A Year in Review — 2014 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

ONE TEAM — ONE PURPOSE

United States Department of Agriculture
Table of Contents

1 Introduction

4 Executive Summary

8 Case Study: A Culture of Continuous Improvement

9 Looking Ahead: FY 2015 and Beyond

10 FY 2014 Progress to Goals

12 Goal 1

13 Goal 2

14 Goal 3

15 Goal 4

16 Goal 5

17 Goal 6

18 Goal 7

19 Goal 8

20 FY 2014 Scorecard

 

 

 

 

One Team, 

One Purpose

We are one team, with one 

purpose, and that is to protect 

public health. FSIS employees 

take pride in their work that 

helps prevent foodborne illness.

www.fsis.usda.gov
A Year in Review—FSIS Planning and Performance Agenda | 1

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 

dedicates its time, attention, and resources to keeping food safe. Federal laws, such as the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 

1906 (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957 (PPIA), among others, give the agency the statutory authority 

to inspect all meat, poultry, and processed egg products. 

As FSIS pursues its food safety mission to protect public 

health, it addresses other fundamental issues such as 

the health and humane handling of all animals brought to 

slaughter and processing establishments. It also ensures 

effective outreach and education for consumers, industry, 

academics, the public health and medical communities, 

and other critical partners that contribute to the safety of 

our food supply. 

In pursuit of its mission, FSIS has established a robust 

end-to-end strategic planning program that promotes alignment of action to goals, mission, and vision.

FSIS has established a robust 

end-to-end strategic planning program

STRATEGIC VISION

The FSIS Strategic Plan serves as the guiding document 

for all long-term activities, keeping the agency’s focus on 

preventing foodborne illness and securing the public’s trust 

as a public health regulatory agency. The plan is structured 

using three core themes: 

• Preventing Foodborne Illness,

• Using Science to Understand and Influence 

the Farm-to-Table Continuum, and

• Empowering People and Strengthening Infrastructure

Prevent Foodborne Illness

n GOAL 1 n GOAL 2 n GOAL 3 n GOAL 4

Inspection Compliance, Public Prevention 

and Public Enforcement, Education through 

Health and Humane and Collaboration

Handling Outreach

Understand and Influence the Empower People and Strengthen 

Farm to Table Continuum Infrastructure

n GOAL 5 n GOAL 6 n GOAL 7 n GOAL 8

Science- Effective Employee Innovative 

Driven Policy Empowerment Methodology

Analysis
Agency employees serve on the front 

lines of food safety.

ANNUAL PLANNING

The themes exemplify the major areas of focus for the 

agency and serve as an umbrella for FSIS’ 8 strategic 

goals, 17 outcomes, and 36 measures. Operationally, FSIS 

follows an Annual Performance Plan (APP), which is a 

12-month organizational action plan derived directly from 

the Strategic Plan. In fiscal year 2014, this roadmap laid out 

the path toward the long-term strategic outcomes utilizing 

47 APP results, each with specific supporting activities to be 

completed by yearend. Progress is tracked throughout the 

year against the strategic measures and outcomes. At the 

close of the fiscal year, FSIS provides this report summarizing the agency’s performance in meeting these goals, 

outcomes, and measures.

PEOPLE 

Agency employees serve on the front lines of food safety. 

FSIS’ organizational structure is designed to create 

efficiencies, while driving effectiveness in pursuit of its 

food safety mission.

The agency mission is carried out through 12 Program 

Offices: Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX), Civil 

Rights Staff (CRS), Office of the Chief Financial Officer

(OCFO), Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), 

Office of Data Integration and Food Protection (ODIFP), 

Office of Field Operations (OFO), Office of Investigation, 

Enforcement and Audit (OIEA), Office of Management 

(OM), Office of Outreach, Employee Education and 

Training (OOEET), Office of Public Affairs and Consumer 

Education (OPACE), Office of Public Health Science

(OPHS), and Office of Policy and Program Development

(OPPD). These programs are managed in a matrix performance environment to foster collaboration and cooperation and to support informed strategic decisionmaking. 

The organizational structure and strategic plan also serve 

to encourage opportunities to reach out beyond agency 

borders to collaborate on foodborne illness prevention 

measures and other activities.

The majority of employees who make up these program 

offices fall into one of six different job functions, each of 

which is critical to pursue the mission successfully. Their 

individual performance standards are directly linked to the 

APP so that clarity of purpose and mission are understood 

by all.

• Food Inspectors are in every federally inspected establish-

• Consumer Safety Inspectors (CSIs) ensure that slaughter 

• Investigators track down pathogen sources that cause 

• Scientists test samples for contaminants and report 

• Veterinarians ensure that animals are healthy and safe 

• Other food safety professionals develop policies, proce

This combination of FSIS’ robust strategic planning agenda 

and over 9,000 committed employees form the foundation 

of the agency’s focus on ensuring that America’s food is 

safe for consumption by using effective and modern food 

safety techniques grounded in science.

