Activity centers for disabled persons, the elderly, and persons diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities · Minnesota

SEMCIL

Rochester, MN · ~268 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
2.0
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

SEMCIL runs at 53% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Activity centers for disabled persons, the elderly, and persons diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities workplace, earning a grade B.

SEMCIL: 2.0 TCR = 53% of Activity centers for disabled persons, the elderly, and persons diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities BLS 3.8 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

SEMCIL safety composite

SEMCIL scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 79% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 44%), 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).

C

60/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 2.03 per 100 workers

Safer than 79% of industry peers

DART rate
D 2.14 per 100 workers

Safer than 44% 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

−1.0

2017→2022

SEMCIL injury rate improved

SEMCIL's TCR fell 1.0 from 3.1 in 2017 to 2.1 in 2022. Peak filing year was 2020 at 4.8 TCR. In 2022, DART was 1.05× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=3.1 · 2018=1.6 · 2019=0.0 · 2020=4.8 · 2021=0.6 · 2022=2.1

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 624120 · Rochester, MN AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade B · TCR 2.0 · 53% of ind

  • DART 2.1 DART
  • RANK #8/44
  • PHOTO KENDAL AT HOME
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 13 inj
  • SIZE ~268 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: KENDAL AT HOME (0.0 TCR gap)

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

SEMCIL in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows SEMCIL averages 2.0 TCR (53% of the Activity centers for disabled persons, the elderly, and persons diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities BLS benchmark).

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

SEMCIL TCR series: 2017=3.1 · 2018=1.6 · 2019=0 · 2020=4.8 · 2021=0.6 · 2022=2.1 · BLS 3.8

Where SEMCIL falls in its industry

1,320 Activity centers for disabled establishments

Safer than 79% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #8 safest of 44 Activity centers for disabled employers in Minnesota.

SEMCIL (268 employees, TCR 2.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 4.5 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 05001,0001,5002,0002,500 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate SEMCIL
SEMCIL (268 employees, TCR 2.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 4.5

SEMCIL has more employees than the Activity centers for disabled persons, t median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.5. 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
2022 2.1 2.1 1 0 0
2021 0.6 0.6 1 0 0
2020 4.8 4.8 2 0 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 1.6 1.6 3 0 0
2017 3.1 0.0 6 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

624120 · MN · Rochester

1,320 Activity centers for disabled persons, the elderly, and persons diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 290 employers in Rochester, MN · 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 KENDAL AT HOME 2.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Community Options Prince George MD 2.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Henry Ave. 2.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR In-Home Services (Congregate, Supported Living & Community-based) 2.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Hutchinson Technology Inc. - Hutchinson, MN 268 FTE
STATE-SIZE Logic PD Eden Prairie 268 FTE
STATE-SIZE Design Ready Controls - BP8 268 FTE
STATE-SIZE Minnesota State Colleges and Universities - Lake Superior College Main Facility 268 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mayo Clinic Rochester 38,233 FTE
CITY-NEAR Olmsted County 1,304 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC 1,051 FTE
CITY-NEAR FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS 823 FTE
NAT-TCR Food Merchandising : BEECH ISLAND 2.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Greif Lockport 2.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Thelin Recycling 2.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Pomerelle Place 2.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE Tyger River Plant 268 FTE
NAT-SIZE Don Quijote Honolulu Store 268 FTE
NAT-SIZE Westfield (formerly Prolamina/Jen-Coat) 268 FTE
NAT-SIZE 6202 Mebane Folding 268 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: 2022, 2021, 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.