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
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
2
VASHÉ Research
Presentation Outline
●

●
●
●
•
Background and Objectives
Executive Summary
Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
Methods
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.


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.


About half say that material is the Emergency Handbook for Food managers.
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
12
VASHÉ Research
Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
Q1. Which one of the following categories best describes your business?
n=436
A single (one) food
establishment
2 or more food
establishments but NOT
franchise
2007
70%
10%
2005
72%
11%
2 or more food establishments AND
franchise/large corporation

20%
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
2007
2005
English
Spanish

99%
95%
Arabic
Chinese
Hmong
Somali
Vietnamese
Oromo
Laotian
42%
7%
4%
5%
5%
3%
2%
1%
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?
n=358
Emergency Handbook for
Food Managers
Food Safety Self-Inspection
List
Food Safety & Security
Self-Audit Tool
Other
48%
22%
17%
3%
2007
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
2007
Yes
No
32%
68%
Q3E. Which of the following guidance materials did you follow, to keep food safe and to recover safely from the emergency?
n=436
Emergency Handbook for
Food Managers
Food Security SelfInspection Checklist
Food Safety & Security
Self-Audit Tool
Other
None
19%
4%
2%
23%
52%
2007
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%
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
13
VASHÉ Research
Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
Q4b. How many food suppliers do you currently have?
n=433
1 to 5
2007
70%
2005
74%
6 to 10

20%
17%
More than 10
10%
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
2007
Yes
No
88%
12%
Q5B. Which tools are you using for making decisions on, recording and reporting employee illness?
n=384
2007
Employee Illness
Log
Emergency
Handbook for
Food Mangers
63%
24%
Call the City or
County or State
MDH Employee
Illness Decision
Tree & Poster for
Employees
None
16%
14%
24%
Q6. If you were notified that the drinking water supply (tap water) at your establishment was contaminated, what would you do?
n=436
2007
2005
Shut down
operations

57%
49%
Call the City or
County or State

53%
40%
Use bottled
water

31%
22%
Call management
/ boss / owner
Stop using/
serving water,
ice, coffee
7%
4%
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
2007
75%
2005

70%
Almost always

10%
7%
Most of the time
Some of the time
Almost never
Never
9%
4%
2%
—
11%
5%
4%
2%
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.?
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%
n=436
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
2007
Yes
No
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?
n=436
2007
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Almost Never
Only when the
inspector comes
Other
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?
n=436
2007
Yes
Initially
supportive
Initially negative
No
49%
37%
7%
6%
Within the past
year
More than a year
Never
3%
9%
60%
3%
11%
61%
Q9. When was the last time you had a fire drill?
n=436
2007
2005
Within the past 6
months

28%
25%
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
2007
Yes
No
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
2007
Yes
No
26%
74%
Q9C. What exactly are the materials that you are using?
n=113
Emergency Handbook for
Food Managers
Other
85%
15%
2007
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.
n=340
2007
2005
On the job

50%
60%
Classroom
training

24%
18%
Video

16%
12%
Emergency
Handbook
CD or DVD
Web-based
Other
10%
6%
1%
1%
—
3%
0%
1%
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
16
VASHÉ Research
Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
Q10C. Now please describe the length of this training.
Less than 30
minutes
30 minutes to 1
hour
1 to 2 hours
2 to 4 hours
4 to 8 hours
More than 8
hours
2007
41%
20%
16%
11%
5%
6%
2005
49%
15%
12%
13%
6%
5%
n=340
Q11A. Do you have an emergency plan for your establishment that describes how your business will respond to various emergencies?
n=436
2007
2005
Yes