2 | USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
Protect Consumers and Prevent 

Foodborne Illness

Our Team

By the 

Numbers

One Team, 

One Purpose

9,438 Employees Ensuring that Meat, Poultry, and Processed Egg Products are Safe, 

Wholesome, and Correctly Packaged

12 Programs

• Office of Field Operations OFO 

• Office of Policy and Program Development OPPD

• Office of Public Health Science OPHS

• Office of Data Integration and 

 Food Protection ODIFP 

• Office of Inspection, Enforcement 

 and Assessment OIEA

• Office of Management OM

• Office of the Chief Financial Officer OCFO

• Office of the Chief Information Officer OCIO

• Civil Rights Staff CRS

• Office of Outreach, Employee Education 

and Training OOEET 

• Office of Public Affairs and 

Consumer Education OPACE and 

• CODEX

3 Themes

• Prevent Foodborne Illness

• Understand and Influence Farm-to-Table Continuum

• Empower People and Strengthen Infrastructure

Strategic Plan 

Elements

8 Goals. 17 Outcomes. 36 Measures.

FOOD SAFETY PROFESSIONALS

8 7 0

FOOD INSPECTORS

3,2 3 8

INVESTIGATORS

1 9 5

CONSUMER SAFETY INSPECTORS

3,8 8 5

SCIENTISTS

2 5 2

VETERINARIANS

9 9 8

A Year in Review—FSIS Planning and Performance Agenda | 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FSIS FY 2014 Performance

FY 2014 was a year once again marked by collaborative agency activity supporting our public health 

objectives. From the implementation of cross-agency working group findings to the introduction of new and innovative 

food safety policies and sampling techniques, FSIS remained steadfast in its advancement toward being an agile and 

modern food safety agency.

As the agency’s performance agenda fosters continual 

improvement through strategic planning and program 

performance, FSIS is repeatedly evaluating and improving its 

approach to food safety operations. This Year in Review report 

includes the organization’s goals, objectives, and measures 

that guide FSIS’ work to reduce the presence of foodborne 

pathogens and residues and reduce foodborne illness.

Left: FSIS conducted surveillance for 134 foodborne outbreaks with 

potential linkage to FSIS-regulated products. 

Right: FSIS controlled 3,091,454 pounds of meat and poultry products 

in-commerce to prevent possible injury or illness to the consumer.

To achieve movement in these key areas, FSIS monitors 

its supporting goals, measures, and corresponding activities 

year-round as these supporting activities are critical to 

achieving positive results. Using portfolio management tools 

such as tracking performance against targets, and assigning 

color ratings, the agency is able to monitor its ongoing 

performance and implement effective decisionmaking to 

improve outcomes. Assigning scores such as green, yellow, 

and red provides agency management with indicators 

of FSIS’ progress or challenges to making headway on 

preventing foodborne illness and protecting public health.

For example, FSIS has been pursuing improvements in 

risk reduction, food inspection, and compliance. And in 

FY 2014, the agency focused on improving food safety by 

tackling Salmonella and other pathogens and is modernizing 

the poultry slaughter system. With the publication of a final 

poultry slaughter modernization rule in 2014, FSIS is now 

planning for the implementation of the New Poultry Inspection 

System (NPIS). NPIS focuses inspectors’ attention and 

activity on functions that detect and prevent pathogens from 

entering the food supply. It’s a science-based system that 

should prevent more than 5,000 illnesses a year.

Another important effort supporting the agency mission 

involves outreach to stakeholders, domestic and international.

With respect to international stakeholders, FSIS created the 

Office of International Coordination (OIC) within the Office 

of the Administrator to coordinate the agency’s activities to 

address international issues. Regarding all stakeholders, FSIS 

has made education and information a large part of its fight 

against foodborne illness. FY 2014 marked the first full year of 

a new Website that uses responsive design principles — the 

user’s view of the site is optimized for the device type, be it 

desktop, tablet, or smartphone. This way, consumers, as well 

as industry and scientists, can access answers to questions 

on their own terms in a method that displays properly no 

matter how they access the site.

The agency work is also committed to the humane treatment 

of animals. FSIS has taken significant steps over the last year 

to strengthen its ability to enforce humane handling laws at 

livestock slaughter facilities nationwide, through the use of 

a systematic approach to compliance.

The story in this year’s report is one of agency employees 

and leadership devoting their time, focus, and commitment 

to keeping the American public safe. The goals, objectives, 

and measures outlined in this document are the foundation 

of how FSIS achieves its mission, and each of its programs 

draws on them to ensure that the food we regulate is safe 

and foodborne illnesses are prevented. The following pages 

illustrate FSIS achievements during FY 2014, while also noting 

those areas where FSIS must remain vigilant in order to close 

the gap on threats to the food supply in FY 2015. 

4 | USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
FY 2014 at a Glance

Key Measures Improved

7.3.1: Pe rcent of workplace injury/illness cases

 Brought workplace injuries down to 5.47% this year 

from 8.65% in 2013.

6.1.1: Percent of food safety appeals granted 

Brought granted food safety appeals down to 10% from 

50% in 2013, exceeding 2014 target by 29.7% points.

We have met/exceeded 72% 

of our targets for the year.

 We improved our data collection 

Did We Meet Our Goals?

ON TARGET CAUTION OFF TARGET

GOAL 2 Compliance, Enforcement 

& Humane Handling

GOAL 4 Prevention Through 

Collaboration

GOAL 5 Science-Driven Analysis

GOAL 6 Effective Policy

GOAL 8 Innovative Methodology

GOAL 1 Inspection & Public Health

GOAL 7 Employee Empowerment

GOAL 3 Public Education & Outreach nnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnn

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

2012

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

n

2014

2012 2013 2014

n On Target n Caution n Off Target n No Data

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

How Do We Measure Up?

NUMBER OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

A Year in Review—FSIS Planning and Performance Agenda | 5
FSIS Performance of the Three Key 

Corporate Food Safety Measures as Required 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Strategic Plan Measure 1.1.1

Closing the Gap to Meet the All-Illness Measure

350

400

450

500

2012 2013 2014

Data Sources: 

1) Pathogen-specific Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

FoodNet case rates of foodborne illnesses, 

2) Pathogen-specific CDC foodborne illness outbreak data 

(used to estimate pathogen-specific FSIS attribution), 

3) Pathogen-specific, domestically acquired foodborne illness 

CDC Scaling Factors, and 

4) U.S. Census Population Estimates.

