state comptroller thomas dinapoli's audit of department of agriculture and markets inspections

8/13/2019 State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli's audit of Department of Agriculture and Markets inspections

1/16


2/16

2013-S-27

Division of State Government Accountability 1

Execu ve SummaryPurposeTo determine whether the Department of Agriculture and Markets (Department) adequatelymonitors the processing, distribu on and sale of food products in New York State. The audit

covers the period April 1, 2011 to September 18, 2013.

BackgroundThe Departments Division of Food Safety and Inspec on (Division) is responsible for enforcingState laws and Department regula ons related to food safety. The Divisions objec ve is to ensurea safe and properly labeled food supply - from the producer to the retailer to the consumer.Major ac vi es include conduc ng unannounced sanitary inspec ons of both current and newfood produc on/prepara on establishments, obtaining and analyzing food samples in supportof its food safety/recall program, and inves ga ng consumer complaints. As of June 4, 2013, theDivision was responsible for inspec ng 31,401 establishments. From April 1, 2011 through June4, 2013, it received 5,724 consumer complaints for inves ga on, and inspectors obtained 3,894food samples for tes ng to iden fy poten al viola ons of food safety.

Key Findings The Division has been unable the meet the demands of its inspec on frequency schedule. As

of June 4, 2013, inspec ons were past due for almost 5,000 establishments. Another 439 newestablishments did not yet have a required ini al inspec on done prior to preparing food.

Our random sample of 45 of these new establishments found, on average, that licenseapplica ons had been on le for almost six months. Our visits found 19 (42 percent) werealready preparing food without the required inspec on.

The Divisions sta of 82 inspectors is 27 to 37 percent below the level recommended by the

U.S. Food and Drug Administra on. We iden ed several opportuni es to more e ec velydeploy exis ng resources that could signi cantly address exis ng backlogs. Most consumer complaints are inves gated mely and the Departments food sampling

program is a na onally recognized leader in the eld. However, all programs could bene tfrom performance measurement systems that provide managers and supervisors with access torelevant data and provide appropriate training in data analysis to program management.

Key Recommenda ons Establish performance measures for food inspec on ac vi es, including Department-wide

policy governing such things as work scheduling and me allowances for local travel. Establish procedures to further priori ze and ensure mely comple on of inspec ons of new

establishments. Increase e orts to provide coordinated real- me access to data among divisions and obtain

training on how to use that data to perform necessary analy cs to monitor performance,including ac vi es such as inspec ons and complaint response.

Other Related Audits/Reports of InterestDepartment of Agriculture and Markets: Uncollected Penal es (2012-S-69)Department of Agriculture and Markets: Food Safety Program (1998-S-15)
http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093013/12s69.pdfhttp://osc.state.ny.us/audits/audits/9899/98s15.pdfhttp://osc.state.ny.us/audits/audits/9899/98s15.pdfhttp://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093013/12s69.pdf


3/16

2013-S-27


State of New YorkO ce of the State Comptroller

Division of State Government Accountability

January 30, 2014

James B. BaysAc ng CommissionerDepartment of Agriculture and Markets10B Airline DriveAlbany, NY 12235

Dear Commissioner Bays:

The O ce of the State Comptroller is commi ed to helping State agencies, public authori esand local government agencies manage government resources e ciently and e ec vely and, byso doing, providing accountability for tax dollars spent to support government opera ons. TheComptroller oversees the scal a airs of State agencies, public authori es and local governmentagencies, as well as their compliance with relevant statutes and their observance of good businessprac ces. This scal oversight is accomplished, in part, through our audits, which iden fyopportuni es for improving opera ons. Audits can also iden fy strategies for reducing costs andstrengthening controls that are intended to safeguard assets.

Following is a report of our audit en tled Food Safety Monitoring . The audit was performedpursuant to the State Comptrollers authority as set forth in Ar cle V, Sec on 1 of the StateCons tu on and Ar cle II, Sec on 8 of the State Finance Law.

