Emergency Preparedness at Twin Cities Metro Food
Service Establishments: An Outreach and Benchmark
Survey
February 2008
Research Conducted for Twin Cities Metro Advanced Practice
Center (APC) for emergency preparedness and response
A partnership of Hennepin County, Ramsey County and the City
of Minneapolis
Confidential | VasheResearch.com
VASHÉ Research
Presentation Outline
Background and Objectives
● Executive Summary
● Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
● Methods
● Results
• Conclusions and Recommendations
| Confidential to 1
VASHÉ Research
Background and Objectives
Survey commissioned to assess the state of
emergency preparedness and response at licensed
food facilities in the Metro area.
Funded by the NACCHO Advanced Practice Centers
Grant
Objectives:
• Assess food establishments’ emergency preparedness in the Metro
area.
• Compare performance and identify progress and deficiencies from the
baseline study (2005).
• Understand and evaluate respondents’ incorporation and
implementation of the Emergency Handbook for Food Managers and
other aids.
• Establish and evaluate effective means of emergency information
dissemination to food establishment managers.
| Confidential to 2
VASHÉ Research
Presentation Outline
● Background and Objectives
Executive Summary
● Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
● Methods
● Results
• Conclusions and Recommendations
| Confidential to 3
VASHÉ Research
Executive Summary
Emergency Preparedness And Reporting Processes
(Establishment Government)
Two-thirds of restaurants and grocery stores claim to have
an emergency plan in place.
This is an increase of 16% from 2005.
In case of an emergency such extensive flooding, managers are most
likely to contact local officials and their management/owner.
In case of water contamination, over half of establishments
would notify a governmental official.
Half of the establishments would shut down and get advice from the
local government.
Practically all food establishments claim to have their lists
of suppliers readily available (99%)
About 4 out of 5 establishments claim to have their
back/loading doors locked all or almost all the time.
An 8% increase from 2005.
Almost all establishments claim to inspect their food
deliveries for evidence of tampering.
As in 2005, the primary focus for inspection is not security, but
inventory control…
Less than two-thirds of establishments admit to have never
had a fire drill.
Only 1 in 4 establishments had a fire drill within the last 12 months.
There is a slight increase (3%) from 2005.
| Confidential to 4
VASHÉ Research
Executive Summary
Emergency Alert Network
(Government Establishment)
Almost all managers (86%) are at least initially supportive
of a self-inspection initiative.
Half of establishments indicate that they already perform a
self-inspection, generally as a function of inventory control.
These inspections are generally done at the multiple
location/franchise level.
Small business lags in self-inspection, on average doing 10% less than
multiple location businesses.
Nearly half of the managers spoken to say they have an
evacuation or shelter-in-place plan.
Most respondents don’t receive a premium reduction on
their insurance for food security self-inspections. Those that
do are generally chain or multiple store businesses.
| Confidential to 5
VASHÉ Research
Executive Summary
Emergency Preparedness Training
Three quarters of establishments provide emergency training to their new
hires. Up 3% from 2005.
In half of all cases, this training lasts less than 30 minutes.
Training is provided primarily on the job.
In approximately two-thirds of the time, this training lasts less than 1 hour.
Training is provided mostly on the job, by supervisor/co-worker.
A majority of respondents indicate they’ve seen emergency preparedness
materials developed by Twin Cities organizations.
About half say that material is the Emergency Handbook for Food managers.
As with the study in 2005, almost all establishments want training materials
in English, 42% of respondents would also like to have such materials in
Spanish, as in 2005, other languages, such as Arabic, Chinese and Hmong
are still needed.
There are a number of “second-tier” languages, Chinese, Arabic, Hmong and Somali, that
could be prioritized.
Most (88%) respondents feel they have sufficient tools to report illness as
required in the food code.
The most common tool used for reporting employee illness is an employee illness
log (63%).
One in four indicate use of the Illness Log from the Emergency Handbook for
Food Managers.
One in four indicate they don’t use anything.
| Confidential to 6
VASHÉ Research
Executive Summary
Differences By Segment
By geography: Ramsey County / St. Paul / Hennepin County /
Minneapolis
• Similar response patterns across all geographies. While data displays some
statistically significant differences, there is not much basis for differentiating
managerial/decision-making approaches by geography.
• Displayed differences most likely due to the four geographies’ different food
establishment demographic profiles.
• Two-thirds of respondents say there is an emergency plan that describes how
their business will respond to emergencies.
By risk level: High versus Medium
• High-risk businesses primarily train their employees on the job.
• While overall adoption rate of the Emergency Handbook utilization is low in
relation to other materials, it is used at a higher rate with high-risk businesses.
| Confidential to 7
VASHÉ Research
Executive Summary
Differences By Segment (continued)
By establishment type: Restaurants versus Grocery Stores
• Twice as many restaurants would like training materials in Spanish and Chinese,
as compared to grocery stores; grocery stores have higher need for training
materials in Arabic and Somali.
• Grocery stores cause stronger food safety concerns, as they are much more
likely to have numerous suppliers, keep their kitchen/loading doors unlocked,
provide less than 30 min of emergency training for new hires, and ignore the
need for regular fire drills.
• Restaurants are more likely to use classroom settings for emergency training of
new employees, and show much more interest in onsite training by Health
Department.
By business size/type (number of locations, privately owned/franchise/chain)
• Multiple-location, multi-store chains are twice as likely to need training materials
in Spanish than single-location, non-franchised businesses.
• Training materials in Chinese are most needed at single-location, non-franchised
food establishments.
• Single-location, non-franchised businesses (which account for 56% of all food
establishments in Metro area) present a stronger food safety concern, as they
are much more likely to provide no or less than 30 minutes of emergency
training for new hires, and ignore the need for regular fire drills.
• Large chains have increased since 2005.
| Confidential to 8
VASHÉ Research
Presentation Outline
● Background and Objectives
● Executive Summary
Methods
● Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
● Results
● Twin Cities Metro Area Total
● Results by quota groups/cross-tabs
● Geography view (by County/City)
● Risk Category view (High versus Medium risk)
● Establishment Type view (Restaurants versus Groceries)
● Ownership type/Number of locations (Chain/Non-chain, Single/Multiple
locations)
• Conclusions and Recommendations
| Confidential to 9
VASHÉ Research
Methods
Phone survey conducted in May 2007
Questionnaire developed by collaborative effort between
Metro Team and Vashé Research, using questions posed in
2005 and added questions in 2007.
Survey’s population/universe defined as all food
establishments in the Metro area, based on record lists
provided by local governments.
Responses collected for each of the following quota
groups:
• Four geographic areas: Ramsey County (other than City of St. Paul),
City of St. Paul, Hennepin County (other than City of Minneapolis), City
of Minneapolis
• Risk categorization: High versus Medium risk level
• Type of food establishment: Restaurants versus Grocery Stores
| Confidential to 10
VASHÉ Research
Methods
All respondents qualified as in charge of food management
and knowledgeable about their establishment’s emergency
preparedness.
To increase response rate and reduce non-response bias,
all surveyed managers were assured of confidentiality of
their individual responses.
Results reported in aggregate only, no data linked to individual
respondents
In addition to Metro-wide data, results shown in four
different “views,” according to quota groups (Geography
view, Risk Category view, Establishment Type view) and
Ownership type/Number of locations (Question 1).
Assessment of Trends and Benchmark measures against
2005 baseline survey.
| Confidential to 11
VASHÉ Research
Presentation Outline
● Background and Objectives
● Executive Summary
● Methods
Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
● Results
● Twin Cities Metro Area Total
● Results by quota groups/cross-tabs
● Geography view (by County/City)
● Risk Category view (High versus Medium risk)
● Establishment Type view (Restaurants versus Groceries)
● Ownership type/Number of locations (Chain/Non-chain, Single/Multiple
locations)
• Conclusions and Recommendations
| Confidential to 12
VASHÉ Research
Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
Q1. Which one of the following categories best describes your business?
