Ventura County Grand Jury • 2008-2009

Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean?

Published: June 23, 2009 20 pages
View Original PDF

Findings 41 findings

F01
The County has about 4,700 food providers of which about 1,900 are restaurants. The others consist of grocery stores and retail outlets selling pre-packaged foods, for example.
F02
The EHD restaurant inspection program is funded by the County General Fund; however, these are “revenue offset operations,” in that the fees generated from licensing are adequate to cover all costs of the inspection program. Fees are set annually by the County of Ventura Board of Supervisors (BOS), based on recommendations from the EHD.
F03
The EHD maintains a website (www.ventura.org/rma/envhealth) on which it posts summary inspection data. Restaurant closures and re- openings are also posted. Some Grand Jurors found this site difficult to navigate. Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean?
F04
There are from between 5 and 90 visits to the above website daily with the normal range between 30 and 40.
F05
There are 18 authorized EHS positions, four of which were filled in 2008; placing the division at full staff. In early 2009, one of the EHSs was promoted, creating a vacancy.
F06
All EHS positions require a college degree in the appropriate sciences and are California State Registered Environmental Health Specialists.
F07
The primary function of the EHS is to ensure that restaurants and other food providers meet the requirements of the Cal Code. [Ref-01]
F08
The average inspection takes one to two hours and only reflects the condition at the time of the inspection.
F09
The BOS has defined a goal of three routine inspections per year for each restaurant. During the last several years, with only 14 EHSs, the EHD has been achieving about one inspection per year per restaurant.
F10
The EHD has not determined whether 18 EHSs are sufficient to achieve three routine restaurant inspections per year. The EHD stated that it will re-evaluate its staffing needs after a year of experience with full staff.
F11
Each EHS has a defined region to cover, typically working a two-week 80-hour schedule, nine out of ten days.
F12
EHSs start their day at the Government Center to complete various office activities prior to picking up their County car and proceeding to their region for inspections. The car is returned at the end of each day.
F13
EHSs are also responsible for enforcement of the California Sherman Act. This law requires menu accuracy and other similar items. The EHD stated that this is a low priority activity and enforcement is usually reactive in response to citizen complaints or a blatant violation.
F14
Cal Code requires that food served in public establishments must be obtained from approved sources. Ensuring compliance with this law is also part of the EHS’s responsibilities.
F15
EHSs are also responsible for public swimming pool inspections.
F16
In 2008, there were 2,551 routine restaurant inspections, 1,354 restaurant re-inspections, and approximately 100 closures.
F17
Quarterly data on restaurant inspections from the last five years shows a consistent pattern of about 40% re-inspections and 4% closures.
F18
Inspection frequencies are variable and unannounced.
F19
The County uses a pass/fail system for restaurant inspections and, except for closures, issues a “passed” placard that identifies the date of inspection, and the name of the inspector. The placard also shows the EHD website where inspection results are available and the EHD phone number. (Att-01) Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean? 3
F20
Placards must be posted in public view within the establishment and inspection results must be made available, if requested.
F21
The County’s re-inspection procedures and protocol are: • restaurants subject to closure will be re-inspected as soon as the problem is corrected; most closures last less than two days • when there are a number of violations, but not enough to warrant immediate closure, a re-inspection is scheduled with instructions of what must be done to bring the restaurant back into compliance • a “passed” placard is issued with no indication that a re-inspection is required • if a second re-inspection is still unsatisfactory, a letter is sent strongly delineating what must be done • non-compliance after a third re-inspection results in a hearing and possible closure • a “passed” placard remains in place throughout this process
F22
The EHD does not currently assign numeric values (points) to the various elements of the inspection process.
F23
The EHD uses the Envision System from Decade Software for restaurant inspections. This software will support a point value system.
F24
The EHD is in the process of assigning numeric scores for specific violations. This is planned to be completed by September 2009.
F25
Each EHS uses a laptop computer to input observations during inspections and print out the results on site for review with the owner or manager. This information is later uploaded to the Envision System on the EHD server.
F26
The EHD plans major Envision System upgrades, estimated by June 2009. This will give EHSs wireless capability to connect to the EHD server from the field.
F27
Public complaints regarding a restaurant’s sanitary condition result in an immediate investigation by EHD.
F28
During a Grand Jury inspection observation, it was noted that a number of adjacent restaurants were in different inspection districts.
F29
Cal Code requires that each food establishment have one employee or the owner be certified in food handling and sanitation. [Ref-01]
F30
The County may impose more stringent standards than Cal Code requires; each city in the County may accept or reject the more stringent requirements.
F31
Fifteen cities in Los Angeles County (L.A. County) did not initially adopt the “A B C” grading system when instituted in 1998. Currently, all of these cities have adopted this grading system. Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean?