• ACTUAL

p TARGETED

TOTAL NUMBER OF ILLNESSES IN THOUSANDS

p

This measure tracks total illnesses attributed 

to FSIS-regulated product as a result of 

Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes (Lm), and 

E. coli O157:H7. FSIS has not consistently met 

this target. While the overall FoodNet case 

rate for E. coli O157:H7 decreased slightly 

in FY 2014, FSIS did not meet its illness-reduction targets for E. coli O157:H7 (based on 

Healthy People 2020 targets). This caused 

FSIS to miss the overall All-Illness Measure 

target: 386,265 actual illnesses compared 

to a goal of 384,462 illnesses (a difference of 

only~1,900 illnesses).

However, FSIS did consistently achieve the 

target for the Salmonella illness measure due 

in part to a decrease in Salmonella attribution due to agency-regulated products in 

2009-2011 as compared to 2008 – 2010. The 

downward trend continues for Salmonella

illnesses, and FSIS is closing the overall 

all-illness gap. In fact, since 2012, FSIS has 

seen a reduction of over 93,000 illnesses and 

moved from achieving 84% of the 2012 target 

to achieving 99.5% of FY 2014 target. In FY 

2015 and beyond, FSIS plans to stay vigilant 

in implementing the Salmonella Action Plan 

and by pursuing other strategies to mitigate 

the risk.

6 | USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
Strategic Plan Measure 2.1.1

Percentage of Establishments 

that Passed Salmonella

Verification Testing 

Performance Standard

In 2014, FSIS consistently exceeded the target of 92% of 

broiler establishments passing the carcass Salmonella

Verification Testing Standard. This measure tracks whether 

young chicken slaughter establishments are effectively 

minimizing the opportunity for Salmonella to pass into 

final product entering commerce. The percentage of 

establishments passing has steadily increased over time. 

FSIS continues to look for ways to improve its Salmonella

sampling programs, such as the use of a “moving window” 

to replace discrete sample sets. The agency is also determining how to use sampling information to account for 

certain risk factors such as serotypes of human health 

concern and will continue to develop sampling programs 

that can be used to calculate prevalence.

Strategic Plan Measure 2.3.1 

Percentage of Establishments 

with a Food Defense Plan 

A functional food defense plan is a set of procedures or 

practices that an establishment uses to reduce the risk 

of unintentional adulteration for its incoming raw materials 

or outgoing products. The plan must be documented, 

implemented, tested periodically, and reviewed annually 

or when changes occur within or outside the establishment that could affect the vulnerability of the product 

being produced. The plans are designed to help plants 

take action quickly, decisively, and effectively to minimize adverse impact from contamination. USDA has 

been working with establishments to encourage them 

to voluntarily adopt functional food defense plans. The 

voluntary adoption of functional food defense plans by 

90% or more of industry is considered by FSIS to be a 

level at which rulemaking would not be warranted. USDA 

established a goal of getting 85% of industry to adopt 

food defense plans by the end of FY 2014, with the 

ultimate goal of getting to 90% by the end of FY 2015. FY 

2014 Food Defense Plan Survey results indicated 84% 

of surveyed establishments currently have a functional 

food defense plan, thus missing the FY 2014 target by 1 

percent. The percentage of official establishments with a 

functional food defense plan has been steadily increasing 

since the first survey was initiated in 2006, indicating 

progress continues to be made. Large and small plants 

generally have food defense plans in place, while the 

very small plants have greater challenges meeting this 

recommendation due to fewer available resources. FSIS 

has in place several strategies to help very small plants, 

including publishing a Small Plant Newsletter, operating a 

Small Plant Help Desk, and ensuring inspectors are available and educated to answer questions. FSIS has also 

developed a number of tools and resources, such as the 

General Food Defense Plan and the Food Defense and 

Recall Preparedness: A Scenario-Based Exercise Tool, to 

help very small plants develop and implement a functional 

plan. Adoption of functional food defense plans by the 

remaining establishments will require additional outreach 

and education measures to overcome challenges, which 

is something FSIS plans to address in FY 2015.

92%

A Year in Review—FSIS Planning and Performance Agenda | 7
CASE STUDY

A Culture of Continuous Improvement:

Leveraging the Strategic Performance Working Group (SPWG) to Confront 

Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC)

BACKGROUND: FSIS consciously and consistently reviews 

data to search for trends and track indicators to measure 

outcomes of activity. As part of this continuous improvement model within its strategic agenda, FSIS established 

in FY 2013 its SPWG, an executive initiative involving a 

cross-functional working group of FSIS employees. In 

reviewing the FSIS All-Illness Measure (a key FSIS performance indicator that tracks the number of Salmonella, 

E. coli O157:H7, and Listeria monocytogenes foodborne 

illnesses associated with FSIS-regulated meat, poultry, and 

processed egg products), the SPWG identified and aggressively pursued Salmonella as a major public health concern 

for the agency. This effort resulted in the Salmonella Action 

Plan (SAP), which began rolling out in FY 2014 and will 

continue through FY 2015. In FY 2014, the SPWG took 

a similar approach to address concerns about Shiga 

toxin-producing E. coli contamination 

on regulated product. It was evident to 

the SPWG by reviewing CDC FoodNet 

data that the overall number of E. coli

O157:H7 illnesses nationally had either 

plateaued or increased over the past 

18 months. To quickly address this 

critical issue, FSIS leadership asked 

the SPWG to develop strategies to 

reduce contamination levels from 

this pathogen.

METHODOLOGY: The SPWG approach 

involved reaching across the agency 

to tap into the collective experience 

of frontline employees, mid-level 

managers, and headquarters executives from a variety of program areas, 

including the Office of Field Operations; 

Office of Public Health Science; Office 

of Policy and Program Development; 

Office of Data Integration and Food 

Protection; Office of Investigation, 

Enforcement, and Audit; Office 

of Public Affairs and Consumer 

Education; and Office of Field Employee Education, and 

Training; among others. Using modern collaboration tools 

such as social media and crowd sourcing, along with 

traditional meetings with senior managers and experts, the 

group gathered field input and expert advice. In FY 2014, 

the group focused its approach on examinations of several 

high-functioning districts with respect to E. coli detection. 

