Substance abuse facilities, residential · California

Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose

San Jose, CA · ~183 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

B
Good Safety Record
2.3
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose runs at 61% of its industry's injury rate - safer than the typical Substance abuse facilities, residential workplace, earning a grade B.

Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose: 2.3 TCR = 61% of Substance abuse facilities, residential BLS 3.8 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose safety composite

Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 75% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 51%), 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

61/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 2.32 per 100 workers

Safer than 75% of industry peers

DART rate
D 1.38 per 100 workers

Safer than 51% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose: 1.9 → 2.8 TCR

Peak year 2018 @ 2.8 TCR · DART/TCR 0.59× in 2018

Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose's TCR rose 0.9 from 1.9 in 2017 to 2.8 in 2018. In 2018, DART was 0.59× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623220 · San Jose, CA AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade B · TCR 2.3 · 61% of ind

  • DART 1.4 DART
  • RANK #42/177
  • PHOTO Koren Lane IRA - Mi…
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 6 inj
  • SIZE ~183 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Koren Lane IRA - Middle Island (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose averages 2.3 TCR (61% of the Substance abuse facilities, residential BLS benchmark).

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

Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose TCR series: 2017=1.9 · 2018=2.8 · BLS 3.8

Where Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose falls in its industry

1,165 Substance abuse facilities, re establishments

Safer than 75% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #42 safest of 177 Substance abuse facilities, re employers in California.

Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose (183 employees, TCR 2.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 55 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 0200400600800 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose
Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose (183 employees, TCR 2.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 55 employees and a TCR of 4.7

Uplift Family Services - 232 E Gish Rd - San Jose has more employees than the Substance abuse facilities, residential median and a lower 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
2018 2.8 1.4 4 0 0
2017 1.9 1.9 2 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623220 · CA · San Jose

1,165 Substance abuse facilities, residential employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 1,102 employers in San Jose, 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 Koren Lane IRA - Middle Island 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR 4238-3D8 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Springlane 2.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Ferraro 2.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE Mike Etchandy Farms, INC 183 FTE
STATE-SIZE MGM LABOR CONTRACTING INC 183 FTE
STATE-SIZE JOE CARMONA 183 FTE
STATE-SIZE LADWP 5898 VENICE 183 FTE
CITY-NEAR 2636-CALIFORNIA.SAN JOSE 11,308 FTE
CITY-NEAR Santa Clara Valley Healthcare, Valley Medical Center (Hospital & Clinics) 7,299 FTE
CITY-NEAR Rosendin - Main 6,964 FTE
CITY-NEAR Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC & Clinics) 6,576 FTE
NAT-TCR Elite Metal Decking Inc. 2.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Belo Mansion 2.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Kci Rac 2.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Sunbury PA Warehouse 2.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Gas Field Specialists, Inc. 183 FTE
NAT-SIZE The Dearborn Inn, a Marriott Hotel 183 FTE
NAT-SIZE Port City Die Cast and Port City Transport 183 FTE
NAT-SIZE Hazleton Bread PA Plant 183 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: 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.