2 or more food 2 or more food establishments AND
A single (one) food establishments but NOT franchise/large corporation
n=436 establishment franchise
2007 70% 10% 20%
2005 72% 11% 17%
Q3. If training materials were supplied to you by your local health agency, what languages should they be in so that your employees can
understand the training?
n=436 English Spanish Arabic Chinese Hmong Somali Vietnamese Oromo Laotian
42% 7% 4% 5% 5% 3% 2% 1%
2007 99%
2005 95% 42% 7% 5% 4% 4% 3% 1% 1%
Q3a. Have you seen any of the following food safety/preparedness materials developed by the Twin Cities’ local agencies?
Emergency Handbook for Food Safety Self-Inspection Food Safety & Security
n=358 Other
Food Managers List Self-Audit Tool
2007 48% 22% 17% 3%
Q3D. Have you had an emergency situation, such as flooding, storm damage, power outage, fire or food tampering, etc. at your
establishment within the past 2 years?
n=436 Yes No
2007 32% 68%
Q3E. Which of the following guidance materials did you follow, to keep food safe and to recover safely from the emergency?
Emergency Handbook for Food Security Self- Food Safety & Security
n=436 Other None
Food Managers Inspection Checklist Self-Audit Tool
2007 19% 4% 2% 23% 52%
Q4a. If an emergency such as an illness outbreak occurred, would you be able to immediately provide a list of your food suppliers to local
officials?
n=436 Yes No
2007 99% 1%
2005 99% 1%
| Confidential to 13
VASHÉ Research
Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
Q4b. How many food suppliers do you currently have?
n=433 1 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
2007 70% 20% 10%
2005 74% 17% 9%
Q5A. If food tampering or other biological or chemical contamination of food occurs, often the best indicator of such an emergency is
when an employee feels ill. Do you feel you have sufficient tools for recording and reporting employee illness?
n=436 Yes No
2007 88% 12%
Q5B. Which tools are you using for making decisions on, recording and reporting employee illness?
MDH Employee
Emergency Illness Decision
n=384
Employee Illness Handbook for Call the City or Tree & Poster for
Log Food Mangers County or State Employees None
2007 63% 24% 16% 14% 24%
Q6. If you were notified that the drinking water supply (tap water) at your establishment was contaminated, what would you do?
Stop using/
Shut down Call the City or Use bottled Call management
n=436 serving water,
operations County or State water / boss / owner
ice, coffee
2007 57% 53% 31% 7% 4%
2005 49% 40% 22% 6% 6%
Q7. How often do you and your employees keep back doors into the kitchen area and loading dock doors locked when not in use?
n=436 Always Almost always Most of the time Some of the time Almost never Never
2007 75% 10% 9% 4% 2% —
2005 70% 7% 11% 5% 4% 2%
| Confidential to 14
VASHÉ Research
Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
Q8. How often do you inspect food deliveries to ensure no tampering or unexplained additions have been made? For example, checking
for opened or unexplained packages, liquid or powder residue on packaging, returning suspicious or opened packages to supplier, etc.?
n=436 Always Almost always Most of the time Some of the time Almost never Never
2007 89% 6% 2% 1% 1% —
2005 88% 8% 2% 0% 1% 1%
Q8A. Do you self-inspect to evaluate and improve food safety and food security (e.g., using a Food Safety and Food Security
Self-Inspection Checklist)?
n=436 Yes No
2007 54% 46%
Q8B. Do you receive a premium reduction from your property insurer for food security self inspection?
n=436 Yes No
2007 3% 97%
Q8C. How often do you self-inspect to evaluate and improve food safety and food security, for example, using a Food Safety and Food
Security Self-Inspection Checklist?
Only when the
n=436 Daily Weekly Monthly Almost Never Other
inspector comes
2007 1% 59% 30% 1% 6% 3%
Q8D. If the time commitment were reasonable, would you support and participate in a self-inspection initiative to reduce the total
number of people getting sick with foodborne illnesses?
Initially
n=436
Yes supportive Initially negative No
2007 49% 37% 7% 6%
Q9. When was the last time you had a fire drill?
Within the past 6 Within the past
n=436
months year More than a year Never
2007 28% 3% 9% 60%
2005 25% 3% 11% 61%
| Confidential to 15
VASHÉ Research
Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
Q9A. Do you have an evacuation or shelter-in-place plan for workers and customers in the event of an emergency such as a tornado, fire
or chemical incident?
n=436 Yes No
2007 48% 52%
Q9B. Are you using the Emergency Readiness for Food Workers Photo Lessons included in the Emergency Handbook for Food Managers or
other emergency training lessons to train your staff on what to do in an emergency?
n=436 Yes No
2007 26% 74%
Q9C. What exactly are the materials that you are using?
Emergency Handbook for
n=113 Other
Food Managers
2007 85% 15%
Q10. Are newly hired employees trained on what to do in an emergency?
n=436 Yes No
2007 78% 22%
2005 75% 25%
Q10B. Please describe the type of training.
Classroom Emergency
n=340 On the job Video CD or DVD Web-based Other
training Handbook
2007 50% 24% 16% 10% 6% 1% 1%
2005 60% 18% 12% — 3% 0% 1%
| Confidential to 16
VASHÉ Research
Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
Q10C. Now please describe the length of this training.
Less than 30 30 minutes to 1 More than 8
n=340
minutes hour 1 to 2 hours 2 to 4 hours 4 to 8 hours hours
2007 41% 20% 16% 11% 5% 6%
2005 49% 15% 12% 13% 6% 5%
Q11A. Do you have an emergency plan for your establishment that describes how your business will respond to various emergencies?
n=436 Yes No
36%
2007 64%
2005 46% 54%
| Confidential to 17
VASHÉ Research
Presentation Outline
● Background and Objectives
● Executive Summary
● Methods
● Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
Results
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
● Results by quota groups/cross-tabs
● Geography view (by County/City)
● Risk Category view (High versus Medium risk)
● Establishment Type view (Restaurants versus Groceries)
● Ownership type/Number of locations (Chain/Non-chain, Single/Multiple locations)
• Conclusions and Recommendations
| Confidential to 18
VASHÉ Research
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
The majority of establishments
(65%) are high and medium
Overall Risk category
risk restaurants.
High risk:
Grocery Medium risk:
16% Restaurant
21%
Medium risk:
Grocery
19%
High risk:
Restaurant
44%
S2. Risk Category of establishment (this information is found with the establishment info.)
| Confidential to 19
VASHÉ Research
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
70% of respondents are from
single food establishments,
neither part of a large
Business category corporation or food chain.
n=436
A single (one) food
establishment, and
NOT a franchise of 70%
a large corporation
or part of a chain
2 or more food
establishments but
10%
NOT a franchise of
a large corporation
2 or more food
establishments
20%
AND a franchise or
a large corporation
Q1. Which one of the following categories best describes your
business?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 20
VASHÉ Research
Language
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
English language is requested as the language most often
needed for training materials.
There has been no net change in the need for Spanish since
2005, is continues to be the second top-tier language at 42%.
% change from 2005
Language
English 99% 4%
Spanish 42% 0%
Arabic 7% 0%
Chinese 4% 1%
Hmong 5% 1%
Somali 5% 1%
Vietnamese 3%
0%
Oromo 2%
Oromo 1%
Laotian 1%
Laotian 0%
Other 1%
Other 0
Q3. If training materials were supplied to you by your local health
agency, what languages should they be in so that your employees
can understand the training?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 21
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Food Safety Materials)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
A majority of respondents indicate they’ve seen food
safety/preparedness materials developed by Twin Cities
organizations.
The most recognized food safety material is the Emergency
Handbook for Food Managers.
