Employer · California

San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District

Spring Valley, CA · ~85 workers · 3 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
19.0
Avg TCR
3.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District runs at 593% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical industry workplace, earning a grade F.

San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District: 19.0 TCR = 593% of industry BLS 3.2 · 3y Form 300A (see methodology below)

San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District safety composite

San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 52% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 14%), 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

25/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 18.99 per 100 workers

Safer than 14% of industry peers

DART rate
F 10.21 per 100 workers

Safer than 19% 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%).

Rising injury rate

San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District: 15.0 → 23.0 TCR

Peak year 2019 @ 23.0 TCR · DART/TCR 0.54× in 2019

San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District's TCR rose 8.0 from 15.0 in 2018 to 23.0 in 2019. In 2019, DART was 0.54× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 922160 · Spring Valley, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 19.0 · 593% of ind

  • DART 10.2 DART
  • RANK #52/87
  • PHOTO P O Fire District
  • BOOK 3y book
  • INJ 51 inj
  • SIZE ~85 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: P O Fire District (0.0 TCR gap)

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

San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District averages 19.0 TCR (593% of the industry BLS benchmark).

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

San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District TCR series: 2018=15 · 2019=23 · BLS 3.2

Where San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District falls in its industry

793 industry establishments

Safer than 14% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 9.8.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #52 safest of 87 industry employers in California.

San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District (85 employees, TCR 19.0) 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 San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District
San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District (85 employees, TCR 19.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 54 employees and a TCR of 9.8

San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District has more employees than the industry median and a higher 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
2024 - - 8 2 0
2019 23.0 10.2 27 0 0
2018 15.0 6.6 16 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

922160 · CA · Spring Valley

793 industry employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 56 employers in Spring Valley, 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 P O Fire District 19.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR FIRE #2 270 W. 300 NO. 19.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Ventura County Fire Protection District 19.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Station 5: Lake 18.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE Gallo Vineyards, Inc. 85 FTE
STATE-SIZE Roche Brothers Inc. 85 FTE
STATE-SIZE Village Nurseries Pauma Valley Yard 85 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sunlet Nursery, Inc. 85 FTE
CITY-NEAR California Department of Transportation Facility 368 1,170 FTE
CITY-NEAR Covenant Living at Mount Miguel 230 FTE
CITY-NEAR MOUNT MIGUEL COVENANT VILLAGE 226 FTE
CITY-NEAR Casper Company 180 FTE
NAT-TCR Inspired Living Bonita Springs 19.0 TCR
NAT-TCR P O Fire District 19.0 TCR
NAT-TCR The McCoy Group Inc 19.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Warsaw Health & Rehab Center #54 19.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE International Operations & Services USA LLC 85 FTE
NAT-SIZE Bowen's Corner Elementary 85 FTE
NAT-SIZE Shin-Etsu Silicones of America, Inc. Damar 85 FTE
NAT-SIZE Printron Engravers, Inc. 85 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, 2019, 2018. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.