Cafeteria food services contractors (e.g., government office cafeterias, hospital cafeterias, school cafeterias) · North Carolina

Wake County

Raleigh, NC · ~38 workers · 4 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
8.0
Avg TCR
3.0
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Wake County runs at 266% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Cafeteria food services contractors (e.g., government office cafeterias, hospital cafeterias, school cafeterias) workplace, earning a grade F.

Wake County: 8.0 TCR = 266% of Cafeteria food services contractors (e.g., government office cafeterias, hospital cafeterias, school cafeterias) BLS 3.0 · 4y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Wake County safety composite

Wake County scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 70% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 15%), 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

43/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 7.97 per 100 workers

Safer than 15% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 70% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% 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

−15.3

2016→2019

Wake County injury rate improved

Wake County's TCR fell 15.3 from 15.3 in 2016 to 0.0 in 2019. Peak filing year was 2016 at 15.3 TCR. In 2019, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=15.3 · 2017=2.5 · 2018=14.1 · 2019=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 722310 · Raleigh, NC ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 8.0 · 266% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #190/214
  • PHOTO COSMO CATERING
  • BOOK 4y book
  • INJ 13 inj
  • SIZE ~38 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: COSMO CATERING (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Wake County in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Wake County averages 8.0 TCR (266% of the Cafeteria food services contractors (e.g., government office cafeterias, hospital cafeterias, school cafeterias) BLS benchmark).

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

Wake County TCR series: 2016=15.3 · 2017=2.5 · 2018=14.1 · 2019=0 · BLS 3.0

Where Wake County falls in its industry

6,952 Cafeteria food services contra establishments

Safer than 15% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.5.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to North Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #190 safest of 214 Cafeteria food services contra employers in North Carolina.

Wake County (38 employees, TCR 8.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 43 employees and a TCR of 3.5 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 0200400600800 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Wake County
Wake County (38 employees, TCR 8.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 43 employees and a TCR of 3.5

Wake County has fewer employees than the Cafeteria food services contractors (e.g median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.5. 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
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 14.1 2.8 5 0 0
2017 2.5 0.0 1 0 0
2016 15.3 0.0 7 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

722310 · NC · Raleigh

6,952 Cafeteria food services contractors (e.g., government office cafeterias, hospital cafeterias, school cafeterias) employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,981 rated employers in North Carolina with headcount on file · 973 employers in Raleigh, NC · 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 COSMO CATERING 8.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR 610634700 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ATHLETICS 8.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR MCLAIR CHILI'S 8.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR SODEXO AT THE ROSE BOWL 8.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Morganton Hatchery 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE Harris Energy & Environmental Center 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE Enerdyne Power Systems, Inc 38 FTE
STATE-SIZE Electric Utilities (8100) 38 FTE
CITY-NEAR Headway Workforce Solutions 13,936 FTE
CITY-NEAR NC State University 11,491 FTE
CITY-NEAR UNC Rex Healthcare 7,282 FTE
CITY-NEAR SECU 6,283 FTE
NAT-TCR 6962-Swy 0029 2162 8.0 TCR
NAT-TCR WestHouse Hotel 8.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Thor Motor Coach/Plant 750 8.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Favarh - The ARC of the Farmington Valley 8.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE South Mill 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE Kinghorn Gardens 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE 234014-Greenbelt Po 38 FTE
NAT-SIZE O-Ku Sushi Charleston 38 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: 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.