Seen Food Safety/Preparedness Materials Developed by TC Local Agencies
Total Ramsey County St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=436 n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
Yes Yes Yes
82% Yes 83% Yes
85%
89% 89%
Has a Copy of in Establishment
n=358 n=50 n=82 n=53 n=192
Emergency Handbook for
Food Managers 48% 40% 50% 48% 50%
Food Security Self
Inspection Checklist
22% 25% 12% 23% 26%
Food Safety & Security
Self-Audit tool
Other 17% 25% 20% 15% 13%
Q3a. Have you seen any of the following food safety/preparedness
materials developed by the Twin Cities’ local agencies?
Q3b. Do you have a copy of [name the item] in your food
establishment?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 22
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Food Safety Materials on hand)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
The majority of respondents indicate they have food
safety/preparedness documents of some kind in their food
establishments.
Total
n=436
No
19%
Yes
81%
Ramsey County St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
Yes Yes Yes
Yes
81% 78% 83%
84%
Q3b. Do you have a copy of [name the item] in your food establishment?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 23
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Safety Document Language(s))
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Most of these safety/preparedness documents are in
English, with another 23% in Spanish.
Language of Safety Documents
English 95%
Spanish 23%
Chinese 1%
Hmong 1%
Arabic 1%
Somali 1%
Vietnamese 1%
Oromo 1%
Q3C. In what language(s) is/are the (and safety document)?
| Confidential to 24
VASHÉ Research
34% have indicated that they have experienced an
emergency situation in the past two years.
Experienced Emergency Situation
In The Last Two Years
Yes
34%
No
66%
Ramsey County St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
Yes Yes
26% 41% Yes Yes
27% 36%
No
59%
Q3D. Have you had an emergency situation, such as flooding, storm damage,
power outage, fire or food tampering, etc. at your establishment within the
past 2 years?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 25
VASHÉ Research
Over half of the respondents indicate that they did not use
any guidance materials during their emergency, and
additional 23% cited other (phone book, contact info for
refrigeration, etc.) guidance materials used.
Guidance Materials Used
During Emergency
Emergency
Handbook for
Other, 23% Food
Managers,
19%
Food Security
Self Inspection
Checklist, 4%
Food Safety &
None, 52%
Security Self-
Audit Tool, 2%
Q3E. Which of the following guidance materials did you follow, to keep food safe and to recover safely from the emergency?
| Confidential to 26
VASHÉ Research
Number of Food Suppliers
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Less than 1% of respondents indicated they couldn’t
readily supply a list of food suppliers (same in 2005).
Just under three quarters of food establishments
have between 1 and 5 suppliers only.
Ability to provide list of
food suppliers
n=436
No
1% (∆)
Number of food suppliers
% change
n=433 from 2005
70% -4%
1 to 5
6 to 10 20% 3%
More than 10 10% 1%
Yes
99%
Q4a. If an emergency such as an illness outbreak occurred, would
you be able to immediately provide a list of your food suppliers to
local officials?
Q4b. How many food suppliers do you currently have?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 27
VASHÉ Research
89% feel they have enough tools to record and report
employee illness.
Confident That S/He Has Enough Tools
To Record and Report Illness
n=436
No, 11%
Yes, 89%
Q5A. If food tampering or other biological or chemical
contamination of food occurs, often the best indicator of such an
emergency is when an employee feels ill. Do you feel you have
sufficient tools for recording and reporting employee illness?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 28
VASHÉ Research
The most common tool cited for reporting employee illness
is an employee illness log / Employee Illness Log in
Emergency Handbook for Food Managers (87%).
Tools Used To Record and
Report Employee Illness
n=384
Employee Illness Log 63%
Employee Illness Log in Emergency 24%
Handbook for Food Managers
Call the City or County or State 16%
Health Department
MN Dept of Health (MDH) 14%
Employee Illness Decision Tree &
Poster for employees
None 24%
Q5B. Which tools are you using for making decisions on, recording and reporting employee illness?
| Confidential to 29
VASHÉ Research
Reaction to Water Contamination
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
In the event of water
supply contamination,
over half of the
establishments would
What respondent would do if
shut down operations, notified that water was
up 8% from 2005. contaminated
Additionally 53%, up 13% n=436
from 2005, would also contact
Shut down operations
government authorities. 57%
Call the City/County/State 53%
Over half of food Use bottled water for
managers would also customer drinking water
31%
notify City, County or Call Corporate /
7%
senior management
State officials, up 13%
Stop using/ serving
from 2005. water, ice, coffee
4%
Post signs 1%
Other 1%
Q6. If you were notified that the drinking water supply (tap
water) at your establishment was contaminated, what would you
do?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 30
VASHÉ Research
Security—Establishment
The majority of the time (94%) respondents back
door/kitchen area doors are locked when not in use: An
increase of 8% from 2005.
Inspection of deliveries is common, 9 out of 10 times, to
check for tampering, up 1% from 2005.
However, it is not clear that there is differentiation between inventory control
and a safety inspection.
8%
Kitchen area and loading
dock doors locked when not 9% 10% 75%
in use
Almost never From 2005
Some of the time
Most of the time
Almost always
Frequency of inspection
Always
food deliveries to ensure no 6% 89%
tampering or unexplained
additions have been made
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Q7. How often do you and your employees keep back doors into the kitchen area and loading dock doors locked when not in use?
Q8. How often do you inspect food deliveries to ensure no tampering or unexplained additions have been made? For example, checking for opened or
unexplained packages, liquid or powder residue on packaging, returning suspicious or opened packages to supplier, etc.?
| Confidential to 31
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Security—Insurance)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total—Frequency of Self-Inspection
The majority of respondents don’t receive a premium
reduction on their insurance for food security
self-inspections.
Those who do are large, multi-state, multi-chain stores.
Premium reduction on insurance?
3%
Yes
No
97%
Ramsey County St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
No
Yes Yes 97% Yes Yes
2% 3% 3% 2%
Q8B. Do you receive a premium reduction from your property insurer for food
security self inspection?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 32
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Security—Self Inspection)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total—Self-Inspection
On average, half of the respondents indicate they conduct
a food safety and security self-inspection.
Self-Inspection done in business
Ramsey County St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
No Yes
Yes Yes 42% Yes
40% 66%
58% 53%
Q8A. Do you self-inspect to evaluate and improve food safety and food
security (e.g., using a Food Safety and Food Security Self-Inspection
Checklist)?
Base: Total respondents. | Confidential to 33
VASHÉ Research
Total (Security—Self Inspection)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total—Self-Inspection
59% report they self-inspect weekly. Nine out of ten
inspect at least monthly.
Notably there is a fair percentage who only inspect when the inspector comes.
Frequency of Self-Inspection
Daily 1%
Weekly 59%
Monthly 30%
Almost Never 1%
Only when
inspector comes
6%
Other 3%
Q8C. How often do you self-inspect to evaluate and improve food safety and food security, for example, using a Food Safety and Food
Security Self-Inspection Checklist?
| Confidential to 34
VASHÉ Research
Total (Security—Self Inspection)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total—Self-Inspection
86% say they would be willing to participate, or are
supportive of, a self-inspection initiative.
Willingness to Participate
In A Self-Inspection
49%
Yes
Initially supportive, but
need more information 37%
Initially negative, but
7%
need more information
No 6%
Q8D. If the time commitment were reasonable, would you
support and participate in a self-inspection initiative to reduce the
total number of people getting sick with foodborne illnesses?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 35
VASHÉ Research
Emergency Plan
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Nearly two-thirds of respondents say there is an emergency
plan that describes how their business will respond to
emergencies.
Establishment Has Emergency Plan
18%
Yes No
64% 36%
From 2005
Ramsey County St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
Yes
Yes Yes No Yes
39% 58%
67% 61% 69%
Q11A. Do you have an emergency plan for
your establishment that describes how your
business will respond to various emergencies?
| Confidential to 36
VASHÉ Research
Fire Drill Frequency
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Most establishments report
never having a fire drill in
their establishment.
Frequency of Fire
Drills
Over one-fourth of
establishments do have fire
drills. 28% Within the past 6 months
There is a slight increase from
2005 in the segment of 9%
Within the past year
respondents that indicate they
have conducted a fire drill More than a year
in the past year.