This audits results and recommenda ons are resources for you to use in e ec vely managingyour opera ons and in mee ng the expecta ons of taxpayers. If you have any ques ons aboutthis report, please feel free to contact us.

Respec ully submi ed,

O ce of the State Comptroller Division of State Government Accountability


4/16

2013-S-27


State Government Accountability Contact Informa on:Audit Director: John BuycePhone: (518) 474-3271

Email: [email protected]:

O ce of the State ComptrollerDivision of State Government Accountability110 State Street, 11th FloorAlbany, NY 12236

This report is also available on our website at: www.osc.state.ny.us

Table of ContentsBackground 4

Audit Findings and Recommenda ons 5

Food Safety Inspec on Backlogs 5

Consumer Complaints 7

Food Sampling 7

Recommenda ons 8

Audit Scope and Methodology 8

Authority 9

Repor ng Requirements 10

Contributors to This Report 11

Exhibit 12

Agency Comments 13
mailto:StateGovernmentAccountability%40osc.state.ny.us?subject=http://www.osc.state.ny.us/http://www.osc.state.ny.us/mailto:StateGovernmentAccountability%40osc.state.ny.us?subject=


5/16

2013-S-27


BackgroundThe mission of the Department of Agriculture and Markets (Department) is to foster a compe vefood and agriculture industry that bene ts producers and consumers, while promo ng publichealth and safety. The Departments Division of Food Safety and Inspec on (Division) is responsiblefor enforcing State laws and Department regula ons related to food safety, which is a cri calfactor in maintaining the health and well-being of the people of New York State. The Divisionsobjec ve is to ensure a safe and properly labeled food supply - from the producer to the retailerto the consumer.

The Division fosters coopera ve working rela onships with other food safety agencies andorganiza ons. In New York State, no single State agency has authority over the en re foodinspec on process. For example, the Division is responsible for inspec ons at markets andprocessing facili es, while the Department of Health (DOH) oversees restaurant inspec ons andthe Department of Environmental Conserva on (DEC) is responsible for inspec ons of shell sh.

The Division divides its major responsibili es into two units: Food Safety Inspec on and FarmProducts and Grading. Our audit focused on the Food Safety Inspec on Unit (Unit), which managesits responsibili es with a sta of about 82 inspectors. Major ac vi es of the Unit include:

Performing unannounced sanitary inspec ons of food manufacturers, wholesale bakeries,beverage processors, food warehouses, refrigerated warehouses, retail food stores(ranging from large supermarkets to small convenience stores), slaughterhouses, shprocessors, rendering/disposal plants, and food transporta on services;

Taking samples of food products to iden fy poten al food safety viola ons; Inves ga ng consumer complaints; Licensing food operators of various types of establishments;

Consul ng with industry groups; Seizing un t or adulterated foods; Carrying out enforcement ac vi es, such as imposing civil penal es; Training outside organiza ons on food safety prac ces.


6/16

2013-S-27


Audit Findings and Recommenda onsAs of June 4, 2013, Department records show inspec ons were past due for almost 5,000 (16percent) of the 31,401 exis ng establishments under the Divisions jurisdic on. In addi on, morethan 400 new businesses were awai ng an ini al inspec on, many of which had been wai ng forsix months or longer. Our tests showed that in the interim some had already begun preparing foodin viola on of regulatory requirements. Part of this backlog can be a ributed to the number offood inspectors assigned to the Division, which is 27 to 37 percent below the sta ng con ngentrecommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administra on. Even so, we also noted several waysthat the Division could reduce its backlog by more e ec vely deploying its exis ng resources.Furthermore, we found the Divisions ability to monitor inspec on ac vity, as well as its responseto consumer complaints, could be improved by ins tu ng performance measurement systemsthat provide managers and supervisors with access to relevant data and appropriate training indata analysis.

Food Safety Inspec on BacklogsAs of June 4, 2013, Department records show inspec ons were past due for 4,946 (16 percent) ofthe more than 31,000 exis ng food establishments under the Divisions jurisdic on. In addi on,more than 400 new establishments were awai ng a required ini al inspec on. Our random testof 45 of these businesses found a six-month backlog was common and, even more signi cantly,that many had already begun preparing food.

