Public parole offices · Michigan

Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole

Roseville, MI · ~26 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
1.3
Avg TCR
3.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole runs at 41% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Public parole offices workplace, earning a grade A.

Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole: 1.3 TCR = 41% of Public parole offices BLS 3.2 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole safety composite

Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 85% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 51%), 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

75/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 1.31 per 100 workers

Safer than 85% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 80% 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%).

TCR Δ

−3.9

2017→2019

Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole injury rate improved

Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole's TCR fell 3.9 from 3.9 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2019. Peak filing year was 2017 at 3.9 TCR. In 2019, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=3.9 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 922150 · Roseville, MI AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 1.3 · 41% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #1/15
  • PHOTO Michigan Department …
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 1 inj
  • SIZE ~26 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Michigan Department of Corrections - Washtenaw County Probation (0.1 TCR gap)

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

Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole averages 1.3 TCR (41% of the Public parole offices BLS benchmark).

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

Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole TCR series: 2017=3.9 · 2018=0 · 2019=0 · BLS 3.2

Where Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole falls in its industry

81 Public parole offices establishments

Safer than 85% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.4.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #1 safest of 15 Public parole offices employers in Michigan.

Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole (26 employees, TCR 1.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 69 employees and a TCR of 3.4 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 05001,0001,5002,000 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole
Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole (26 employees, TCR 1.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 69 employees and a TCR of 3.4

Michigan Department of Corrections - Macomb Parole has fewer employees than the Public parole offices median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.4. 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 3.9 3.9 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

922150 · MI · Roseville

81 Public parole offices employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 82 employers in Roseville, MI · 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 Michigan Department of Corrections - Washtenaw County Probation 1.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Department of Corrections Probation & Parole District 15 1.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brooklyn House 1.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR Probation Administrative Office 1.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE JACKSON COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE Food Bank of South Central Michigan 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE Nordic Partners Inc 26 FTE
STATE-SIZE Independent Machine Co Inc 26 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4003 - TPG/PBM 666 FTE
CITY-NEAR 4002 - TPG/PBS (inc 4009) 565 FTE
CITY-NEAR WM 2959 446 FTE
CITY-NEAR RCO Engineering, Inc. 417 FTE
NAT-TCR Minnesota Department of Health - Duluth 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR 125 - Madison South 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR 5472-Swy 0035 1801 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR HQ 1.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Boise Valley Feeders, LLC 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE wrens iga 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE Commercial Works Louisville 26 FTE
NAT-SIZE Minnesota Department of Health - Rochester 26 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.