64%
46%
No
36%
54%
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
18
VASHÉ Research
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Overall Risk category
High risk:
Grocery
16%
 The majority of establishments
(65%) are high and medium
risk restaurants.
Medium risk:
Restaurant
21%
Medium risk:
Grocery
19%
High risk:
Restaurant
44%
S2. Risk Category of establishment (this information is found with the establishment info.)
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
19
VASHÉ Research
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Business category
n=436
A single (one) food
establishment, and
NOT a franchise of
a large corporation
or part of a chain
2 or more food
establishments but
NOT a franchise of
a large corporation
2 or more food
establishments
AND a franchise or
a large corporation
 70% of respondents are from
single food establishments,
neither part of a large
corporation or food chain.
70%
10%
20%
Q1. Which one of the following categories best describes your
business?
Base: Total respondents.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
99%
English
42%
Spanish
Arabic
4%
0%
7%
0%
Chinese
4%
1%
Hmong
5%
1%
Somali
5%
1%
Vietnamese
3%
Oromo
2%
Laotian
1%
Other
1%
0%
Oromo
Laotian
Other
1%
0%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
n=436
St. Paul
n=101
Ramsey County
n=57
Yes
82%
Yes
83%
Yes
89%
Hennepin
n=62
Yes
85%
Minneapolis
n=216
Yes
89%
Has a Copy of in Establishment
n=358
Emergency Handbook for
Food Managers
Food Security Self
Inspection Checklist
Food Safety & Security
Self-Audit tool
Other
n=50
48%
22%
17%
n=82
40%
25%
25%
n=53
n=192
50%
12%
20%
48%
23%
15%
50%
26%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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%
St. Paul
n=101
Ramsey County
n=57
Yes
81%
Yes
78%
Hennepin
n=62
Yes
84%
Minneapolis
n=216
Yes
83%
Q3b. Do you have a copy of [name the item] in your food establishment?
Base: Total respondents.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
95%
English
23%
Spanish
Chinese
1%
Hmong
1%
Arabic
1%
Somali
1%
Vietnamese
1%
Oromo
1%
Q3C. In what language(s) is/are the (and safety document)?
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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%
St. Paul
n=101
Ramsey County
n=57
Yes
26%
Hennepin
n=62
Yes
41%
No
59%
Yes
27%
Minneapolis
n=216
Yes
36%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
Other, 23%
None, 52%
Emergency
Handbook for
Food
Managers,
19%
Food Security
Self Inspection
Checklist, 4%
Food Safety &
Security SelfAudit Tool, 2%
Q3E. Which of the following guidance materials did you follow, to keep food safe and to recover safely from the emergency?
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
from 2005
n=433
70%
1 to 5
6 to 10
More than 10
Yes
99%
20%
10%
-4%
3%
1%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
63%
Employee Illness Log
Employee Illness Log in Emergency
Handbook for Food Managers
Call the City or County or State
Health Department
MN Dept of Health (MDH)
Employee Illness Decision Tree &
Poster for employees
None
24%
16%
14%
24%
Q5B. Which tools are you using for making decisions on, recording and reporting employee illness?
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
shut down operations,
up 8% from 2005.
 Additionally 53%, up 13%
from 2005, would also contact
government authorities.

Over half of food
managers would also
notify City, County or
State officials, up 13%
from 2005.
What respondent would do if
notified that water was
contaminated
n=436
Shut down operations
57%
53%
Call the City/County/State
Use bottled water for
customer drinking water
Call Corporate /
senior management
Stop using/ serving
water, ice, coffee
31%
7%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
in use

75%
9% 10%
Almost never
From 2005
Some of the time
Most of the time
Almost always
Frequency of inspection
food deliveries to ensure no
tampering or unexplained
additions have been made
0%
Always
89%
6%
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.?
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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%
St. Paul
n=101
Ramsey County
n=57
Yes
2%
Yes
3%
Hennepin
n=62
No
97%
Yes
3%
Minneapolis
n=216
Yes
2%
Q8B. Do you receive a premium reduction from your property insurer for food
security self inspection?
Base: Total respondents.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
St. Paul
n=101
Ramsey County
n=57
Yes
40%
Yes
58%
Hennepin
n=62
No
42%
Yes
66%
Minneapolis
n=216
Yes
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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%
59%
Weekly
30%
Monthly
Almost Never
Only when inspector
comes
Other
1%
6%
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?
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
need more
information
7%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
64%
No
36%
From 2005
St. Paul
n=101
Ramsey County
n=57
Yes
67%
Yes
61%
Hennepin
n=62
No
39%
Yes
69%
Minneapolis
n=216
Yes
58%
Q11A. Do you have an emergency plan for
your establishment that describes how your
business will respond to various emergencies?
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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%
There is a slight increase from
2005 in the segment of
respondents that indicate they
have conducted a fire drill
in the past year.
Within the past 6 months
Within the past year
9%
More than a year
4%