Des Moines, IA; Dallas, TX; and Denver, CO presented their 

processes from which the SPWG developed a way forward 

to reduce STEC-related illnesses.

FINDINGS: From the various input sources, including related 

data from outside entities, the SPWG concluded that a combination of (1) improving sanitary dressing practices designed 

by industry and (2) improving how FSIS in-plant personnel 

and Enforcement Investigations and Analysis Officers (EIAOs) 

understood and assessed these practices were the most 

promising means of bringing down STEC levels.

RECOMMENDATIONS: In FY 2015, FSIS is considering six 

SPWG recommendations involving sanitary dressing: (1) 

Conduct Correlations with OFO; (2) Perform Assessments of 

(Sanitary Dressing) Verification Tasks; (3) Use Photographs 

in Training Materials; (4) Issue Compliance Guidance; (5) 

Develop and Provide Training; and (6) Assess the Use 

of Indicator Bacteria to Assess Effectiveness of Sanitary 

Dressing. The SPWG hypothesizes that these action items 

will improve industry’s understanding and implementation 

of proper sanitary dressing and will reduce the number of 

consumer illnesses from STEC from beef products.

FSIS’ use of cross-collaborative working groups and agile 

strategic planning methods enables the agency to respond to 

those goals, measures, and outcomes trending negatively or 

falling short of expectations. The combined effort of prioritization and strategic decisionmaking enables the agency to 

respond to those goals, measures, and outcomes trending 

negatively or falling short of expectations. The combined 

effort of prioritization and strategic decisionmaking enables 

the agency to both lead food safety efforts and respond to 

an ever-changing threat environment, resulting in a safer food 

supply for all Americans.

FSIS began analyzing 

for Salmonella in all beef 

products it collects for 

Shiga toxin-producing 

E. coli (STEC) testing. 

Through this change, 

the agency greatly 

increased the data it 

collects on Salmonella

in beef products. 

8 | USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
LOOKING AHEAD

FY 2015 and Beyond

At the beginning of each fiscal year, FSIS publishes its Annual Performance Plan (APP) as the year’s roadmap toward 

fulfilling the agency’s mission and, ultimately, its vision. The multi-year Strategic Plan and the APP are at the front end of 

a comprehensive performance management process to help ensure that the agency produces desirable and meaningful 

results in an effective and efficient manner as good stewards of taxpayers’ dollars. The APP outlines the results to be 

achieved that year as well as the actions the agency will pursue to achieve those results. In its FY 2015 APP, FSIS plans to 

pursue an ambitious plan to modernize the agency and drive innovation and collaboration. It has documented several core 

themes from which program areas support and contribute, sometimes simultaneously.

MODERNIZE: First and foremost, the agency’s key initiatives 

(Corporate Performance Measures) are designed to drive 

down the instances of foodborne illness caused by pathogens 

like Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7. With the New Poultry 

Inspection System (NPIS) finalized in August 2014, the agency 

is planning to implement NPIS in FY 2015. The agency will 

also continue to execute on the Salmonella Action Plan (SAP), 

implement new Salmonella performance standards and 

intends to implement overall sampling activities. With respect 

to E. coli, based on collaborative efforts across the agency with 

external partners, FSIS plans to implement lessons learned 

and best practices on sanitary dressing to prevent cross-contamination and decrease the instances of E. coli O157:H7 in 

FSIS-regulated product. 

COLLABORATE: FSIS’ effort to modernize extends to its 

approach to research and collaboration as well. FSIS will 

continue to work within its existing partnership with the 

Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC). 

The purpose of this group is to coordinate activities and 

analyses across FSIS, the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA). The agency will continue planning for a public 

meeting, scheduled for early 2015, to share findings from 

analyses to estimate harmonized attribution fractions for 

Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and 

Campylobacter, along with other key IFSAC projects.

INNOVATE: In pursuit of scientific innovation, FSIS’ scientists 

will study genetics using acquired laboratory instruments 

to sequence the genome of bacterial isolates. Adding this 

capability will permit the agency to have a higher degree 

of definition and knowledge of the pathogen characteristics 

associated with human health. In the regulatory arena, 

siluriform (catfish) inspection is in the planning stages of 

development. Results of these and other priorities are 

tracked through measurable outcomes and are reported 

throughout the year in monthly APP reports. This agility 

will propel the agency forward into the next fiscal year to 

achieve planned results.

In FY 2015, FSIS is planning to 

implement the New Poultry 

Inspection System (NPIS).

A Year in Review—FSIS Planning and Performance Agenda | 9
GOAL 1

Inspection and 

Public Health

ASSET

To support FSIS inspectors in 

the field working at establishments with limited or no Internet 

connectivity, FSIS deployed an 

updated component to the PHIS 

Disconnected State to provide 

an enhanced off-line capability to 

inspectors. To support our State 

partners, PHIS State was released 

in April 2014 providing the same 

domestic capabilities as the 

Federal system. PHIS import was 

integrated to receive information 

from U.S. Customs and Border 

Patrol Automated Commercial 

Environment (ACE)/International 

Trade Data System (ITDS) allowing 

secure, real-time transfer of certificate information.

OPPORTUNITY 

To better estimate illnesses from 

specific food products, FSIS must 

broaden data collection as no 

single CDC data source is both 

updated in real-time and reports 

what food products caused the 

foodborne illness. 