4%
60% Never
From 2005
n=436
Q9. When was the last time you had a fire drill?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 37
VASHÉ Research
Twin Cities Metro Area Total (Shelter-In-Place)
48% of the respondents indicate they have an evacuation or
shelter-in-place plan.
Establishment has an evacuation
or shelter-in-place plan
Yes, 48%
No, 52%
n=436
Q9A. Do you have an evacuation or shelter-in-
place plan for workers and customers in the
event of an emergency such as a tornado, fire
or chemical incident?
| Confidential to 38
VASHÉ Research
Emergency Readiness for Food Workers Photo Lessons
Total
About a quarter indicate they are using the Emergency
Readiness for Food Workers Photo Lessons to train their
staff (26%).
Using the Emergency Readiness
for Food Workers Photo Lessons
n=436
Q9B. Are you using the Emergency Readiness for Food Workers
Photo Lessons included in the Emergency Handbook for Food
Managers or other emergency training lessons to train your staff
on what to do in an emergency?
| Confidential to 39
VASHÉ Research
Utilization of Emergency Handbook for Food Managers
Total
15% who say they have the Emergency Handbook for Food
Managers say they use it for training their staff.
Respondents say they use materials like ServSafe and internal
company procedures, as well as on-the-job training for their new hires.
Materials Being Used
Emergency
Handbook for Food
Managers, 15%
Other, 85%
n=113
Q9C. What exactly are the materials that you are using?
| Confidential to 40
VASHÉ Research
Overall (Emergency Training)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total Training type
n=340
Three quarters of
50%
establishments provide On the job
emergency training to their new Classroom training 24%
hires. 16%
Video
In half of all cases, this training 10%
lasts less than 30 minutes, Emergency Handbook
down 8% from 2005. CD or DVD
6%
Training is provided primarily 1%
Web-based
on the job. 1%
Other
New hires trained?
Training length
n=436 n=340
Yes
78% Less than 30 minutes 41%
30 minutes to 1 hour 20%
3%
1 to 2 hours 16%
2 to 4 hours 11%
From 2005
4 to 8 hours 5%
More than 8 hours 6%
No
22% Q10. Are newly hired employees trained on what to do in an
emergency?
Q10B. Please describe the type of this training.
Q10C. Now please describe the length of this training.
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 41
VASHÉ Research
Presentation Outline
● Background and Objectives
● Executive Summary
● Methods
● Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
Results
● Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Results by quota groups/cross-tabs
● Geography view (by County/City)
● Risk Category view (High versus Medium risk)
● Establishment Type view (Restaurants versus Groceries)
● Ownership type/Number of locations (Chain/Non-chain, Single/Multiple locations)
• Conclusions and Recommendations
| Confidential to 42
VASHÉ Research
Food Business Demographics
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
As in 2005, Hennepin County Restaurant Grocery
has a higher share of High
restaurants and high-risk food Risk 66% 44%
establishments (correlated
attributes). Medium
Risk 34% 56%
High risk
Total Ramsey St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
Medium Risk n=436 n=57 n=101 n=62 N=216
37%
49% 39%
Medium /
40%
High Risk 69%
31%
60%
51% 61%
63%
22%
Grocery/ 71%
Restaurant 35% 69% 69%
65% 31% 31%
29%
78%
Restaurant
Grocery
| Confidential to 43
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Business Type Ownership)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Minneapolis and St. Paul have a higher share of single food
establishments, while the counties have a higher share of
franchises and establishment that are owned by large corporations.
Total Ramsey St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=436 n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
A single (one) food establishment,
and NOT a franchise of a large 70% 42% 81% 45% 77%
corporation or part of a chain
2 or more food establishments but
NOT a franchise of a large 10% 11% 8% 11% 9%
corporation
2 or more food establishments 47% 11% 44% 14%
AND a franchise of a large 20%
corporation
Q1. Which one of the following categories best describes your
business?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 44
VASHÉ Research
Risk/Establishment View (Business Type Ownership)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Single food establishments have the highest share in both
risk categories. Privately owned restaurants are the most
common establishment type.
Franchises and food establishments of large corporations
are most commonly grocery stores.
Risk Establishment type
High Medium Restaurant Grocery
n=260 n=176 n=285 n=151
A single (one) food establishment,
and NOT a franchise of a large
corporation or part of a chain 74% 71% 77% 65%
2 or more food establishments but
NOT a franchise of a large
corporation 10% 12% 13% 14%
2 or more food establishments
AND a franchise of a large 16% 17% 10% 21%
corporation
Q1. Which one of the following categories best describes your
business?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 45
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Language)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Spanish continues to be the second language of choice
metro-wide. As found in the previous wave, Arabic, Chinese and
Hmong are languages needed in different areas of the metro.
Arabic is more common in Minneapolis and St. Paul than in the counties.
Chinese is predominant in Minneapolis and Hennepin County.
Hmong is predominant in St. Paul and Ramsey County.
Somali is predominant in Minneapolis
Languages
Total Ramsey St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=436 n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
English 99% 98% 98% 97% 99%
Spanish 42% 40% 43% 28% 45%
Arabic 7% 3% 8% 1% 9%
Chinese 4% 1% 4% 10% 6%
Hmong 5% 8% 9% 8% 0%
Somali 5% 2% 2% 2% 7%
Vietnamese 3% 6% 5% 2% 3%
Oromo o
Or o m 2% Or o mo 2% Or o mo 3% Or o mo 1% Or o m o 2%
Laotiana n 1%
La ot i Lao t ian 0% Lao t ian 1% Lao t ian 1% La ot i a n 1%
Othere r 1%
Ot h Ot her 1% Ot her 0% Ot her 0% Ot h e r 0%
Q3. If training materials were supplied to you by your local health
agency, what languages should they be in so that your employees
can understand the training?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 46
VASHÉ Research
Risk/Establishment View (Language)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Spanish language continues to be the second language choice
across all segments, with a slightly increased need in restaurants
(from 2005) and high risk establishments.
Chinese and Hmong rank high as second tier languages in the high
risk and restaurant categories.
Languages
Risk Establishment type
High Medium Restaurant Grocery
n=174 n=205 n=196 n=183
English 94% 98% 96% 92%
Spanish 54% 33% 49% 29%
Arabic 7% 8% 5% 12%
Chinese 11% 2% 11% 3%
Hmong 7% 3% 6% 4%
Somali 2% 4% 3% 7%
Vietnamese 3% 5% 4% 2%
Oromom o 1%
Or o Or o mo 1% Or o mo 2% Or o m o 2%
Laotiani a n 0%
La ot Lao t ian 1% Lao t ian 0% La ot i a n 0%
Otherh e r
Ot 0% Ot her 0% Ot her 0% Ot h e r 0%
Q3. If training materials were supplied to you by your local health
agency, what languages should they be in so that your employees
can understand the training?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 47
VASHÉ Research
Ownership View (Language)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Again, second language choice is Spanish, with a need that is even
across all channels.
Arabic, Chinese, Hmong and Somali are second-tier languages that
are needed by single food establishments and chains with more than
two locations. Chinese ranks highest in single food establishments.
Languages
Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment locations, not a chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
English 96% 100% 100%
Spanish 41% 47% 44%
Chinese 7% 3% 4%
Arabic 7% 5% 3%
Hmong 5% 0% 6%
Somali 5% 4% 3%
Vietnamese 3% 2% 6%
Oromo o 0%
Or o m Or o mo 2% Or o mo 3%
Laotiana n
La ot i 2% Lao t ian 0% Lao t ian 0%
Othere r 0%
Ot h Ot her 0% Ot her 0%
Q3. If training materials were supplied to you by your local health
agency, what languages should they be in so that your employees
can understand the training?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 48
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Number of Food Suppliers)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
While the overall distribution is similar across all
geographic areas, food establishments in Hennepin County
are more likely to have a higher number of suppliers.