Exis ng Establishment Inspec on Backlog

The Division uses a risk-based approach to determine the nature and frequency of necessaryrecurring inspec ons. The system is based on each establishments Indicators of Poten al Hazard(IPH) type ra ng, which de nes the level of risk that poten al food safety de ciencies could poseto public health. The a ached Exhibit details the various IPH type categories, their scheduledinspec on/re-inspec on frequencies, and the number of establishments in each category.

Our analysis demonstrated that to meet the inspec on requirements dictated by the IPH ra ngsfor exis ng establishments, inspectors would need to conduct about 36,000 inspec ons annuallyincluding re-inspec ons, or about 2.2 inspec ons per day by each inspector. However, betweenApril 1, 2011 and June 4, 2013, inspectors completed an average of only 1.7 inspec ons per dayeach, with individual averages ranging from .95 to 2.67 inspec ons.

New Establishment Inspec on Backlog

New establishments require an ini al inspec on before they can produce or prepare food. Weiden ed 439 new establishments that did not have the required ini al inspec on performedfor opera on as of June 4, 2013. We selected a random sample of 45 of these establishmentsand found, on average, that license applica ons had been on le for 176 days. We visited these45 establishments and found 19 (42 percent) were preparing food without having the required


7/16

2013-S-27


inspec on performed.

There is no formal process for scheduling inspec ons of new establishments. Even thoughinspectors should be aware these establishments have applied for licensing and may be opened,the inspectors are highly reliant on the establishment to inform them when inspec ons are

needed.

Opportuni es for Increased E ciency

We acknowledge the Division faces a challenge in mee ng its inspec on requirements giventhe number of inspectors on sta . O cials pointed out that guidelines published by the U.S.Food and Drug Administra on recommend a sta ng con ngent of one inspector for every280 to 320 inspec ons, which would equate to between 113 and 130 inspectors based on theDivisions workload. The current sta ng level of 82 inspectors is 27 to 37 percent below theserecommended levels. By adjus ng schedules and work prac ces for greater e ciency, more mecould be allocated to conduc ng inspec ons, thereby bringing the Division closer to achieving itsgoals.

The Division does not have any established performance standards for the number of inspec onsthat should be completed, the average me to complete an inspec on or the amount ofadministra ve or travel me that is allowed. However, it does require inspectors to maintain logsof their daily ac vi es documen ng me spent at their o cial sta on, traveling and performinginspec ons and various other ac vi es. We used computer assisted audit techniques to analyzedata from the inspectors daily ac vity logs for the period September 4, 2012 through June 4,2013. Our analysis revealed a signi cant amount of me is o en spent on ac vi es other thanperforming on-site inspec ons. In fact, the data shows that on average inspectors spent over four

hours, or more than half of their me, working at their o cial sta on or traveling.

For most inspectors, their o cial sta on is their home, and their 8-hour workday generally startsthere before they leave for their rst inspec on. We iden ed one inspector who averagedover 5.3 hours per day working at the o cial sta on and traveling, leaving less than three hoursfor actual inspec on work. When ques oned speci cally about this inspectors unusually higho cial sta on hours, Division management stated that zone supervisors are responsible forreviewing and approving each inspectors ac vity log. They indicated this inspectors zone waswithout a supervisor for our en re review period and surmised that this lack of supervision mayhave contributed to the excessive me spent at the o cial sta on.

The Department also does not have any policies covering me allowances for local travel, whichState travel guidelines generally de ne as being within 35 miles of an employees home ando cial sta on. Our analysis showed almost all of the establishments that inspectors visit (about97 percent) are within 35 miles of their o cial sta on. As previously noted, inspectors generallystart their workday at their o cial sta on and then travel to their rst inspec on on work me.Agencies can establish policies and procedures that require sta to start or end the workday at a

eld loca on within the local area. For example, to the extent that an employees rst inspec onsite is within 35 miles of his/her home, the employee can be required to begin their workday at


8/16


9/16

2013-S-27


States.