GOAL 2 

Compliance, Enforcement, 

and Humane Handling

ASSET

Continuous improvement in the 

percentage of young chicken 

(broiler) slaughter establishments 

passing the carcass Salmonella

Verification Testing Standard.

OPPORTUNITY

Improving FSIS Salmonella

sampling programs and reducing 

Salmonella incidence in raw, comminuted poultry and poultry parts.

GOAL 3

Public Education 

and Outreach

ASSET 

Leveraging non-traditional 

outreach opportunities, such as 

extensive social media outreach, 

to educate the public and promote 

food safety messages to unconventional audiences, leading to 

a higher than average engagement on routine messages. For 

example, FSIS exceeded its FY 

2014 Twitter target by 165%, and 

a higher-than-normal engagement 

on social media has propelled FSIS 

messages to millions of customers.

OPPORTUNITY

Immeasurability of the goal due 

to a lack of reliable and repeatable 

data source that can be compared to the data used to set 

the goal target. 

GOAL 4

Prevention Through 

Collaboration

ASSET

Continued strong working 

relationships with research and 

public health partners to address 

FSIS research priorities, improve 

estimates of FSIS’ effects on 

public health and increase understanding of FSIS activities by our 

partners and the industry.

OPPORTUNITY 

Maintain forward momentum 

on current priorities and projects, 

continue effective communication 

of FSIS priorities, needs, and 

activities to stakeholders, and 

ensure timely public release of 

final products.

FY 2014 Progress to Goals

Throughout FY 2014, FSIS pursued an aggressive agenda to combat foodborne illness and 

protect public health. The agency achieved notable success in Goal 1 in hitting targets for Salmonella, while the E. coli 

target emerged as the tougher obstacle and was a contributing factor for the agency to miss the All-Illness target. The 

agency began reporting on the percentage of establishments that meet “for cause” Food Safety Assessments and 

monthly Hazard Analysis Verification (HAV) decision criteria more than once a year. The process to collect a baseline 

for this measure was delayed because of new technology and measuring methodology coming online. As a result, 

10 | USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
is more aspirational in nature. The agency also continues to pursue improvements in employee engagement and 

satisfaction as well as in hiring practices. Successes were seen in many other areas, including information sharing, 

industry adherence to policy, and the food safety appeals process. Internally, the agency exceeded expectations 

regarding workplace injuries (down from 9.1% in FY 2012 to 5.47% in FY 2014), training staff on Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO) issues and procedures, and public awareness/exposure.

GOAL 5

Science-Driven 

Analysis

ASSET

Aligned the scientific agenda to 

respond to emerging concerns 

and provided the science to 

support policy decisions. Laid the 

foundation to move toward whole 

genome sequencing for samples 

of FSIS-regulated products.

OPPORTUNITY 

Better attribution of illnesses 

to FSIS-regulated products are 

needed to determine if Strategic 

Plan 2016 targets ensure the 

appropriate level of food safety.

GOAL 6

Effective 

Policy

ASSET

The New Poultry Inspection 

System (NPIS) regulation published on August 21, 2014. All 

implementing instructions to the 

field have either been issued or 

are ready to be issued. Necessary industry guidance has been 

issued or is in clearance.

OPPORTUNITY 

Obtaining the necessary data 

and resources to assess, 

coordinate, and improve policy 

effectiveness reviews. 

GOAL 7

Employee 

Empowerment

ASSET

Agency ability to provide quality 

customer service in an efficient 

and effective manner is our 

standard operating practice.

OPPORTUNITY 

Lack of investment in business 

processes and procedures 

threatens our effectiveness 

and efficiency under expanding 

workload and limited resources.

GOAL 8 

Innovative 

Methodology

ASSET

Measured the innovation and 

effectiveness of short-, medium-, 

and long-term initiatives and 

establishing baselines in terms 

of saved time, saved/avoided cost, 

improved accuracy, increased 

data availability, and public 

health impact. 

OPPORTUNITY 

Implementing the Goal 8 

process to established baselines 

and determine effectiveness 

is competing with other agency 

priorities. Cross-program resource 

contention is due to POCs being 

detailed to fulfill positions resulting 

from attrition.

A Year in Review—FSIS Planning and Performance Agenda | 11
2012 2013 2014

405,178 394,770 384,362

479,621 427,171 386,265

TOTAL NUMBER OF ILLNESSES REDUCED 

IN 3 YEARS: 93,356.

• ACTUAL • TARGETED

GOAL 1 | Inspection and Public Health

• Finalized contract requirements and took delivery of FSIS’ 

o

o Applicants (including corporations, individual establishments, and individual export brokers) to export product 

via the online applications; 

o

o FSIS to streamline and better document the return 

o FSIS to charge for export services.

• Ensured 82% of investigative cases and 85% of enforce-

• Completed economic analysis for expanding the testing 

• Announced and began implementing the strategy to 

• 93% of FSIS follow-up surveillances resulted in establishGOAL 1

Measure 1.1.1 Total number of Salmonella, 

Listeria monocytogenes, and E. coli O157:H7 

illnesses from products regulated by FSIS.

FO

R

O D IN S P E C

Ensure That Food Safety 

Inspection Aligns With Existing 

and Emerging Risks

Faces of FSIS

“For any person interested in protecting 

the public’s health and preventing 

foodborne illnesses — whether a 

scientist, a teacher, or a college 

student — and seeking a way to help 

O

make food products safe, wholesome, 

T

and accurately labeled, I believe that there 

are awesome opportunities in food safety 

through FSIS.” — KRISTIN BEATY

12 | USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
GOAL 2 | Compliance, Enforcement , and Humane Handling

•

•

•

•

•

•

Maximize Domestic and International 

Compliance With Food Safety Policies

GOAL 2

Measure 2.2.1 Percentage of slaughter plants 

identified during District Veterinary Medical 

Specialist (DVMS) humane handling verification 

visits as having an effective systematic approach 

to humane handling (all four elements of 

a systematic approach implemented).