Likely because an increased number of grocery stores.
Ability to provide list of food suppliers
Ramsey County St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
Yes Yes No Yes Yes
No
100% 100% 0% 99% 100%
1%
Number of food suppliers
n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
1 to 5 65% 66% 65% 71%
6 to 10 21% 18% 29% 18%
More than 10 14% 16% 6% 8%
Q4a. If an emergency such as an illness outbreak occurred, would
you be able to immediately provide a list of your food suppliers to
local officials?
Q4b. How many food suppliers do you currently have?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 49
VASHÉ Research
Risk/Establishment View (Number of Food Suppliers)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Grocery stores tend to have more food suppliers.
Ability to provide list of food suppliers
Risk Establishment type
High Medium Restaurant Grocery
n=260 n=176 n=285 n=151
Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
No No
99% 100% 0% 99% 100% 0%
1% 1%
Number of food suppliers
n=260 n=176 n=285 n=151
1 to 5 70% 70% 76% 54%
6 to 10 19% 21% 17% 23%
More than 10 11% 9% 7% 23%
Q4a. If an emergency such as an illness outbreak occurred, would
you be able to immediately provide a list of your food suppliers to
local officials?
Q4b. How many food suppliers do you currently have?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 50
VASHÉ Research
Ownership View (Number of Food Suppliers)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Companies that are single food establishments or more than 2
locations, non-chain, are more likely to have a very limited number
of suppliers; a lot of them report having only one or two.
Ability to provide list of food suppliers
Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment locations not a chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
Yes Yes No Yes No
No
99% 100% 0% 100% 0%
1%
Number of food suppliers
n=244 n=49 n=143
1 to 5 73% 71% 59%
6 to 10 18% 10% 24%
More than 10 9% 18% 17%
Q4a. If an emergency such as an illness outbreak occurred, would
you be able to immediately provide a list of your food suppliers to
local officials?
Q4b. How many food suppliers do you currently have?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 51
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Tools for Illness Reporting)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
The most commonly used tool for reporting illness is the
Employee Illness Log.
In each geographic category except St. Paul “None” is
cited a quarter of the time.
Has Tools for Illness Reporting
Ramsey County St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
Yes Yes
86% Yes Yes
86%
94% 91%
No
14%
Tools used
n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
MDH Employee Illness
21% 13% 16% 11%
Tree and poster
Employee Illness Log 61% 67% 58% 63%
Illness Log in Emergency
28% 21% 15% 27%
Handbook for Food Managers
Call City/County/State HD 5% 15% 19% 18%
None 28% 16% 26% 26%
Q5A. If food tampering or other biological or chemical
contamination of food occurs, often the best indicator of such an
emergency is when an employee feels ill. Do you feel you have
sufficient tools for recording and reporting employee illness?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 52
VASHÉ Research
Risk/Establishment View (Tools for Illness Reporting)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Again, the Employee Illness Log is the primary tool used to
report illness. One in four use the Emergency Handbook,
while another quarter indicate they have “None.”
Tools for Illness Reporting
Risk Establishment type
High Medium Restaurant Grocery
n=260 n=176 n=285 n=151
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes 85%
88%
92% 92%
No No
No 8% 8% No
12%
15%
Tools used
n=229 n=162 n=262 n=128
MDH Employee Illness
13% 14% 12% 17%
Tree and poster
Employee Illness Log 62% 65% 61% 66%
Emergency Handbook
24% 24% 24% 25%
for Food Managers
Call City/County/State HD 16% 15% 17% 14%
None 26% 20% 25% 23%
Q5A. If food tampering or other biological or chemical
contamination of food occurs, often the best indicator of such an
emergency is when an employee feels ill. Do you feel you have
sufficient tools for recording and reporting employee illness?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 53
VASHÉ Research
Ownership View (Tools for Illness Reporting)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Employee Illness log is the most commonly used. The
Emergency Handbook for Food Managers is used 25% of the
time.
Tools for Illness Reporting
Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment locations not a chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
No Yes Yes
Yes No No
9% 92% 87%
91% 8% 13%
Tools used
n=229 n=162 n=262
MDH Employee Illness
13% 10% 15%
Tree and poster
Employee Illness Log 58% 63% 58%
Emergency Handbook
25% 22% 24%
for Food Managers
Call City/County/State HD 15% 12% 18%
None 24% 20% 25%
Q5A. If food tampering or other biological or chemical
contamination of food occurs, often the best indicator of such an
emergency is when an employee feels ill. Do you feel you have
sufficient tools for recording and reporting employee illness?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 54
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Water Contamination)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Over half of establishments would shut down and call the City,
County or State in the event of water contamination.
Preferred way to respond to water contamination alert
Total Ramsey St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=436 n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
Shut down operations 57% 54% 53% 55% 59%
Call the City/ 53% 46% 46% 56%
58%
County/State
Use bottled water 31% 32% 40% 34% 25%
Call Corporate /
5% 7% 4% 8% 5%
senior management
Boil water 4% 2% 6% 2% 3%
Stop using/ serving
water, ice, coffee 3% 7% 1% 8% 3%
Q6. If you were notified that the drinking water supply (tap
water) at your establishment was contaminated, what would you
do?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 55
VASHÉ Research
Risk/Establishment View (Water Contamination)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Over half of establishments would shut down and call the
City, County or State in the event of water contamination.
Action taken if notified that water was contaminated
Risk Establishment type
High Medium Restaurant Grocery
n=260 n=176 n=285 n=151
Shut down operations 59% 53% 58% 54%
Call the City or County 55% 48%
53% 53%
or State
Use bottled water for 32% 28% 29% 33%
customer drinking water
Call Corporate / 8% 11% 12%
6%
senior management
Stop using/ serving 1% 2% 2% 1%
water, ice, coffee
2% 2%
Other 2% 1%
Q6. If you were notified that the drinking water supply (tap
water) at your establishment was contaminated, what would you
do?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 56
VASHÉ Research
Ownership View (Water Contamination)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Over half of establishments would shut down and call the
City, County or State in the event of water contamination.
Action taken if notified that water was contaminated
Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment locations not a chain locations, chain
High Medium Restaurant
n=244 n=49 n=143
Shut down operations 58% 51% 57%
Call the City or County
53% 49% 53%
or State
Use bottled water for 31% 35% 29%
customer drinking water
Call Corporate / 7% 11%
7%
senior management
Stop using/ serving 2% 2% 2%
water, ice, coffee
Other 2% 1% 2%
Q6. If you were notified that the drinking water supply (tap
water) at your establishment was contaminated, what would you
do?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 57
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Security—Establishment)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
3 out of 4 respondents keep back doors locked when not in use.
Over 95% of the time the response is at a minimum “Most of the
time.”
Frequency of back doors/loading doors locked
Total Ramsey St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=436 n=57 n=101 n=62 n=91
Always 75% 74% 73% 77% 74%
Almost always 11% 9% 13% 10% 9%
Most of the time 9% 9% 9% 8% 11%
Some of the time 4% Or o mo 7% Or o mo 3% O ro m o 2% Or o m o 4%
Almost never 2% Lao t ian 2% Lao t ian 2% La o t ia n 3% La ot i a n 2%
Q7. How often do you and your employees keep back doors into
the kitchen area and loading dock doors locked when not in use?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 58
VASHÉ Research
Risk/Establishment View (Security—Establishment)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
3 out of 4 respondents keep back doors locked when not in
use. Over 95% of the time the response is at a minimum
“Most of the time.”
Action taken if notified that water was contaminated
Risk Establishment type
High Medium Restaurant Grocery
n=260 n=176 n=285 n=151
76% 72%
Always 74% 76%
Almost always 12% 7% 11% 9%
8% 11%
Most of the time 10% 8%
4% 5%
Some of the time 3% 6%
Almost never 2% 3% 2% 3%
Q7. How often do you and your employees keep back doors into
the kitchen area and loading dock doors locked when not in use?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 59
VASHÉ Research
Ownership View (Security—Establishment)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
3 out of 4 respondents keep back doors locked when not in use.
