Fence installation (except electronic containment fencing for pets) · Pennsylvania

Lee Fence and Outdoor

York, PA · ~21 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
3.2
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Lee Fence and Outdoor runs at 113% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Fence installation (except electronic containment fencing for pets) workplace, earning a grade C.

Lee Fence and Outdoor: 3.2 TCR = 113% of Fence installation (except electronic containment fencing for pets) BLS 2.8 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Lee Fence and Outdoor safety composite

Lee Fence and Outdoor scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 73% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 36%), 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

53/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 3.16 per 100 workers

Safer than 36% 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%).

Lee Fence and Outdoor held a steady TCR band

Lee Fence and Outdoor's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.0 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2017 at 9.5 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=0.0 · 2017=9.5 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=4.2 · 2020=0.0 · 2021=4.5 · 2022=4.9 · 2023=5.4 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 238990 · York, PA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 3.2 · 113% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #32/64
  • PHOTO Hager Paving Inc.
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 6 inj
  • SIZE ~21 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Hager Paving Inc. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Lee Fence and Outdoor in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Lee Fence and Outdoor averages 3.2 TCR (113% of the Fence installation (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

Lee Fence and Outdoor TCR series: 2016=0 · 2017=9.5 · 2018=0 · 2019=4.2 · 2020=0 · 2021=4.5 · 2022=4.9 · 2023=5.4 · 2024=0 · BLS 2.8

Where Lee Fence and Outdoor falls in its industry

1,634 Fence installation (except ele establishments

Safer than 36% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 1.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Pennsylvania alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #32 safest of 64 Fence installation (except ele employers in Pennsylvania.

Lee Fence and Outdoor (21 employees, TCR 3.2) 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 Lee Fence and Outdoor
Lee Fence and Outdoor (21 employees, TCR 3.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 52 employees and a TCR of 1.9

Lee Fence and Outdoor has fewer employees than the Fence installation (except electronic co 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 5.4 5.4 1 0 0
2022 4.9 0.0 1 0 0
2021 4.5 4.5 1 0 0
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 4.2 4.2 1 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 9.5 9.5 2 0 0
2016 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

238990 · PA · York

1,634 Fence installation (except electronic containment fencing for pets) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 22,692 rated employers in Pennsylvania with headcount on file · 496 employers in York, 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 Hager Paving Inc. 3.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Marr Crane & Rigging 3.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Homer Glen 3.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR Raytheon_Chaparral_NM_Dona Ana Base Camp 3.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Smiling Porker 21 FTE
STATE-SIZE STgenetics-PA Dairy 21 FTE
STATE-SIZE LUMA, Carolina Hangar 21 FTE
STATE-SIZE UGI Frackville 21 FTE
CITY-NEAR WellSpan York Hospital 4,886 FTE
CITY-NEAR WellSpan Medical Group 4,293 FTE
CITY-NEAR Wellspan Health 2,591 FTE
CITY-NEAR FedEx Supply Chain (Target York) 1,875 FTE
NAT-TCR Goodwill Painesville Store 3.2 TCR
NAT-TCR East Arkansas Area Agency on Aging- Craighead 3.2 TCR
NAT-TCR R.E.C. Industries, Inc BCS 3.2 TCR
NAT-TCR H&H Electric Co. 3.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE CB Bangor Branch 21 FTE
NAT-SIZE Harrison McPhee, Inc. 21 FTE
NAT-SIZE Structural Components Corporation 21 FTE
NAT-SIZE Crescent Park Corporation - M2 21 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.