Food banks · New York

The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York

Latham, NY · ~84 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
13.2
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York runs at 347% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Food banks workplace, earning a grade F.

The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York: 13.2 TCR = 347% of Food banks BLS 3.8 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York safety composite

The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 6%), 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

18/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 13.2 per 100 workers

Safer than 6% of industry peers

DART rate
F 8.43 per 100 workers

Safer than 9% 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

−7.7

2016→2020

The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York injury rate improved

The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York's TCR fell 7.7 from 17.5 in 2016 to 9.8 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2016 at 17.5 TCR. In 2020, DART was 0.64× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=17.5 · 2017=11.8 · 2018=12.6 · 2019=14.2 · 2020=9.8

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 624210 · Latham, NY ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 13.2 · 347% of ind

  • DART 8.4 DART
  • RANK #11/11
  • PHOTO Wyoming Food Bank of…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 47 inj
  • SIZE ~84 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Wyoming Food Bank of the Rockies (0.1 TCR gap)

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

The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York averages 13.2 TCR (347% of the Food banks BLS benchmark).

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

The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York TCR series: 2016=17.5 · 2017=11.8 · 2018=12.6 · 2019=14.2 · 2020=9.8 · BLS 3.8

Where The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York falls in its industry

147 Food banks establishments

Safer than 6% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New York alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #11 safest of 11 Food banks employers in New York.

The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York (84 employees, TCR 13.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 4.7 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 050100150200250 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York
The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York (84 employees, TCR 13.2) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 72 employees and a TCR of 4.7

The Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York has more employees than the Food banks median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.7. 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 9.8 8.4 7 0 0
2019 14.2 9.5 9 0 0
2018 12.6 9.4 8 0 0
2017 11.8 4.7 9 1 0
2016 17.5 13.8 14 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

624210 · NY · Latham

147 Food banks employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 21,008 rated employers in New York with headcount on file · 96 employers in Latham, 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 Wyoming Food Bank of the Rockies 13.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Fergus County Council on Aging 14.1 TCR
NAICS-TCR Second Harvest of Silicon Valley - Bing 12.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Meals on Wheels San Diego County 14.2 TCR
STATE-SIZE Astoria Generating Station 84 FTE
STATE-SIZE Bonacio Construction, Inc. 84 FTE
STATE-SIZE NA-US-NY-Elmsford-Ridgewood Drive 84 FTE
STATE-SIZE Keleman-Bauer Construction Inc. DBA Edbauer Construction 84 FTE
CITY-NEAR ALBANY (NYALB) 925 FTE
CITY-NEAR NYALB - ALBANY 811 FTE
CITY-NEAR Plug Power Latham 657 FTE
CITY-NEAR Philips Medical Systems 511 FTE
NAT-TCR Bickford of Springfield 13.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Oceanside Center 13.2 TCR
NAT-TCR Pine Point Center 13.2 TCR
NAT-TCR 4769-6065-Williams Sonoma 13.2 TCR
NAT-SIZE Mercedes Benz of Lancaster 84 FTE
NAT-SIZE Washington Penn Plastic Co., Inc. - LaFayette Division 84 FTE
NAT-SIZE Parkview Learning Center 84 FTE
NAT-SIZE Generation Fossil Greene County Steam Plant 84 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, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.