N V E S TIG ATO R

I

Faces of FSIS

“... my co-workers, the in-plant 

inspection team, and I, make a 

difference to public health each 

day ...The EIAO team has worked 

tirelessly to accomplish the goal 

of completing a food safety assessment at all of the active plants in the 

Alameda district over the past 4-year 

cycle; our district is very proud of the team’s 

great accomplishment.” — DR. CHAU VU

2012 2013 2014

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

• ACTUAL

• TARGETED

100%

A Year in Review—FSIS Planning and Performance Agenda | 13

 The percentage of broiler establishments passing 

the carcass Salmonella Verification Testing Standard 

meeting the FY 2014 goal of 92%.

 The newly established Office of International Coordination met with 16 foreign governments on a wide variety 

of issues regarding the FSIS equivalence program.

 The final import rule requiring all official import inspection establishments have Sanitation Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOPs) was published.

 The percentage of official establishments with a 

functional food defense plan increased from 83% 

in 2013 to 84% in 2014.

 Approximately 95% of in-commerce facilities have 

implemented food defense practices.

 The October 2013 issuance of an FSIS Compliance 

Guide and annual on-site assessments resulted in 

63% of the active slaughter establishments having 

a systematic approach to humane handling, which 

exceeds the FY 2014 target of 60%.
SEPARATE

CHILL

oF

CLEAN

Wash hands and 

surfaces often

separate raW meats 

from other foods 

cooK to the right

temperature

refrigerate food

promptly

KEEP YOUR 

FAMILY SAFER 

FROM FOOD 

POISONING

Check your 

steps at 

FoodSafety.gov

GOAL 3 | Public Education and Outreach

• Education efforts supported FSIS’ 

• Developed new public service announcements (PSAs) 

in coordination with the Ad Council. Consumer behavior 

data from various sources were used to guide the creatio

of the new ads. Partnered with Kansas State University to

look at consumer behavior, which showed that cross-con

tamination and the lack of food thermometer usage are 

significant risks for consumers, and that the new PSAs 

directly address these issues. One of the Ad Council’s 

PSAs developed this year also focused on Salmonella.

n 

-

• FSIS exceeded its FY 2014 Twitter target by 165%, and 

a higher than normal engagement on social media has 

propelled FSIS messages to millions of consumers.

• Conducted a free promotional campaign with Facebook 

• Exceeded public education targets to at-risk and vulnera-

• Gathered consumer behavior data from the Ad Council, 

GOAL 3

Measure 3.2.1/d FSIS Electronic Media 

Outreach: Twitter Followers.

F

O

O D

S A

I S

F

S

E T Y P R O F

Enhance Public Education 

and Outreach To Improve 

Food-handling Practices

2012 2013 2014

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

n ACTUAL

n TARGETED

NUMBER OF FOLLOWERS IN THOUSANDS

Faces of FSIS

“I am glad that we are providing 

this service and that it is being 

L

well received. I think about the A

N

information that I’d like to receive, 

O

and I work to provide it to our deaf 

and hard-of-hearing audience. This E

proves that we have improved our 

outreach and are reaching our target.” 

—BRIDGETTE KEEFE-HODGSON

CLEAN SEPARATE CHILL

Keep your family safer from food poisoning

check your steps at foodsafety.gov

14 | USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
GOAL 4 | Prevention Through Collaboration

• Revised the Research Priorities Review Panel Charter to 

• Adopted new research priority, which acknowledges the 

• Adopted new research studies (within individual priorities) 

• Created a special webinar dedicated to the Cooperative 

• Held a National Advisory Committee for Meat and 

• Developed an Establishment-Specific Data Release 

• Expanded outreach to small and very small plants via 

• Organized and held a face-to-face meeting in Washington, 

• Developed four new IFSAC project proposals for FY 

Strengthen Collaboration 

Among Internal and 

External Stakeholders

S CIENTIST

Faces of FSIS

“I really enjoy working with some 

of the best minds in public health 

and food safety to figure out how 

best to use the data we have, 

identify new sources of data, 

understand why people get sick, 

and learn how we can prevent 

outbreaks in the future.”

— DR. JOANNA ZABLOTSKY KUFEL

GOAL 4

Measure 4.1.2 Key Federal partners U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC): Percentage of results from interagency 

collaboration on analytics used in FSIS policy.

• TARGETED

• ACTUAL

2012 2013 2014

Baseline 

(11%) 32% 53%

n/a 56% 55%

A Year in Review—FSIS Planning and Performance Agenda | 15
GOAL 5 | Science-Driven Analysis

• Improved traceback timelines so that, in all cases, it takes a 

• Generated critically important data through the Chicken 

• Completed the National Advisory Committee on Micro

• Published a final rule on the Modernization of Poultry 

• Updated FSIS research priorities, adding one new priority: 

• Added four priority associated studies:

o

o

o

o

• Finalized a report summarizing the risk assessment that 

• Completed exploratory multi-hazard identification projects; 

GOAL 5

Measure 5.2.1 Percentage of identified public 

health and food safety gaps addressed across 

the Farm-to-Table Continuum.

S CIE N TI ST

Effectively Use Science

to Understand Foodborne 

Illness and Emerging Trends

Faces of FSIS

“FSIS is committed to incorporating 

up-to-date scientific information 

into the development of its policies. 

In OPHS Science staff we analyze 

scientific data from its own sampling 

programs, partner with the USDA 

Agriculture Research Service to design 

scientific studies that are relevant FSIS 

regulated products, and also review the current 

scientific literature to provide support in developing 

policies to improve our food safety system and ensure 

FSIS regulated products are safe for the consumer.” 