60%
Never
From 2005
n=436
Q9. When was the last time you had a fire drill?
Base: Total respondents.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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-inplace plan for workers and customers in the
event of an emergency such as a tornado, fire
or chemical incident?
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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?
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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?
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
40
VASHÉ Research
Overall (Emergency Training)
Twin Cities Metro Area Total



Three quarters of
establishments provide
emergency training to their new
hires.
In half of all cases, this training
lasts less than 30 minutes,
down 8% from 2005.
Training is provided primarily
on the job.
New hires trained?
n=436
Yes
78%
Training type
n=340
50%
On the job
24%
Classroom training
16%
Video
10%
Emergency Handbook
CD or DVD
Web-based
6%
1%
1%
Other
Training length
n=340
Less than 30 minutes
41%
30 minutes to 1 hour
3%

20%
1 to 2 hours
16%
11%
2 to 4 hours
From 2005
4 to 8 hours
More than 8 hours
No
22%
5%
6%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
42
VASHÉ Research
Food Business Demographics
Twin Cities Metro Area Total

Restaurant
As in 2005, Hennepin County
has a higher share of
restaurants and high-risk food
establishments (correlated
attributes).
High risk
Medium Risk
Medium /
High Risk
Grocery
High
Risk
66%
44%
Medium
Risk
34%
56%
Total
Ramsey
St. Paul
Hennepin
n=436
n=57
n=101
n=62
Minneapolis
N=216
37%
49%
39%
40%
31%
60%
51%
69%
61%
63%
22%
Grocery/
Restaurant
71%
35%
65%
31%
69%
31%
69%
29%
Restaurant
Grocery
78%
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
n=57
n=436
A single (one) food establishment,
and NOT a franchise of a large
corporation or part of a chain
2 or more food establishments but
NOT a franchise of a large
corporation
2 or more food establishments
AND a franchise of a large
corporation
70%
10%
20%
St. Paul
n=101
47%
n=62
81%
42%
11%
Hennepin
8%
11%
Minneapolis
n=216
77%
45%
11%
44%
9%
14%
Q1. Which one of the following categories best describes your
business?
Base: Total respondents.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
Establishment type
Risk
A single (one) food establishment,
and NOT a franchise of a large
corporation or part of a chain
2 or more food establishments but
NOT a franchise of a large
corporation
2 or more food establishments
AND a franchise of a large
corporation
High
Medium
Restaurant
Grocery
n=260
n=176
n=285
n=151
10%
16%
77%
71%
74%
12%
17%
13%
10%
65%
14%
21%
Q1. Which one of the following categories best describes your
business?
Base: Total respondents.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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%
Spanish
Arabic
98%
42%
40%
7%
Chinese
4%
Hmong
5%
Somali
5%
Vietnamese
3%
2%
98%
43%
3%
1%
Or o mo
La ot i a n
1%
Laotian
Lao t ian
0%
Lao t ian
Ot h e r
1%
Other
Ot her
1%
Ot her
3%
0%
7%
2%
5%
2%
6%
8%
2%
6%
9%
10%
9%
2%
45%
1%
4%
8%
99%
28%
8%
Or o mo
Or o m o
Oromo
97%
3%
2%
2%
Or o mo
1%
Or o m o
1%
Lao t ian
1%
La ot i a n
1%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