Over 95% of the time the response is at a minimum “Most of the
time.”
Frequency of Checking Deliveries
Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment locations not a chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
Always 79% 78% 66%
Almost always 6% 6% 19%
Most of the time 10% 10% 7%
Some of the time 3% 4% 5%
Almost never 2% 2% 3%
Q7. How often do you and your employees keep back doors into
the kitchen area and loading dock doors locked when not in use?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 60
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Security—Inspection)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
A high rate of establishments check their deliveries: Nearly 9 out
of 10.
Although “tampering” is stated directly to the respondent, my opinion is that the priority in
checking deliveries is primarily a function of inventory control, not emergency preparedness.
Frequency of Checking Deliveries
Total Ramsey St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=436 n=57 n=101 n=62 n=91
Always 89% 90% 86% 95% 90%
Almost always 6% 10% 5% 2% 6%
Most of the time 2% 0% 5% 0% 2%
Some of the time 1% Or o mo 0% Or o mo 2% Or o mo 2% Or o m o 1%
Almost never 1% Lao t ian 0% Lao t ian 2% Lao t ian 2% La ot i a n 1%
Q8. How often do you inspect food deliveries to ensure no tampering or unexplained additions have
been made? For example, checking for opened or unexplained packages, liquid or powder residue on
packaging, returning suspicious or opened packages to supplier, etc.?
Base: Total respondents. | Confidential to 61
VASHÉ Research
Risk/Establishment View (Security—Inspection)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
A high rate of establishments check their deliveries:
Greater than 9 out of 10. Large corporations and groceries
often have a specific position responsible for receiving
shipments.
Frequency of Checking Deliveries
Risk Establishment type
High Medium Restaurant Grocery
n=260 n=176 n=285 n=151
Always 91% 88% 90% 89%
Almost always 5% 7% 5% 7%
Most of the time 3% 2% 2% 2%
Some of the time 1% 2% 2% 1%
Almost never 1% 1% 1% 1%
Q8. How often do you inspect food deliveries to ensure no tampering or unexplained additions have
been made? For example, checking for opened or unexplained packages, liquid or powder residue on
packaging, returning suspicious or opened packages to supplier, etc.?
Base: Total respondents. | Confidential to 62
VASHÉ Research
Ownership View (Security—Inspection)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
A high rate of establishments check their deliveries: Nearly 9 out
of 10.
Although “tampering” is stated directly to the respondent, my opinion is that the priority in
checking deliveries is primarily a function of inventory control, not emergency preparedness.
Frequency of Checking Deliveries
Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment Locations, not a chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
Always 90% 90% 90%
Almost always 5% 6% 8%
Most of the time 3% 0% 2%
Some of the time 2% 0% 1%
Almost never 0% 4% 0%
Q8. How often do you inspect food deliveries to ensure no tampering or unexplained additions have
been made? For example, checking for opened or unexplained packages, liquid or powder residue on
packaging, returning suspicious or opened packages to supplier, etc.?
Base: Total respondents. | Confidential to 63
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Security—Self Inspection)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total—Frequency of Self-Inspection
Over half of respondents self-inspect on a weekly basis.
Daily inspections using food safety material is rarely done. The low numbers in this category
perhaps indicate that the people who are receiving shipments are not evaluating how to
improve the food safety and security aspect of the delivery.
Frequency of Self-Inspection
Total Ramsey St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=436 n=57 n=101 n=62 n=91
Daily 1% 2% 0% 0% 2%
Weekly 59% 68% 53% 52% 62%
Monthly 30% 25% 37% 31% 29%
Almost never 1% O r o mo
0% Or o mo 2% O ro m o 0% Or o m o 1%
Only when 6% Laot i an 5% Lao t ian 3% La o t ia n 15% La ot i a n 5%
inspector comes
Other 3% 0% 0 2% 1%
Q8C. How often do you self-inspect to evaluate and improve food
safety and food security, for example, using a Food Safety and
Food Security Self-Inspection Checklist?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 64
VASHÉ Research
Risk/Establishment View (Security—Self Inspection)
Frequency of Self-inspection
Again, self-inspections are more commonly done on a
weekly or monthly basis.
Daily inspections using food safety material is rarely done. The low numbers in this category
perhaps indicate that the people who are receiving shipments are not evaluating how to
improve the food safety and security aspect of the delivery.
Frequency of Self-Inspection
Risk Establishment type
High Medium Restaurant Grocery
n=260 n=176 n=285 n=151
Daily 1% 1% 1% 1%
Weekly 58% 60%
62% 55%
Monthly 30% 31% 29% 32%
Almost never 2% 0% 2%
0%
Only when inspector comes 5% 6% 7% 4%
4% 0%
Other 2% 4%
Q8C. How often do you self-inspect to evaluate and improve food
safety and food security, for example, using a Food Safety and
Food Security Self-Inspection Checklist?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 65
VASHÉ Research
Ownership View (Security—Self Inspection)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
The majority of establishments inspect on a weekly and
monthly basis.
Daily inspections using food safety material is rarely done. The low numbers in this category
perhaps indicate that the people who are receiving shipments are not evaluating how to improve
the food safety and security aspect of the delivery.
Frequency of Self-Inspection
Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment locations not a chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
Daily 0% 0% 1%
Weekly 41% 69% 55%
Monthly 31% 22% 32%
Almost never 1% 0% 1%
Only when
5% 7% 7%
inspector comes
3% 3% 1%
Other
Q8C. How often do you self-inspect to evaluate and improve food
safety and food security, for example, using a Food Safety and
Food Security Self-Inspection Checklist?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 66
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Self-Inspection Initiative)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
A majority, 8 in 10, in all geographies, are open to a
self-inspection initiative.
Supports a Self-Inspection Initiative
Total Ramsey St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=436 n=57 n=101 n=62 n=91
Yes 50% 60% 36% 50% 54%
Initially supportive, but
37% 33% 49% 36% 34%
need more information
Initially negative, but
6% 4% 9% 11% 6%
need more information
Some of the time Or o m o 4% 7% O ro m o 3% Or o m o 7%
7% Or o mo
Q8D. If the time commitment were reasonable, would you
support and participate in a self-inspection initiative to reduce the
total number of people getting sick with foodborne illnesses?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 67
VASHÉ Research
Risk/Establishment View (Self-Inspection Initiative)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Most are open to a self-inspection initiative.
Supports a Self-Inspection Initiative
Risk Establishment type
High Medium Restaurant Grocery
n=260 n=176 n=285 n=151
Yes 51% 47% 47% 56%
Initially supportive, but 39% 34%
37% 38%
need more information
Initially negative, but 11% 5%
7% 7%
need more information
Some of the time 5% 8% 8% 5%
Q8D. If the time commitment were reasonable, would you
support and participate in a self-inspection initiative to reduce the
total number of people getting sick with foodborne illnesses?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 68
VASHÉ Research
Ownership View (Self-Inspection Initiative)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
The majority of establishments are open to a self-inspection
initiative.
Supports a Self-Inspection Initiative
Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment locations not a chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
Yes 48% 53% 51%
Initially supportive, but
38% 35% 38%
need more information
Initially negative, but
8% 6% 5%
need more information
6% 6%
Some of the time 6%
Q8D. If the time commitment were reasonable, would you
support and participate in a self-inspection initiative to reduce the
total number of people getting sick with foodborne illnesses?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 69
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Emergency Plan / Contacts)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
In the event of extensive flooding, all geographies report they
would first contact their boss followed by contacting their local
health department.