To help ensure a safe and properly labeled food supply and to contribute to the orderly marke ngof food products in New York State, Division inspectors collect and submit sample food productsfor analysis by the Departments food laboratory. Food samples are analyzed to iden fy hazards

(e.g., bacteria), fraudulent labeling prac ces (e.g., undeclared colors), and other harmful factorssuch as lth, insect fragments, and rodent excreta. During the period April 1, 2011 through June4, 2013, the food laboratory analyzed 3,894 food samples for the Division and was able to make asafety determina on for 3,153 of them: 2,397 samples were sa sfactory and 756 were in viola on(e.g., salmonella bacteria present in ready-to-eat food).

Twice in 2011 Division management met to review the data from the Departments foodlaboratory and apply their ndings to modify its sampling approach. For example, on the basisof the data, they were able to streamline the sampling schedule where feasible (e.g., removingthose samples with high compliance rates, low risk) in order to increase their focus on commodity-speci c sampling and to iden fy inspectors who had comparably low-frequency sampling rates.The Division is to be commended for their e orts.

We noted that access to real- me food sampling data, rather than just periodic analyses, couldfurther aid the Division in ensuring both public health and safety. O cials responded that they hadalso recognized this need and had recently applied for and been awarded a three-year $900,000grant to establish a rapid-response team. A key tool covered under this grant is a LaboratoryInforma on Management System, which will make real- me sampling informa on available toall divisions.

Recommenda ons

1. Establish performance measures for food inspec on ac vi es, including Department-widepolicy governing such things as work scheduling and me allowances for local travel.

2. Establish procedures to further priori ze and ensure mely comple on of inspec ons of newestablishments.

3. Increase e orts to provide coordinated real- me access to data among divisions and obtaintraining on how to use that data to perform necessary analy cs to monitor performance,including ac vi es such as inspec ons and complaint response.

Audit Scope and MethodologyThe objec ve of our audit was to determine whether the Department adequately monitors theprocessing, distribu on, and sale of food products in New York State. The audit covers the periodApril 1, 2011 through September 18, 2013.


10/16

2013-S-27


To accomplish our objec ve, we interviewed Department o cials, examined Departmentinspec on records, visited establishments, and reviewed the Departments policies andprocedures. We familiarized ourselves with the internal controls related to food safetyand assessed their adequacy related to our tes ng, and analyzed Department data to assessfrequency and meliness of sanitary inspec ons, inspectors ac vi es, response to consumer

complaints, and food sampling data for the period April 1, 2011 through June 4, 2013. Speci cally,we calculated the number of inspec ons needed using the establishment totals by type and theinspec on rates the Division established. We es mated the number of inspec ons needed withre-inspec ons based on a re-inspec on rate of 20 percent provided by Division o cials. We usedmapping so ware to map approximately 28,000 of the 32,000 establishments the Division isresponsible for inspec ng against inspectors home addresses. About 4,000 of the loca ons couldnot be mapped because they had addresses that were incompa ble with our mapping so ware.We selected a random sample of 45 of 439 new establishments that had applied for licenses andwere required to have an ini al inspec on but had not had one as of June 4, 2013.

We performed data reliability tes ng on four of the Departments data systems that containeddata per nent to our audit objec ve. We determined the sanitary inspec on and food samplingdatabases were reliable and complete. We found the consumer complaint database to bereliable for our audit purposes; however, we could not test for completeness of the data. Theinspectors daily ac vity log data was of undetermined reliability. We u lized only the por onof the inspectors daily ac vity log data for the period September 4, 2012 through June 4, 2013,which was determined to be the most reliable for tes ng.

We conducted our performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government audi ngstandards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain su cient,appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our ndings and conclusions based onour audit objec ves. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our

ndings and conclusions based on our audit objec ve.

In addi on to being the State Auditor, the Comptroller performs certain other cons tu onally andstatutorily mandated du es as the chief scal o cer of New York State. These include opera ngthe States accoun ng system; preparing the States nancial statements; and approving Statecontracts, refunds, and other payments. In addi on, the Comptroller appoints members to certainboards, commissions and public authori es, some of whom have minority vo ng rights.