Establishment type
Risk
High
Medium
Restaurant
Grocery
n=174
n=205
n=196
n=183
English
94%
Spanish
Arabic
Chinese
Hmong
96%
98%
33%
54%
49%
8%
7%
7%
3%
6%
2%
4%
3%
Vietnamese
3%
5%
4%
Oromo
Or o m o
1%
Or o mo
1%
Or o mo
Laotian
La ot i a n
0%
Lao t ian
1%
Lao t ian
Ot her
0%
Ot her
0%
12%
11%
Somali
Other
Ot h e r
29%
5%
2%
11%
92%
2%
3%
4%
7%
2%
Or o m o
2%
0%
La ot i a n
0%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
establishment
More than 2
locations, not a chain
More than 2
locations, chain
n=244
n=49
n=143
English
96%
Spanish
41%
100%
100%
47%
44%
Chinese
7%
3%
4%
Arabic
7%
5%
3%
Hmong
5%
Somali
5%
4%
3%
Vietnamese
3%
2%
6%
Or o m o
Oromo
0%
La ot i a n
Laotian
2%
Ot h e r
0%
Other
0%
Or o mo
2%
6%
Or o mo
3%
Lao t ian
0%
Lao t ian
0%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
St. Paul
n=101
Ramsey County
n=57
Yes
100%
Yes
100%
Hennepin
n=62
No
0%
Yes
99%
Minneapolis
n=216
No
1%
Yes
100%
Number of food suppliers
n=57
More than 10
21%
14%
n=62
n=216
66%
65%
1 to 5
6 to 10
n=101
18%
16%
71%
65%
29%
6%
18%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
Establishment type
Risk
High
n=260
Yes
99%
Restaurant
n=285
Medium
n=176
No
1%
Yes
100%
Yes
99%
No
0%
Grocery
n=151
No
1%
Yes
100%
No
0%
Number of food suppliers
n=260
1 to 5
6 to 10
More than 10
n=176
70%
19%
11%
n=285
n=151
70%
21%
9%
54%
76%
17%
7%
23%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
More than 2
locations not a chain
Single food
establishment
n=244
Yes
99%
n=49
No
1%
Yes
100%
n=143
No
0%
Number of food suppliers
n=244
1 to 5
6 to 10
More than 10
n=49
9%
Yes
100%
No
0%
n=143
71%
73%
18%
More than 2
locations, chain
10%
18%
59%
24%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
St. Paul
n=101
Ramsey County
n=57
Yes
86%
Hennepin
n=62
Yes
86%
Minneapolis
n=216
Yes
91%
Yes
94%
No
14%
Tools used
n=57
MDH Employee Illness
Tree and poster
n=101
21%
Employee Illness Log
61%
Illness Log in Emergency
Handbook for Food Managers
Call City/County/State HD
None
13%
28%
5%
n=216
16%
11%
67%
21%
15%
28%
n=62
16%
58%
15%
63%
27%
19%
26%
18%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
Establishment type
Risk
High
n=260
Yes
88%
Yes
92%
Tools used
Emergency Handbook
for Food Managers
n=162
13%
14%
Call City/County/State HD
None
62%
24%
16%
26%
Yes
85%
No
8%
n=229
Employee Illness Log
Grocery
n=151
Yes
92%
No
12%
MDH Employee Illness
Tree and poster
Restaurant
n=285
Medium
n=176
No
8%
n=262
24%
15%
20%
n=128
12%
65%
No
15%
17%
61%
24%
17%
25%
66%
25%
14%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
establishment
More than 2
locations not a chain
n=244
n=49
No
9%
Yes
91%
Tools used
MDH Employee Illness
Tree and poster
Emergency Handbook
for Food Managers
Call City/County/State HD
None
Yes
92%
n=162
13%
10%
58%
25%
15%
24%
n=143
No
8%
n=229
Employee Illness Log
More than 2
locations, chain
Yes
87%
No
13%
n=262
15%
63%
22%
12%
20%
58%
24%
18%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
54%
57%
Call the City/
County/State
46%
53%
Use bottled water
Call Corporate /
senior management
5%
Boil water
4%
Stop using/ serving
water, ice, coffee
3%
46%
32%
31%
7%
2%
7%
55%
53%
6%
1%
56%
58%
40%
4%
59%
25%
34%
8%
2%
8%
5%
3%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