F32
After the initiation of the grading system, the L.A. County Department of Public Health (DPH) reported a 13% decrease in hospital admissions for food-borne illness. State-wide levels remained constant during the same time frame (1993-2000). [Ref-02]
F33
The most common causes of food-borne illness in restaurants are: [Ref-03] • poor personal hygiene (hand washing, etc.) • contaminated equipment (utensils, prep surfaces, etc.) • inadequate cooking • improper holding temperature • food from unsafe sources
F34
Many counties in California and other parts of the country have adopted rating systems using numerical scoring on the basic elements of the inspection requirements. [Ref-03 through Ref-05]
F35
While L.A. County’s grading system has been used as a model for many jurisdictions, other variations and approaches are used to establish ratings or awards of excellence. [Ref-03]
F36
In the last few years, numerous studies have been conducted about the effect of rating systems on restaurant sanitation. A recent study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) was issued in August 2008. All of these studies concluded that restaurants are cleaner and that there are health benefits to the public attributable to restaurant grading systems. [Ref-03, Ref-05]
F37
In January 2008, the DPH issued a ten-year status review of its grading system to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. This report concluded that public health had improved, public information on restaurant conditions was improved, and most importantly, restaurants were cleaner. [Ref-02]
F38
The DPH has also noted that, as a result of the grading system, restaurants shifted from a reactive approach to violations to a proactive approach in order to achieve higher grades. [Ref-02]
F39
Economists Leslie and Jin reported in 2003, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, that incentives work. Grading systems forced restaurants to improve because lower-graded establishments lost business while the highest-graded places gained customers.
F40
In San Diego County, EHSs issue a Self-inspection Checklist to each restaurant as part of the routine inspection procedure. (Att-02)
F41
A random survey conducted by the DPH in 2001 showed that over 91% of the 2,000 respondents liked and used the grading system. A follow up survey of 8,600 respondents in 2005 showed similar results. A national survey in 2007 conducted by the CSPI showed comparable results. [Ref-02, Ref-03] Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean? 5 Conclusions C-01. No system of restaurant inspections is of any value unless it is properly staffed with EHSs who are competent, properly educated, and motivated. The Grand Jury concludes that the Ventura County EHD meets these criteria. (F-05, F-06) C-02. The ultimate responsibility for restaurant food safety rests with the management of the establishment; they must ensure employees are properly trained and follow the highest food safety standards at all times. (F-08, F-29) C-03. The first priority of the EHD is to ensure that restaurants and other food providers throughout the County are sanitary and safe for the dining public. (F-07) C-04. The pass/fail system used by the EHD ensures an acceptable level of sanitation is achieved to meet State requirements. Meeting State minimum requirements, by definition, means the restaurant is safe for the dining public. (F-07, F-13, F-14) C-05. Grading systems provide incentives for a restaurant to maintain more than the minimum level of sanitation; the pass/fail system does not. (F-19, F-39) C-06. The Grand Jury agrees with most professionals in this field, that a cleaner more hygienic environment benefits the public. (F-36) C-07. The Grand Jury concludes that the EHD’s second priority should be consumer notification of actual restaurant sanitary conditions. The EHD needs to improve in this area. (F-19 through F-21) C-08. The EHD website does not provide a sufficiently clear, easy, and direct path to restaurant inspection information. (F-03, F-04) C-09. The placard is the consumer’s primary source of information concerning a restaurant’s most recent inspection. (F-19, F-20) C-10. The dining public would be better served if the County had a system that incentivizes restaurants to shift to a proactive stance on sanitation. (F-37 through F-39) C-11. Adding numerical scoring to the EHDs basic inspection procedures for restaurants will provide the department metrics with which it can determine trends and track past performance. The Envision software program used by the EHD fully supports adding numerical scoring. (F-34) C-12. The planned upgrade to a wireless connection of the laptop computer can reduce the number of required visits to the County Government Center. It is inefficient to have all EHSs report daily to the Government Center for their assignments and to pick up their County vehicles. (F-26) C-13. A review of the recently redrawn inspection district boundaries may yield additional efficiencies. (F-28) 6 Is Your Favorite Restaurant Clean? C-14. The dining public will be better served if, prior to entering a restaurant, they could see a placard that gives them more definitive information on the sanitary condition as of the last inspection. ( F-37 through F-39) C-15. The EHD has the tools to develop an incentive/performance/graded rating system. (F-23) C-16. It would be beneficial for EHSs to issue self-inspection checklists to restaurants, similar to the ones used in San Diego County. (F-40) Recommendations

Recommendations 8

Conclusions 2

Commendations 2

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 11

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Camarillo City
County of Ventura Agency
Fillmore City
Moorpark City
Ojai City
Port Hueneme City
San Buenaventura City
Santa Paula City
Simi Valley City
Thousand Oaks City
Ventura County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office