Facilities Support Services · New York

Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College

Geneva, NY · ~54 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.6
Avg TCR
2.6
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College runs at 177% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Facilities Support Services workplace, earning a grade D.

Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College: 4.6 TCR = 177% of Facilities Support Services BLS 2.6 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College safety composite

Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 77% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 29%), 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

51/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 4.61 per 100 workers

Safer than 29% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 77% 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

−4.6

2017→2021

Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College injury rate improved

Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College's TCR fell 4.6 from 4.6 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2021. Peak filing year was 2018 at 11.4 TCR. In 2021, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=4.6 · 2018=11.4 · 2019=4.6 · 2020=2.5 · 2021=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 561210 · Geneva, NY ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 4.6 · 177% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #25/36
  • PHOTO The Logistics Compan…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 11 inj
  • SIZE ~54 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College averages 4.6 TCR (177% of the Facilities Support Services BLS benchmark).

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

Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College TCR series: 2017=4.6 · 2018=11.4 · 2019=4.6 · 2020=2.5 · 2021=0 · BLS 2.6

Where Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College falls in its industry

757 Facilities Support Services establishments

Safer than 29% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New York alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #25 safest of 36 Facilities Support Services employers in New York.

Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College (54 employees, TCR 4.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 55 employees and a TCR of 2.9 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 0200400600 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College
Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College (54 employees, TCR 4.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 55 employees and a TCR of 2.9

Sodexo at Hobart & William Smith College has fewer employees than the Facilities Support Services median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.9. 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
2021 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 2.5 2.5 2 0 0
2019 4.6 4.6 2 0 0
2018 11.4 6.8 5 0 0
2017 4.6 4.6 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

561210 · NY · Geneva

757 Facilities Support Services employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 21,008 rated employers in New York with headcount on file · 49 employers in Geneva, NY · 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 The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground 4.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR 175 951 - GEO EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE-NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 4.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR 000001478 - VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM-EVS 4.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR GM Pontiac North CET 4.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Lincoln Dairy 54 FTE
STATE-SIZE Kast Farms Inc. 54 FTE
STATE-SIZE Roseton Generating LLC 54 FTE
STATE-SIZE W. 30th Street Substation 54 FTE
CITY-NEAR Hobart and William Smith Colleges 2,005 FTE
CITY-NEAR Geneva General Hospital 798 FTE
CITY-NEAR Zotos International Inc. 603 FTE
CITY-NEAR Henkel US Operations Corporation 411 FTE
NAT-TCR Sodexo at Ohio Northern Univ-White Bear 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Adjustable Forms Inc. 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR USCS- Tracy CA 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Athens ISD 4.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Merles Automotive DC 54 FTE
NAT-SIZE Corporate : BEDFORD PARK 6000 54 FTE
NAT-SIZE Three Notch Electric Membership Coperation 54 FTE
NAT-SIZE 2077-Us Dd Nw Colton Branch 54 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: 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.