Establishment type
Risk
High
n=260
Shut down operations
6%
8%
54%
48%
55%
33%
29%
28%
32%
Grocery
n=151
58%
53%
53%
Use bottled water for
customer drinking water
Restaurant
n=285
53%
59%
Call the City or County
or State
Call Corporate /
senior management
Medium
n=176
11%
12%
Stop using/ serving
water, ice, coffee
1%
2%
2%
1%
Other
2%
1%
2%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
establishment
High
n=244
Shut down operations
Medium
n=49
53%
29%
35%
31%
7%
57%
49%
53%
Use bottled water for
customer drinking water
Restaurant
n=143
51%
58%
Call the City or County
or State
Call Corporate /
senior management
More than 2
More than 2
locations not a chain locations, chain
7%
11%
Stop using/ serving
water, ice, coffee
2%
2%
2%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
n=436
Always
Almost always
Most of the time
Ramsey
St. Paul
Hennepin
Minneapolis
n=57
n=101
n=62
n=91
74%
75%
11%
9%
9%
9%
74%
77%
73%
13%
9%
10%
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
Almost never
2%
Lao t ian
2%
Lao t ian
2%
La o t ia n
3%
La ot i a n
4%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
Establishment type
Risk
High
n=260
Always
Medium
n=176
Almost always
12%
7%
Most of the time
10%
8%
3%
Almost never
2%
6%
3%
Grocery
n=151
72%
76%
76%
74%
Some of the time
Restaurant
n=285
11%
8%
9%
11%
4%
5%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
establishment
n=244
Always
Almost always
Most of the time
More than 2
locations not a chain
n=49
10%
Some of the time
3%
Almost never
2%
n=143
78%
79%
6%
More than 2
locations, chain
66%
19%
6%
10%
4%
2%
7%
5%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
n=436
Always
Almost always
Ramsey
St. Paul
Hennepin
Minneapolis
n=57
n=101
n=62
n=91
90%
89%
10%
6%
Most of the time
2%
Some of the time
1%
Almost never
1%
0%
Or o mo
Lao t ian
0%
0%
95%
86%
5%
2%
5%
0%
90%
6%
2%
Or o mo
2%
Or o mo
2%
Or o m o
1%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
Establishment type
Risk
High
n=260
Always
Medium
n=176
91%
Almost always
5%
Most of the time
3%
Restaurant
n=285
90%
88%
7%
Grocery
n=151
5%
89%
7%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
establishment
n=244
Always
More than 2
More than 2
Locations, not a chain locations, chain
n=143
n=49
90%
90%
Almost always
5%
Most of the time
3%
0%
Some of the time
2%
0%
Almost never
0%
6%
4%
90%
8%
2%
1%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
n=436
Daily
Only when
inspector comes
Other
Hennepin
Minneapolis
n=57
n=101
n=62
n=91
0%
2%
6%
3%
0%
5%
0%
31%
37%
Or o mo
2%
O ro m o
Lao t ian
3%
La o t ia n
0
62%
52%
53%
25%
30%
1%
0%
68%
59%
Monthly
Almost never
St. Paul
2%
1%
Weekly
Ramsey
0%
Or o m o
15%
2%
29%
La ot i a n
1%
5%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
Establishment type
Risk
High
n=260
Daily
0%
1%
32%
29%
31%
2%
60%
58%
55%
30%
Grocery
n=151
1%
62%
Monthly
Restaurant
n=285
1%
1%
Weekly
Almost never
Medium
n=176
0%
Only when inspector comes
5%
6%
7%
Other
2%
4%
4%
2%
4%
0%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
establishment
n=244
Daily
Almost never
Only when
inspector comes
5%
Other
3%
55%
69%
32%
22%
31%
1%
n=143
1%
0%
41%
Monthly
More than 2
locations, chain
n=49
0%
Weekly
More than 2
locations not a chain