These du es may be considered management func ons for purposes of evalua ng organiza onalindependence under generally accepted government audi ng standards. In our opinion, these

func ons do not a ect our ability to conduct independent audits of program performance.

AuthorityThe audit was performed pursuant to the State Comptrollers authority under Ar cle V, Sec on 1of the State Cons tu on and Ar cle II, Sec on 8 of the State Finance Law.


11/16

2013-S-27


Repor ng RequirementsWe provided a dra copy of this report to Department of Agriculture and Markets o cials fortheir review and comment. Their comments were considered in preparing this report and area ached at the end of this report.

O cials agreed with our recommenda ons and reported in some cases having taken steps toimplement them.

Within 90 days a er nal release of this report, as required by Sec on 170 of the Execu ve Law,the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets shall report to the Governor, theState Comptroller, and the leaders of the Legislature and scal commi ees, advising what stepswere taken to implement the recommenda ons contained herein, and if the recommenda onswere not implemented, the reasons why.


12/16

2013-S-27


Division of State Government Accountability

Andrew A. SanFilippo, Execu ve Deputy Comptroller518-474-4593, asan [email protected]

Tina Kim, Deputy Comptroller518-473-3596, [email protected]

Brian Mason, Ac ng Assistant Comptroller518-473-0334, [email protected]

Vision

A team of accountability experts respected for providing informa on that decision makers value.

Mission

To improve government opera ons by conduc ng independent audits, reviews and evalua onsof New York State and New York City taxpayer nanced programs.

Contributors to This ReportJohn Buyce , Audit Director

Walter Irving , Audit ManagerDeb Spaulding , Audit SupervisorHeidi Nark , Examiner-in-Charge

Heather Pra , Examiner-in-ChargePatrick Lance , Sta ExaminerAndre Spar , Sta Examiner

Marisa Wolosz , Sta ExaminerMarzie McCoy , Senior Editor
mailto:asanfilippo%40osc.state.ny.us%0D?subject=mailto:tkim%40osc.state.ny.us%0D?subject=mailto:bmason%40osc.state.ny.us?subject=mailto:bmason%40osc.state.ny.us?subject=mailto:tkim%40osc.state.ny.us%0D?subject=mailto:asanfilippo%40osc.state.ny.us%0D?subject=


13/16

2013-S-27


ExhibitDepartment of Agriculture and Markets

Explanation of Indicators of Potential Hazard (IPH) Typesas of June 4, 2013

IPHType Example of Establishments

ScheduledInspectionFrequency

Re-inspectionFrequency (1)

Number ofEstablishments (2)

Type I Food processors andmanufacturers that have greatpotential health impact

Three timesper year

30 days 115

Type II Large retail food establishmentssuch as supermarkets that havesignificant potential health impact

Two timesper year 30 days 333

Type III

Retail food stores handlingpotentially hazardous food, grocerystores and delicatessens handlingexposed food as well as large foodwarehouses that pose moderatepotential health hazards

One time peryear 60 days 27,751

Type IV Lower volume warehouses andgrocery stores not handlingpotentially hazardous foods

One time everytwo years

90 days 2,087

Type V Poultry and small animalslaughterhouses and disposal plants

One timeper year (3)

60 days 141

Type VI Food banks, farmers markets andhome food processors which poselittle or no threat to public health

On a complaintbasis

90 days 974

Total 31,401

Notes:(1) If establishments do not pass inspections, they are subject to limited re-inspections at intervals of

between 30 and 90 days.

(2) There are an additional 691 establishments (from all six IPH groups) not included in the chart abovethat are new or have not received an initial inspection as of June 4, 2013. Not all of the 691 requirean initial inspection.

(3) Type V establishments are inspected 12 times per year in the New York City area.


14/16

2013-S-27


Agency Comments


15/16

2013-S-27



16/16

2013-S-27


state comptroller thomas dinapoli's audit of department of agriculture and markets inspections

Documents