Public property management services, government · Arizona

Yuma County Facilities Management

Yuma, AZ · ~42 workers · 6 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
13.0
Avg TCR
3.2
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Yuma County Facilities Management runs at 405% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Public property management services, government workplace, earning a grade F.

Yuma County Facilities Management: 13.0 TCR = 405% of Public property management services, government BLS 3.2 · 6y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Yuma County Facilities Management safety composite

Yuma County Facilities Management scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 4%), 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 12.96 per 100 workers

Safer than 10% of industry peers

DART rate
F 13.68 per 100 workers

Safer than 4% 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

Yuma County Facilities Management: 18.6 → 19.1 TCR

Peak year 2022 @ 133.6 TCR · DART/TCR 1.06× in 2024

Yuma County Facilities Management's TCR rose 0.6 from 18.6 in 2019 to 19.1 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2022 at 133.6 TCR. In 2024, DART was 1.06× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 921190 · Yuma, AZ ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 13.0 · 405% of ind

  • DART 13.7 DART
  • RANK #80/82
  • PHOTO City of Eagan
  • BOOK 6y book
  • INJ 27 inj
  • SIZE ~42 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: City of Eagan (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Yuma County Facilities Management in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Yuma County Facilities Management averages 13.0 TCR (405% of the Public property management services, government BLS benchmark).

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

Yuma County Facilities Management TCR series: 2019=18.6 · 2020=15.8 · 2021=8.7 · 2022=133.6 · 2023=2.7 · 2024=19.1 · BLS 3.2

Where Yuma County Facilities Management falls in its industry

1,496 Public property management ser establishments

Safer than 10% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.6.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Arizona alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #80 safest of 82 Public property management ser employers in Arizona.

Yuma County Facilities Management (42 employees, TCR 13.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 93 employees and a TCR of 4.6 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 010203040 Average employees Total Case Rate Yuma County Facilities Management
Yuma County Facilities Management (42 employees, TCR 13.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 93 employees and a TCR of 4.6

Yuma County Facilities Management has fewer employees than the Public property management services, gov median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.6. 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
2024 19.1 13.7 7 0 0
2023 2.7 2.7 1 0 0
2022 133.6 0.0 4 3 0
2021 8.7 2.9 3 0 0
2020 15.8 5.3 5 1 0
2019 18.6 8.0 7 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

921190 · AZ · Yuma

1,496 Public property management services, government employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 9,594 rated employers in Arizona with headcount on file · 274 employers in Yuma, AZ · 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 City of Eagan 13.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR City of Hugo 13.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Fridley Civic Center 12.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR City of Goodview 13.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Verano CPG Winslow 42 FTE
STATE-SIZE 260_450 42 FTE
STATE-SIZE Flagstaff Maintenance North 42 FTE
STATE-SIZE Flagstaff Forestry/IS 42 FTE
CITY-NEAR Primetime Harvesting Inc 2,271 FTE
CITY-NEAR Foothill Packing- Arizona 2,175 FTE
CITY-NEAR Yuma Regional Medical Center 1,757 FTE
CITY-NEAR PGM PACKING INC 1,423 FTE
NAT-TCR QUINCY-MA41 13.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Legacy Village at Plantation Manor 13.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Les Schwab Tire Center-Redmond 13.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Truck Equipment Inc. 13.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE TDS Custom Cabinets, LLC 42 FTE
NAT-SIZE Jacuzzi Family Vineyards 42 FTE
NAT-SIZE Rex Creamery 42 FTE
NAT-SIZE Public Works 42 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: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.