0%
7%
3%
1%
7%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
n=436
Yes
Some of the time
St. Paul
Hennepin
Minneapolis
n=57
n=101
n=62
n=91
60%
50%
Initially supportive, but
need more information
Initially negative, but
need more information
Ramsey
33%
37%
7%
Or o m o
4%
7%
34%
11%
9%
Or o mo
O ro m o
54%
36%
49%
4%
6%
50%
36%
3%
6%
Or o m o
7%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
Establishment type
Risk
High
n=260
Yes
Medium
n=176
56%
34%
39%
38%
37%
Grocery
n=151
47%
47%
51%
Initially supportive, but
need more information
Restaurant
n=285
Initially negative, but
need more information
7%
7%
11%
5%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
establishment
n=244
Yes
More than 2
locations not a chain
n=49
48%
Initially supportive, but
need more information
8%
Some of the time
6%
n=143
51%
53%
38%
Initially negative, but
need more information
More than 2
locations, chain
38%
35%
6%
6%
5%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
n=436
Has emergency plan
St. Paul
n=57
67%
Hennepin
n=101
67%
n=62
Minneapolis
n=216
68%
69%
63%
Called first:
Corporate/Senior Mgmt./Boss
Local health dept.
44%
51%
44%
35%
33%
34%
31%
Utility company
7%
4%
State duty officer
7%
4%
5%
10%
911
4%
4%
7%
Other
5%
4%
4%
44%
36%
3%
15%
3%
10%
33%
8%
6%
3%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
establishment
n=244
More than 2
More than 2
locations not a chain locations, chain
n=143
n=49
Has emergency plan
82%
82%
54%
Called first:
Corporate/Senior Mgmt./Boss
45%
Local health dept.
46%
33%
34%
32%
33%
Utility company
5%
State duty officer
6%
6%
911
5%
4%
2%
Other
6%
6%
5%
18%
8%
8%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
28%
35%
25%
18%
9%
27%
11%
9%
60%
Total
n=436
72%
51%
n=57
Within the past year
More than a year
67%
Ramsey
Within the past 6 months
St. Paul
n=101
Hennepin
n=62
Never
58%
Minneapolis
n=216
Q9. When was the last time you had a fire drill?
Base: Total respondents.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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%
9%
9%
Within the past 6 months
10%
Within the past year
More than a year
60%
59%
High
Medium
n=260
n=176
60%
Restaurant
n=285
60%
Never
Grocery
n=151
Q9. When was the last time you had a fire drill?
Base: Total respondents.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
Never
60%
61%
59%
Single food
establishment
More than 2
locations non-chain
More than 2
locations, chain
n=244
n=49
n=143
Q9. When was the last time you had a fire drill?
Base: Total respondents.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
a shelter-in-place
n=62
n=101
n=57
plan for workers
Yes
No
and customers.
Yes
45%
47%
Yes
49%
53%
This is less likely
in single food
Restaurant
High
Medium
establishments
n=285
n=176
n=260
and more likely in
Yes
grocery stores.
No
43%
Yes
52%
48%
Single food
establishment
No
57%
More than 2
locations not a chain
n=244
Yes
40%
Yes
53%
Yes
65%
No
55%
Yes
47%
Grocery
n=151
No
47%
Yes
62%
No
38%
More than 2
locations, chain
n=49
No
60%
Minneapolis
n=216
n=143
No
35%
Yes
58%
No
42%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 75
VASHÉ Research
Emergency Readiness for Food Workers Photo Lessons
All Geographies, Risk and Ownership


