Indiana Food Safety Regulator Enumeration

JoAnna Beck

Food Safety Farm Consultant

Indiana State Department of Health

International Food Protection Training Institute (IFPTI)

2017 Fellow in Applied Science, Law, and Policy: Fellowship in Food Protection

 

 

Author Note

JoAnna Beck, Food Safety Farm Consultant, Indiana State Department of Health.

This research was conducted as part of the International Food Protection Training Institute’s Fellowship in Food Protection, Cohort VI.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to JoAnna Beck, Indiana State Department of Health, 100 N Senate Ave, Room N855 Field Staff

Indianapolis, IN 46204; Email: JBeck1@isdh.in.gov







Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the number, titles, and types of food safety regulatory personnel in Indiana. The objective of this study is to build a model approach that may be used to gather information about the collective capacity and diversity of the food protection system nationwide. Surveys via telephone and email were conducted with eight agencies across all levels of government including: United States Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service, Indiana State Department of Health Food Protection Division, Indiana State Department of Health Long Term and Acute Care, Indiana Board of Animal Health, Indiana State Egg Board, and each local county health department in Indiana. Federal and state agencies provided 100% response to the survey questions posed, while, local health agencies had a response rate of 49%. Recommendations include: ensuring correct contact information for regulatory agencies, utilizing professional organizations to obtain a higher response rate, and being prepared to employ various strategies or tactics for initiating response from a dispersed audience.  

Background

          At present, there is no comprehensive description of the food safety regulator workforce including the number and types of food safety regulators in Indiana. This lack of an overall picture comes at a time when food safety has been a rising concern in Indiana as well as throughout the country leading to the enactment of the Food Safety Modernization Act in 2011. There is an importance for Indiana to have an understanding of the number of food safety regulators in regards to the amount and types of training needed, as well as the number of establishments that require inspections vs. the amount of full time equivalent (FTE) employees are available to complete the work. The lack of a comprehensive description of the workforce has led to a belief among some food safety regulators that there are insufficient regulators to meet public health needs. 

          Regulatory food agencies with food protection staff located in Indiana include: The United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Indiana State Department of Health-Food Protection, Indiana State Egg Board, Indiana Board of Animal Health, Indiana State Department of Health Acute and long Term Care Division, and 92 local county health departments.

           USDA FSIS and FDA are responsible for regulating food that crosses state lines or enters into interstate commerce. USDA FSIS regulates meat, poultry and processed egg products that enter into interstate commerce, while the FDA regulates all other food products that enter into interstate commerce.

          The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) Food Protection is responsible for regulating wholesale food establishments, retail food establishments on state property, and temporary food establishments that are on state property. Local Indiana county health departments are responsible for regulating retail food establishments in their counties.

          The Indiana State Egg Board regulates raw shell eggs of domesticated chickens in Indiana. The Indiana State Egg Board adopted the U.S. Standards, Grades, and Weight Classes for shell eggs promulgated by the USDA.

          The Indiana Board of Animal Health (BOAH) consists of two divisions: meat and poultry inspections and dairy inspections. BOAH is responsible for inspecting instate meat and poultry production of amenable species that is only sold in intrastate commerce. In addition, BOAH is responsible for inspecting milk, cheese, and other dairy production that may cross state lines under the agency’s participation in the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS).

          Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) Acute and Long Term Care Divisions are responsible for inspecting food in nursing homes, prisons, and state inspected daycare facilities.

          Local county health departments in Indiana are responsible for regulating retail food establishments. Besides regulating retail food establishments (not on state property) local county health departments also regulate tattoo parlors, public swimming pool regulations, and onsite septic and wastewater regulations in retail settings. Local health departments in the State of Indiana are all autonomous as Indiana is a “home rule” state. Local health departments serve as agents to ISDH Food Protection and may act on its behalf. ISDH Food Protection provides guidance, consultation and training to local health departments.

Problem Statement

Currently there is no comprehensive inventory of the number, job classifications, and organizational affiliations of Indiana food safety regulators.