Total Ramsey St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=436 n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
Has emergency plan 67% 67% 69% 68%
63%
Called first:
Corporate/Senior Mgmt./Boss 44% 51% 44% 34% 44%
Local health dept. 33% 35% 31% 36% 33%
Utility company 7% 4% 10% 3% 8%
State duty officer 7% 4% 5% 15% 6%
911 4% 4% 7% 3% 3%
Other 5% 4% 4% 10% 6%
Q11a. Do you have an emergency plan for your establishment that
describes how your business will respond to various emergencies?
Q11b. If you had an emergency at your food establishment today, such as
extensive flooding, who would you call first for help?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 70
VASHÉ Research
Ownership Type View (Emergency Plan / Contacts)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Single food establishments are least likely to have an
emergency plan in their establishment.
In the event of extensive flooding, primarily the local health
department, followed by their boss or management, would
be contacted first.
Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment locations not a chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
Has emergency plan
54% 82% 82%
Called first:
Corporate/Senior Mgmt./Boss 45% 33% 46%
Local health dept. 34% 33% 32%
Utility company 5% 18% 8%
State duty officer 6% 6% 8%
911 5% 4% 2%
Other 6% 6% 5%
Q11a. Do you have an emergency plan for your establishment that
describes how your business will respond to various emergencies?
Q11b. If you had an emergency at your food establishment today, such as
extensive flooding, who would you call first for help?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 71
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Fire Drills)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Ramsey County has the largest share of respondents that have fire
drills (35%). As with the 2005 study, one possible explanation may
be because it contains a larger number of day care centers.
Frequency of Fire Drills
25% 18%
28% 27%
35% Within the past 6 months
9% 11% Within the past year
9% More than a year
Never
67% 72%
60% 58%
51%
Total Ramsey St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=436 n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
Q9. When was the last time you had a fire drill?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 72
VASHÉ Research
Risk/Establishment View (Fire Drills) 2007
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
There is generally an even distribution in regard to the
number of respondents that have had fire drills in respect to
risk and establishment type.
Frequency of Fire Drills
27% 28% 28% 26%
Within the past 6 months
10% 9% 9%
Within the past year
More than a year
60% 59% 60% 60% Never
High Medium Restaurant Grocery
n=260 n=176 n=285 n=151
Q9. When was the last time you had a fire drill?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 73
VASHÉ Research
Ownership View (Fire Drills) 2007
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Again, even distribution in the ownership view.
Frequency of Fire Drills
26% 27% 30%
Within the past 6 months
10% 8%
Within the past year
More than a year
60% 61% 59% Never
Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment locations non-chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
Q9. When was the last time you had a fire drill?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 74
VASHÉ Research
Overall View (Shelter-In-Place Plan)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
In most cases,
about half of the
respondents Has evacuation or shelter-in-place plan
indicate they have St. Paul Hennepin
Ramsey County Minneapolis
a shelter-in-place n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
plan for workers
and customers. Yes
Yes
No Yes
47% 45%
Yes
49% No 47%
This is less likely 53% 55%
in single food
Restaurant Grocery
establishments High
n=260
Medium
n=176 n=285 n=151
and more likely in
grocery stores. No
Yes
43%
No No
Yes Yes 47% Yes
48% No 38%
52% 53% 62%
57%
Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment locations not a chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
No Yes No
Yes No Yes
60% 65% 42%
40% 35% 58%
Q9A. Do you have an evacuation or shelter-in-place plan for
workers and customers in the event of an emergency such as a
tornado, fire or chemical incident?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 75
VASHÉ Research
Emergency Readiness for Food Workers Photo Lessons
All Geographies, Risk and Ownership
More restaurants
and high risk
Uses Emergency Readiness for Food Workers
establishments Photo Lessons
report using the
Ramsey County St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
ER for Food n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
Workers in the
EH for Food Yes Yes
No Yes
No Yes
Managers than
81% 31%
23% 19% 69% 29%
other categories.
Hennepin County High Medium Restaurant Grocery
n=151
n=260 n=176 n=285
and Minneapolis
are more likely Yes Yes Yes No
to use the
No No No Yes
32% 16% 31% 81%
68% 84% 69% 19%
handbook for
emergencies. Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment locations not a chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
Yes No Yes No
No Yes
22% 78% 33% 70%
67% 30%
Q9B. Are you using the Emergency Readiness for Food Workers
Photo Lessons included in the Emergency Handbook for Food
Managers or other emergency training lessons to train your staff
on what to do in an emergency?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 76
VASHÉ Research
Materials Used
All Geographies, Risk and Ownership
High-risk, restaurant
and more than 2
locations, non chain,
Utilization of Emergency Handbook for Food Managers
along with
Minneapolis are the Ramsey County St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
highest users of the n=57 n=101 n=62 n=216
Emergency Handbook
for Food Managers. Yes Yes No
Yes
No
9% 87% Yes
Overall adoption rate
11% 89%
13% 20%
of the Emergency
Handbook is low High Medium Restaurant Grocery
compared to other n=260 n=176 n=285 n=151
materials. Many cite
materials such as Yes Yes
No
No
Yes
No
internal resources or
19% No 10% Yes 80% 93%
81% 90% 20% 7%
ServSafe for training.
Lowest adoption rate Single food More than 2 More than 2
occurs with Grocery establishment Locations, not a chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
stores and Ramsey
County.
Yes Yes Yes
No No
14% 20% No 16%
86% 84%
80%
Q9C. What exactly are the materials that you are using?
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 77
VASHÉ Research
County/City View (Emergency Training)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
New hires are trained around the same rate: Slightly higher than 3
of 4 times. Hennepin County shows the highest rate while
Minneapolis shows the lowest.
On the job training is the most common method of training.
Classroom training occurs frequently
Total Ramsey St. Paul Hennepin Minneapolis
n=436 n=57 n=101 n=62 n=91
New hires trained 78% 77% 80% 83% 75%
Training type n=340 n=44 n=81 n=52 n=71
On the job 50% 56% 35% 34% 64%
Emergency Handbook 10% 4% 9% 5% 6%
Classroom training 24% 24% 17% 24% 22%
Video 16% 16% 4% 7% 16%
CD or DVD 6% 5% 0% 2% 7%
Web based 1% 0% 0% 3% 1%
Other 1% 0%
1% 1% 0%
Training length:
Less than 30 minutes 41% 41% 37% 35% 44%
30 minutes to 1 hour 20% 30% 23% 19% 16%
1 to 2 hours 16% 18% 19% 17% 19%
2 to 4 hours 11% 0% 10% 15% 12%
4 to 8 hours 5% 7% 5% 6% 4%
More than 8 hours 6% 5% 6% 10% 4%
Q10. Are newly hired employees trained on what to do in an emergency?
Q10B. Please describe the type of this training.
Q10C. Now please describe the length of this training
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 78
VASHÉ Research
Ownership View (Emergency Training)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
New hires are trained the most with chain and franchised
businesses
On the job and classroom training occurs most frequent across all
ownership types.
Single food More than 2 More than 2
establishment locations non-chain locations, chain
n=244 n=49 n=143
New hires trained 77% 69% 81%
Training type, n=305 n=188 n=34 n=68
On the job 35%
49% 50%
Emergency Handbook 8% 8% 3%
Classroom training 14% 16% 32%
Video 9% 10% 32%
CD or DVD 4% 7% 6%
Web based 0% 1% 1%
Other 1% 2% 0%
Training length:
Less than 30 minutes 60% 25%
35%
30 minutes to 1 hour 15% 19% 19%
1 to 2 hours 13% 18% 18%
2 to 4 hours 7% 17% 11%
4 to 8 hours 3% 19% 12%
More than 8 hours 2% 2% 5%
Q10. Are newly hired employees trained on what to do in an emergency?
Q10B. Please describe the type of this training.
Q10C. Now please describe the length of this training
Base: Total respondents.
| Confidential to 79
VASHÉ Research
Presentation Outline
● Background and Objectives
● Executive Summary
● Methods
● Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
● Results
● Conclusions and Recommendations
| Confidential to 80
VASHÉ Research
Conclusions and Recommendations
Promote training and resources via local health inspectors
with an emphasis placed on high-risk restaurants.