—PHIL BRONSTEIN

• TARGETED

• ACTUAL

2012 2013 2014

Baseline 

(70%) 60% 60%

n/a 64% 68%

16 | USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
GOAL 6 | Effective Policy

• Completed data analysis projects for 

• Began analyzing for Salmonella in all raw beef samples 

collected for STEC analysis. Through this change, FSIS 

will be able to estimate Salmonella in ground beef and 

trim and develop a new Salmonella performance standard 

for ground beef. 

• Announced final traceback and recall procedures for beef 

• Clarified and improved instructions on sampling bench 

• Made available pre-harvest guidance on intervention 

• Implemented changes to expand generic labeling on 

• Worked with FDA and CDC to issue a guideline to 

Implement Effective Policies 

To Respond to Existing and 

Emerging Risks

Faces of FSIS

“... (One investigation I worked) 

made an impact on ready-to-eat 

(RTE) foods policy, resulting in an 

FSIS notice which led to changes 

at establishments ... Today, working

with policy, I am now answering 

questions arising from that notice to 

ensure that “best practices” are being 

implemented. This is one example of how I have 

been able to watch firsthand as data and science 

impact FSIS policy.” — SCOTT SEYS

GOAL 6

Measure 6.1.2 Percentage of regulated 

industry adhering to key public health-related policies (establishments with no public 

health-related non-compliances/year).

2014

21.49%

F

O

O D

S A FE T Y P R O FE S SIO

N

A

L

A Year in Review—FSIS Planning and Performance Agenda | 17
• Quadrupled the number of paper-based surveys for 

• Successfully transitioned to the eRecruit automated 

staffing tool. Provided virtual/hands-on training to 

program areas to ensure that they could properly utilize 

this hiring tool.

• Developed the FSIS Specific Leadership Competency 

• Exceeded Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and 

• Exceeded EEO and Civil Rights training goals for non- 

• Reduced the rate of employee injuries and illnesses to 

• Executed actions necessary for the agency to successfully 

• Conducted outreach and recruitment efforts designed 

GOAL 7

Measure 7.3.1 Percentage of workplace 

injury/illness cases.

r

 NAT—

F

O

O D

S A FE T Y P R O FE S SIO

N

A

L

Empower Employees 

With Training, Resources, 

and Tools

2012 2013 2014

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

• ACTUAL

pp TARGETED

Faces of FSIS

“Working for FSIS is rewarding because 

I can go into grocery stores and see 

FSIS’s inspection seal on the products 

you purchase. I can say to myself: this 

is my agency and I work here. It is so 

amazing. It is like getting an immediate 

eturn on your investment.” 

ASHA WILLIAMS

GOAL 7 | Employee Empowerment

18 | USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
GOAL 8 | Innovative Methodology

• A total of 11 innovative initiatives were tracked. 

• The FSIS Meat, Poultry, and Egg Product Inspection 

• The Sharknado social media results exceeded expecDevelop, Maintain, and Use 

Innovative Methodologies, 

Processes and Tools

F

O

O D

S A FE T Y P R O FE S SIO

N

A

L

Faces of FSIS

“FSIS has a great mission. Not only 

is it interesting, but the work the 

agency does matters. Protecting

the public’s health is rewarding 

work, and if I do my job well, no one 

will ever know my name.”

— JEREMY TODD REED

GOAL 8

Measure 8.2.1 Percentage of documented 

implemented processes, methodologies, or 

technologies that are evaluated to assess 

whether they meet the intended outcomes 

or otherwise contribute to the agency’s efforts 

to perform its mission.

2014

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A Year in Review—FSIS Planning and Performance Agenda | 19
20 | USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service

1

 Measure 3.1.1 was rated black because no data was available pending the development of an interim survey tool. Goal 3 was rated red overall pending the development of interim survey measurement tool.

2

 Measure 3.2.1-a was retired due to more effective measurements in the form of 3.2.-b-e

FSIS Annual Performance Plan

GOAL 1: ENSURE THAT FOOD SAFETY INSPECTION ALIGNS WITH EXISTING AND EMERGING RISKS

GOAL 2: MAXIMIZE DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL COMPLIANCE WITH FOOD SAFETY POLICIES

GOAL 3: ENHANCE PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH TO IMPROVE FOOD-HANDLING PRACTICES

GOAL 4: STRENGTHEN COLLABORATION AMONG INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS

GOAL 5: EFFECTIVELY USE SCIENCE TO UNDERSTAND FOODBORNE ILLNESS AND EMERGING TRENDS

GOAL 6: IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE POLICIES TO RESPOND TO EXISTING AND EMERGING RISKS

GOAL 7: EMPOWER EMPLOYEES WITH TRAINING, RESOURCES, AND TOOLS

GOAL 8: DEVELOP, MAINTAIN, AND USE INNOVATIVE METHODOLOGIES, PROCESSES, AND TOOLS

1.1.1

1.2.1

1.2.2

1.3.1

1.3.2

Total number of Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and E. coli O157: H7 illnesses from products regulated by FSIS.

Percent of domestic establishments that meet the “for cause” Food Safety Assessments and monthly Hazard Analysis Verification decision criteria more than once per year.

Percent of importing countries requiring more immediate inspection or reinspection attention more than twice within the previous year.

Percent of priority in-commerce facilities (e.g., warehouses, distributors and transporters) covered by surveillance activities.

Percent of follow-up surveillances resulting in compliance.

Percent of broiler plants passing the carcass Salmonella verification testing.

Percent of slaughter plants identified during District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS) humane handling verification visits as having an effective systematic approach to humane handling 

(all four elements of a systematic approach implemented).

Percent of all official establishments with a functional Food Defense Plan.

Percent of food defense practices implemented at in-commerce facilities.