More restaurants
and high risk
establishments
report using the
ER for Food
Workers in the
EH for Food
Managers than
other categories.
Hennepin County
and Minneapolis
are more likely
to use the
handbook for
emergencies.
Uses Emergency Readiness for Food Workers
Photo Lessons
St. Paul
n=101
Ramsey County
n=57
Yes
23%
Yes
32%
Yes
31%
No
68%
n=244
No
78%
Yes
16%
No
84%
More than 2
locations not a chain
n=49
Yes
33%
Minneapolis
n=216
No
69%
Yes
29%
Restaurant
n=285
Medium
n=176
Single food
establishment
Yes
22%
No
81%
Yes
19%
High
n=260
Hennepin
n=62
No
67%
Yes
31%
Grocery
n=151
No
69%
Yes
19%
No
81%
More than 2
locations, chain
n=143
Yes
30%
No
70%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 76
VASHÉ Research
Materials Used
All Geographies, Risk and Ownership



High-risk, restaurant
and more than 2
locations, non chain,
along with
Minneapolis are the
highest users of the
Emergency Handbook
for Food Managers.
Overall adoption rate
of the Emergency
Handbook is low
compared to other
materials. Many cite
materials such as
internal resources or
ServSafe for training.
Lowest adoption rate
occurs with Grocery
stores and Ramsey
County.
Utilization of Emergency Handbook for Food Managers
St. Paul
n=101
Ramsey County
n=57
Yes
9%
Yes
11%
High
n=260
Yes
19%
No
89%
No
81%
Yes
10%
Yes
20%
Restaurant
n=285
No
90%
Grocery
n=151
No
80%
Yes
20%
Yes
7%
No
93%
More than 2
More than 2
Locations, not a chain locations, chain
n=244
n=49
No
86%
Minneapolis
n=216
No
87%
Yes
13%
Medium
n=176
Single food
establishment
Yes
14%
Hennepin
n=62
Yes
20%
n=143
No
80%
Yes
16%
No
84%
Q9C. What exactly are the materials that you are using?
Base: Total respondents.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
n=436
New hires trained
Training type
78%
10%
Video
CD or DVD
Web based
Other
4%
9%
16%
5%
n=71
5%
24%
3%
0%
1%
1%
22%
7%
2%
0%
64%
6%
17%
1%
75%
34%
4%
0%
6%
1%
Minneapolis
n=91
83%
35%
24%
16%
n=62
n=52
n=81
56%
24%
Hennepin
80%
n=44
50%
Classroom training
n=101
77%
n=340
On the job
Emergency Handbook
St. Paul
n=57
16%
7%
1%
0%
0%
Training length:
Less than 30 minutes
30 minutes to 1 hour
1 to 2 hours
2 to 4 hours
41%
30%
41%
20%
18%
16%
4 to 8 hours
5%
0%
7%
More than 8 hours
6%
5%
11%
35%
37%
23%
6%
16%
17%
19%
10%
5%
44%
19%
15%
6%
10%
19%
12%
4%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 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
establishment
n=244
77%
New hires trained
Training type, n=305
Emergency Handbook
CD or DVD
Web based
Other
n=34
n=143
35%
8%
8%
81%
n=68
49%
Classroom training
Video
n=49
More than 2
locations, chain
69%
n=188
On the job
More than 2
locations non-chain
50%
3%
16%
14%
32%
10%
9%
7%
32%
4%
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
0%
6%
Training length:
Less than 30 minutes
30 minutes to 1 hour
1 to 2 hours
25%
60%
15%
13%
7%
2 to 4 hours
4 to 8 hours
3%
More than 8 hours
2%
19%
18%
18%
17%
19%
2%
35%
19%
11%
12%
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company> 79
VASHÉ Research
Presentation Outline
●
●
●
●
●
●
Background and Objectives
Executive Summary
Methods
Trends: Benchmark Against Baseline
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
82
VASHÉ Research
Weighting Scheme
Twin Cities Metro Area Total
Geography
Establishment
Risk
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
22%
53%
23%
13%
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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…
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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.
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
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
<Presentation Title> | Confidential to <Company>
95