Encourage utilization of the Emergency Handbook for Food
Managers for training and emergencies. Place emphasis on
the different components that make up the Emergency
Handbook for Food Managers.
The majority of establishments see the value in the internal
evaluation of food safety systems. Work in the area with
establishments via local health inspectors.
Consider conducting a qualitative study (focus groups or
in-depth interviews) with owners and managers of
multi-cultural food establishments, to gain a deeper
understanding of their needs and preferences for services in
languages other than English such as notification,
information, training, etc.
| Confidential to 81
VASHÉ Research
Conclusions and Recommendations
Prioritize development of language materials: 1) English; 2)
Spanish; 3) Arabic and Chinese.
• Secure collaboration with multiple-location food companies in developing
training seminars and other materials in Spanish.
Food security topics should be delivered through existing food
safety channels, delivered by printed materials, onsite
evaluations and training.
• Emphasis should be on topics such as self-inspection.
| Confidential to 82
VASHÉ Research
Weighting Scheme
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Geography Risk Establishment
St. Paul Ramsey High risk Restaurants
Minneapolis Hennepin Medium Risk Grocery
25%
54%
48%
26%
Unweighted
24%
52%
46%
25%
15%
50% 47%
77%
Weighted
23%
53%
22%
13%
| Confidential to 83
VASHÉ Research
CONTACTS
Hennepin County, Susan Palchik
612-543-5205, susan.palchick@co.hennepin.mn.us
Ramsey County, Zack Hansen
651-266-1177, zack.hansen@co.ramsey.mn.us
City of Minneapolis, Curt Fernandez
612-673-2175, Curt.Fernandez@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Confidential | VasheResearch.com
| Confidential to 84
VASHÉ Research
Preparedness at Food Service
Conclusions and Recommendations
Promote training and resources via local health inspectors
with an emphasis placed on high-risk restaurants.
Encourage utilization of the Emergency Handbook for Food
Managers for training and emergencies. Place emphasis on
the different components that make up the Emergency
Handbook for Food Managers.
The majority of establishments see the value in the internal
evaluation of food safety systems. Work in the area with
establishments via local health inspectors.
Consider conducting a qualitative study (focus groups or
in-depth interviews) with owners and managers of
multi-cultural food establishments, to gain a deeper
understanding of their needs and preferences for services in
languages other than English such as notification,
information, training, etc.
| Confidential to 85
VASHÉ Research
Preparedness at Food Service
Conclusions and Recommendations
Prioritize development of language materials: 1) English; 2)
Spanish; 3) Arabic and Chinese.
• Secure collaboration with multiple-location food companies in developing
training seminars and other materials in Spanish.
Food security topics should be delivered through existing food
safety channels, delivered by printed materials, onsite
evaluations and training.
• Emphasis should be on topics such as self-inspection.
| Confidential to 86
VASHÉ Research
Preparedness at Food Service
(Vashé Research, 2007 vs. 2005)
34% of Twin Cities Metro FMs said they’d had an
emergency situation within past 2 years (e.g. flooding,
storm damage, power outage, fire or food tampering).
64% said they have an emergency plan, up from 46%.
48% said they have an exit plan.
31% said they’d had a fire drill in past year, up from 28%;
60% never have had a drill.
| Confidential to 87
VASHÉ Research
Preparedness—Continued
53% claimed they would call local or state PH in an
emergency, up from 40%.
99% said they are able to immediately provide a list of
their food suppliers in event of an illness outbreak, as in
2005.
78% said they are training new hires on what to do in an
emergency, up 3% from 2005.
50% training on the job is down from 60% in 2005.
Classroom & other forms of training are on the rise
41% of training lasts a half hour or less, vs. 49% in 2005.
| Confidential to 88
VASHÉ Research
Preparedness Tools
(Vashé, 2007)
Metro FMs said they had seen the following resources:
‒ 48% Emergency Handbook for Food Managers (pub Fall 2005)
‒ 22% Food Security Self Inspection Checklist (pub Fall 2005)
‒ 17% Food Safety & Security Self Audit Checklist (out Nov 2006)
Of the 34% who had experienced an emergency in past 2
years, use of APC guidance was:
‒ 19% Emergency Handbook
‒ 6% Food Safety & Security Checklists
‒ 52% no guidance used
22% said they use the Emergency Handbook Photo Lessons
to train staff, and 4% more use other training lessons
‒ Corporate, ServSafe…
| Confidential to 89
VASHÉ Research
Food Security
(Vashé, 2007 v 2005)
54% said they self inspect for food safety and food
security, and 89% of these self-inspect either weekly or
monthly.
85% said they lock back doors and loading docks always or
almost always, up 8% from 2005.
89% said they inspect food deliveries to ensure no
tampering, however the surveyor suspects that as in 2005
most inspect for inventory control and theft rather than for
tampering.
88% feel they have sufficient tools for reporting employee
illnesses as an early warning of tampering.
| Confidential to 90
VASHÉ Research
Food Security—Continued
99% said they could provide their supplier list immediately
if an illness outbreak as in 2005, even with the number of
food suppliers on the increase.
A small percent claim to receive a premium reduction from
their property insurer for food security self-inspection.
‒ Surveyor notes that actual percent is soft because many respondents
were not in charge of insurances.
| Confidential to 91
VASHÉ Research
Self Inspection
(Vashé, 2007)
54% said they self inspect for food safety and food security.
89% of those who do, self inspect either weekly or monthly.
86% support or initially support a self-inspection initiative.
| Confidential to 92
VASHÉ Research
Twin Cities Metro Food Service Demographics
(Vashé, 2007)
70% are single facility, small businesses, comparable to
2005 although chains are increasing.
The top 5 translation language needs for training staff
remain the same as in 2005:
‒ Spanish at 42%, higher in Minneapolis & St. Paul.
‒ Arabic 7%, higher in Minneapolis & St. Paul.
‒ Hmong 5%, highest outside of Minneapolis.
‒ Somali 5%, higher in Minneapolis.
‒ Chinese 4%.
Emerging: Vietnamese, Oromo and Lao
| Confidential to 93
VASHÉ Research
References
Emergency Preparedness at Twin Cities Metro Retail Food
Establishments: An Outreach and Baseline Survey.
‒ Vashé Research for Twin Cities Metro APC, April 2005, a phone survey of
food managers, n=379, universe=4,181.
Emergency Preparedness at Twin Cities Metro Food Service
Establishments: An Outreach and Benchmark Survey.
‒ Vashé Research for Twin Cities Metro APC, Oct. 2007, a phone survey of
food managers, n=436, universe=4,568.
| Confidential to 94
VASHÉ Research
Twin Cities Metro APC
The Twin Cities Metro Advanced Practice Center (APC) is a Minnesota partnership of
Hennepin County, St. Paul-Ramsey County and the City of Minneapolis. It is one of eight
centers nationally funded by the National Association of County and City Health Officials
(NACCHO) in collaboration with CDC to strengthen public health emergency preparedness.
Since 2004, this center has developed environmental health emergency preparedness
resources for workforce training & response, government and regulated businesses, and a
multicultural general public. All products are available at www.NACCHO.org/Publications.
HENNEPIN COUNTY ST. PAUL-RAMSEY COUNTY
Susan Palchick, EH Manager Zach Hansen, EH Director
Susan.Palchick@co.hennepin.mn.us Zack.Hansen@co.ramsey.mn.us
Brian Golob, Sr. Environmentalist Cheryl Armstrong, Program Analyst
Brian.Golob@co.hennepin.mn.us Cheryl.Armstrong@co.ramsey.mn.us
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
Curt Fernandez, Food Safety Manager
Curt.Fernandez@ci.minnapolis.mn.us
Tim Jenkins, Food Safety Supervisor
Tim.Jenkins@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Susan Kulstad, Contractor
Susan.Kulstad@ci.minnapolis.mn.us
| Confidential to 95