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: 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.