Fire departments (e.g., government, volunteer (except private)) · Connecticut

Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT

Prospect, CT · ~72 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
0.0
Avg TCR
3.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT runs at 0% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Fire departments (e.g., government, volunteer (except private)) workplace, earning a grade C.

Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT: 0.0 TCR = 0% of Fire departments (e.g., government, volunteer (except private)) BLS 3.2 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT safety composite

Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 100% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 52%), 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

83/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
A 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 100% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 85% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 52% 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

−400.0

2017→2020

Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT injury rate improved

Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT's TCR fell 400.0 from 400.0 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2019 at 600.0 TCR.

2017=400.0 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=600.0 · 2020=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 922160 · Prospect, CT AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 0.0 · 0% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #0/113
  • PHOTO Fire Department
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 5 inj
  • SIZE ~72 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Fire Department (0.2 TCR gap)

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

Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT averages 0.0 TCR (0% of the Fire departments (e.g., government, volunteer (except private)) BLS benchmark).

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

Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT TCR series: 2017=400 · 2018=0 · 2019=600 · 2020=0 · BLS 3.2

Where Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT falls in its industry

793 Fire departments (e.g., govern establishments

Safer than 100% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 9.8.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Connecticut alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #0 safest of 113 Fire departments (e.g., govern employers in Connecticut.

Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT (72 employees, TCR 0.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 54 employees and a TCR of 9.8 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 0102030 Average employees Total Case Rate Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT
Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT (72 employees, TCR 0.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 54 employees and a TCR of 9.8

Prospect Volunteer Fire Department EMT has more employees than the Fire departments (e.g., government, volu median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 9.8. 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
2020 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2019 600.0 0.0 3 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 400.0 0.0 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

922160 · CT · Prospect

793 Fire departments (e.g., government, volunteer (except private)) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,008 rated employers in Connecticut with headcount on file · 13 employers in Prospect, CT · 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 Fire Department 0.2 TCR
NAICS-TCR HEADQUARTERS : 1300 U Street Building 0.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR HEADQUARTERS : State Fire Marshal 0.4 TCR
NAICS-TCR City of Willmar - Fire Station 0.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE FIP construction, Inc. 72 FTE
STATE-SIZE 104758 - Infrastructure Imp. CT State Pier 72 FTE
STATE-SIZE Structural #43 72 FTE
STATE-SIZE Kimchuk, Inc. 72 FTE
CITY-NEAR All-Star-Prospect 77 FTE
CITY-NEAR 163515-Prospect | CT | 163515 71 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sheldon Precision, LLC 53 FTE
CITY-NEAR Carlisle EPS Holding LLC 40 FTE
NAT-TCR Meijer 208 0.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Atlanta - Phipps 0.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Binghamton 0.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Detroit 0.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE The Valley Inn 72 FTE
NAT-SIZE Farmers Union Oil Company of Berthold/Carpio 72 FTE
NAT-SIZE Ernst Cobb CO Inc. Kennesaw 72 FTE
NAT-SIZE 573 - Montebello-Int Branch 72 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: 2020, 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.