Outreach to eligible countries to encourage implementation of a system that protects product from unintentional contamination.

2.1.1

2.2.1

2.3.1

2.3.2

2.3.3

3.1.11

3.2.1-b/2

3.2.1-c/2

3.2.1-d/2

3.2.1-e/2

Average percentage of consumers who follow the four key food safety “best practices” (i.e., clean, separate, cook and chill) and thermometer use.

FSIS Electronic Media Outreach: Page views on the FSIS Website.

FSIS Electronic Media Outreach: YouTube Views.

FSIS Electronic Media Outreach: Twitter Followers.

FSIS Electronic Media Outreach: Visitors to the Food Discovery Zone.

4.1.1

4.1.2

4.1.3

Research: Percentage of time products from three USDA research agencies (i.e., Agricultural Research Service, Economic Research Service, and National Institute of Food and Agriculture) 

used by FSIS and shared with stakeholders.

Key Federal partners U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Percentage of results from interagency collaboration on analytics 

used in FSIS policy.

Small and Very Small Plants: Percentage of identified opportunities realized to improve information sharing.

5.1.1

5.1.2

5.1.3

Percent of annual science agenda completed and number of agenda items initiated.

Percent of completed science agenda items that meet quality standards for information rigor, clarity, and defensibility of methods used.

Percent of identified public health and food safety gaps addressed across the Farm to Table Continuum.

6.1.1

6.1.2

6.1.3

Percent of food safety appeals granted (categories of appeals that were overturned by a higher level supervisor).

Percent of regulated industry adhering to key public health-related policies (establishments with no public health related non-compliances/year).

Frequency of reviews examining the effectiveness of FSIS policies regarding significant public health risks.

7.1.1

7.2.1

7.2.2

7.2.3

7.2.4

7.3.1

7.3.2

7.3.3

7.3.4

Average score on the Annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey for questions related to workers’ understanding of their impact on public health.

Percent of competency gaps closed for targeted groups.

Percent of all eligible FSIS employees with an Individual Development Plan (IDP) in place.

Percent of all managers/supervisors that complete 3 hours of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) training-annually.

Percent of all non-managers/non-supervisors who complete 2 hours of EEO training annually.

Percent of workplace injury/illness cases.

Annual rate of staff vacancies.

Ranking in the Partnership for Public Service’s Annual Report, Best Places to Work in the Federal Government.

Increase the workforce for Persons with Targeted Disabilities.

6.1.1

6.1.2

6.1.3

Percent of innovative processes, methodologies, or technologies for which the agency has established a baseline.

Percent of innovative processes, methodologies, or technologies that, once employed, are evaluated by the agency.

Percent of documented implemented processes, methodologies, or technologies that are evaluated to assess whether they meet the intended outcomes or otherwise contribute to the 

agency’s efforts to perform its mission.

FY 2014 Scorecard - A Year-Over-Year Compariso
• No Data to Rate • Off Target • Caution • On Target

Desired 

Direction FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Trend

Color Target Actual Color Target Actual Color Target Actual

q

q

q

p

p

405,178

1.70%

20.00%

85.00%

79.00%

479,621

Baseline

14.00%

85.80%

87.06%

394,770

1.65%

20.00%

85.00%

82.00%

427,171

n/a

14.00%

85.80%

89.90%

384,362

1.60%

20.00%

85.00%

83.00%

386,265

3.68%

24.10%

85.60%

88.80%

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

p

p

p

p

p

90.00%

32.00%

76.00%

91.00%

30.00%

90.28%

42.00%

77.00%

94.10%

31.00%

91.00%

45.00%

81.00%

91.00%

60.00%

90.37%

56.00%

83.00%

94.80%

65.50%

92.00%

60.00%

85.00%

91.00%

70.00%

92.00%

63.00%

84.00%

95.00%

82.80%

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

q

p

p

p

p

75.00%

n/a

39,025

118,600

500,000

unknown

n/a

171,544

332,600

669,711

75.00%

43,900,000

381,544

451,000

467,240

n/a

70,961,562

401,465

466,000

619,539

n/a

61,000,000

500,000

520,000

478,160

n/a

59,019,170

704,525

593,607

1,715,845

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

p

p

p

Baseline (18%)

Baseline (11%)

Baseline (66%)

n/a

n/a

n/a

18.00%

32.00%

68.00%

23.00%

56.00%

74.00%

25.00%

53.00%

71.00%

27.00%

55.00%

76.00%

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

p

p

p

Baseline (98%)

Baseline (100%)

Baseline (70%)

n/a

n/a

n/a

95.00%

95.00%

60.00%

95.00%

95.00%

64.00%

95.00%

95.00%

60.00%

96.00%

95.00%

68.00%

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

q

p

p

40.33%

75.00%

3

35.00%

73.80%

3

40.00%

19.00%

5

50.00%

20.00%

5

39.70%

20.00%

4

10.00%

21.49%

4

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

p

p

p

p

p

q

q

q

p

90.00%

Baseline

95.00%

New Measure

New Measure

6.20%

6.67%

38.39%

New Measure

90.00%

n/a

100.00%

n/a

n/a

9.10%

5.47%

25.00%

n/a

91.00%

n/a

100.00%

60.00%

40.00%

6.10%

6.50%

37.05%

2.00%

TBD

n/a

95.00%

96.00%

95.00%

8.65%

3.42%

25.00%

1.23%

92.00%

10.00%

100.00%

75.00%

60.00%

6.00%

6.00%

37.50%

2.00%

90.00%

10.00%

95.00%

83.00%

95.00%

5.47%

10.10%

32.00%

1.26%

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

p

p

p

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

n/a

n/a

n/a

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

55%

71%

80%

55%

71%

80%

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Down Up

on
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or 

because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, 

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call 

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

JANUARY 2015