Research Questions

1.     Which state and local agencies employ food safety regulators?

2.     What job classifications exist for food safety regulators?

3.     How many food safety regulators are employed in each job classification?

4.     How many food safety regulators are employed in each agency?

5.     How many Full Time Equivalent (FTE) collectively, are devoted to food protection in Indiana?

Methodology

This study began with identifying all food safety regulators within the ISDH Food Protection Division. Interviews both in-person and by phone were conducted with supervisory staff within ISDH Food Protection to obtain a list of additional state level and federal agencies including contact information with food regulatory authority in Indiana. Utilizing the information obtained through the interviews with ISDH Food Protection staff, email interviews were conducted with the following agencies: Indiana BOAH, Indiana State Egg Board, ISDH acute and long term care divisions, USDA FSIS, and FDA. A list of Indiana’s 92 counties was obtained from ISDH Food Protection including contact information.

A survey was sent by email to all 92 counties in Indiana. Email survey questions for each agency included:

1.     What are the position titles for your agency?

2.     What food program is each position working under?

3.     Type of position?

4.     Does the position work in the field or office or a combination of both?

5.     Please provide a summary of each position.

6.     How many positions for each job title are authorized by the agency?

7.     What percent of time is allocated for food regulatory work for each position?

An interview was conducted with the director of ISDH Food Protection that asked the same questions as the email survey. An email survey was not deemed necessary for this agency, as communication was more easily obtained by an interview.  

Results

Federal and state agencies provided a complete set of responses to questions posed in the survey. The responses indicated that the job titles and regulatory responsibility vary greatly between the agencies. A summary of job titles and employee count for local health departments can be seen in Table 1.1. Federal and state agency data is summarized in Table 1.2.  






 

Table 1.1

Local Health Departments

Picture1.png

Table 1.2

State and Federal Agencies

Picture2.png

Out of 92 counties in Indiana, 45 (49%) replied to the survey questions. Commonalities among job titles were noted with the local health departments as the title “environmental health specialist” was noted in 80% of the enumerated responses. One result to note is that 45 percent of the local health departments reported having employees who spent more than 50% of their time and effort on food regulatory work. The remainder of the time was spent on various regulatory work in areas other than food such as: swimming pool inspections, sewer and septic work, and inspecting tattoo parlors.

100% response rate was obtained from the federal and state agencies that were polled for the survey. There are currently 326 food safety regulator positions across federal and state agencies with a FTE value of 227.2 employees.

Conclusions

Because this was an enumeration study, the target response rate was 100%. One of the keys to successful completion of this research was identifying which agencies regulated food, and then finding correct contact information for each agency. Once state food regulatory agencies and federal food agencies with personnel working in Indiana were identified, getting a 100% response rate and complete information from these respondents was a relatively easy task.

Conversely, polling local health departments proved difficult. There was no accurate, comprehensive contact information for local health departments in Indiana and getting all or nearly all of the local health departments to respond to the survey was problematic due to the short time frame available and using the methodology employed in this study. Even after repeated e-mail contacts and follow up phone calls, the response rate for local health departments was 49%.

Recommendations:

1. Prior to initiating data collection, ensure correct contact information for each regulatory agency to be surveyed.

2. The use of professional organizations where large portions of the target survey audience are members could prove to be beneficial in gaining a higher response rate from local or municipal health departments where other communication attempts have failed. Organizations could include the state wide environmental health association.

3. Researchers should be prepared to employ various tactics to initiate responses from audiences where all forms of communication have failed. This approach would prove to be beneficial to rely on those who have responded to encourage the response rate for those who have failed to respond.

4. When developing a larger survey, researchers should utilize the titles identified in his study as check boxes to begin standardizing responses.

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to acknowledge Krista Click and George Jones of the ISDH for supporting me throughout and allowing me the time to complete this fellowship. Additionally, I would like to thank all of the participants that responded to the survey conducted as part of this research.

I would also like to thank IFPTI for providing the opportunity to participate in the fellowship, and the IFPTI educators, subject matter expert, Paul Dezendorf, and my mentor, Steve Steinhoff, for guidance throughout the project. Lastly, I would like to thank each of the fellow Cohort 6 members in making the Fellowship such a rewarding experience.

References

Click, K. (2016, October 1). Personal interview.

Indiana State Department of Health. (2016, November 1). Electronic mailing list. Retrieved from http://www.in.gov/isdh/24822.htm

Jones, G. (2016, October 1). Personal interview.

Previous
Previous

Corrections after FDA and Wisconsin Manufactured Food Inspections Show Comparable Compliance Rates

Next
Next

Use of Critical Control Points (CCPs) In Florida Seafood HACCP Plans