⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 9 findings
F1
The current software system used by food inspectors is functionally inadequate and an impediment to meeting the EHD mission of ensuring restaurant safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
, develop a plan to achieve a functional software system that fully meets inspector needs and commit to the plan’s implementation as soon as financially practicable. (F1) 19
F2
Due to a variety of factors, EHD does not currently employ enough inspectors to realistically meet all of its many obligations.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
align current EHD food inspector positions with the department’s goal of inspecting each restaurant four times a year and commit to a staffing plan to realistically achieve that alignment. (F2, F3, F4)
R3
Conduct a salary study with comparable counties to see if wage adjustments are needed at the various levels of food inspectors and commit to competitive salary levels by not later than 180 days from the day of publication of this report. (F2, F3)
F3
Salaries for food inspectors appear to be low, given the required educational background and compared to average salaries in similarly situated counties.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
align current EHD food inspector positions with the department’s goal of inspecting each restaurant four times a year and commit to a staffing plan to realistically achieve that alignment. (F2, F3, F4)
R3
Conduct a salary study with comparable counties to see if wage adjustments are needed at the various levels of food inspectors and commit to competitive salary levels by not later than 180 days from the day of publication of this report. (F2, F3)
F4
Food inspectors have an overly broad “inventory” of facilities, and the requirement to inspect facilities other than food establishments dilutes the effort to ensure food safety. 18
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
align current EHD food inspector positions with the department’s goal of inspecting each restaurant four times a year and commit to a staffing plan to realistically achieve that alignment. (F2, F3, F4)
R4
Reorganize EHD so food inspectors inspect only food facilities, mobile food units, cottage food industry, etc., and not swimming pools, landfills, CUPA, etc. by not later than 180 days from the day of publication of this report. (F4)
F5
Permit, food inspection, and reinspection fees appear to be low when compared to similar inspection fees charged elsewhere, including those charged by the City of Fresno and other Fresno County departments.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5
Implement a fee structure that makes EHD a self-supporting division of the County Health Department no later than 180 days from the day of publication of this report. (F5, F6)
R6
Enforce and collect the permit and inspection/reinspection fees already imposed on food facilities that violate the California Retail Food Code by not later than 180 days from the day of publication of this report. (F5, F6) 20
F6
Subjectivity and inconsistency in inspections are an impediment to the mission of ensuring food safety within Fresno County.
Related Recommendations (3)
R5
Implement a fee structure that makes EHD a self-supporting division of the County Health Department no later than 180 days from the day of publication of this report. (F5, F6)
R6
Enforce and collect the permit and inspection/reinspection fees already imposed on food facilities that violate the California Retail Food Code by not later than 180 days from the day of publication of this report. (F5, F6) 20
R7
, implement deliberative measures such as random sampling of food inspection reports or inspector norming of reports to reduce subjectivity and increase consistency of evaluations. (F6, F7)
F7
Code violation enforcement and fine collection appear to be inconsistent and based on the subjectivity of individual inspectors and supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
, implement deliberative measures such as random sampling of food inspection reports or inspector norming of reports to reduce subjectivity and increase consistency of evaluations. (F6, F7)
F8
EHD’s website is difficult to navigate, not always current, and is a barrier to consumers.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8
Re-work EHD’s website so that the food inspection reports are easier for consumers to access by no later than 180 days from the day of publication of this report. (F8)
R9
Require food inspection reports to be complete, timely and regularly updated on the website no later than 180 days from the day of publication of this report. (F8)
F9
EHD appears to be without a policy for its Food Inspectors on the standard use of County automobiles for travel to inspect food facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
, implement an efficient vehicle use policy that ensures 100% of the County cars allocated to EHD for inspectors are used every day instead of the apparent rotation policy used now or transfer them to other County Departments. (F9)
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 17No doubt EHD has a dedicated staff that works hard to accomplish its mission of ensuring food safety, but it also faces numerous obstacles in doing so, which have been discussed in this investigative report. From the preponderance of the evidence presented, obtained through ride-along inspections with EHD inspectors, interviews conducted during the investigation, and document and website reviews, the Grand Jury has concluded that EHD cannot always assure food safety in Fresno County restaurants. The subjectivity and inconsistency apparent in restaurant inspections, as well as an overwhelming workload for Food Inspectors contribute to our conclusion, as does the apparent difficulty of closing restaurants in violation of the Food Code, a process made more challenging by the requirement to obtain a supervisor’s approval, even though an imminent health hazard exists. As a final note, the Grand Jury observes that Fresno County does not include letter grades in the restaurant inspection reports, though many California counties do. 17 Letter grades are not mandated by the State, though the Grand Jury believes assigning a letter grade increases transparency as well as provides an incentive for local food businesses to strive for excellence, to properly and safely prepare food in a clean and sanitary environment.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of Fresno
Agency
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office