United States Department of Agriculture 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 

YEAR IN REVIEW: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOOD SAFETY AND 

INSPECTION SERVICE 
 

 

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 	

	 	 												 	 	 	 	

 

Contents 

Message from the Acting Deputy Under Secretary and Acting Administrator

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Introduction..............................................................................................................................1 

FY 2017 at a Glance...................................................................................................... 3 

FY 2017 Select Accomplishments............................................................................................ 4 

Goal 1: Prevent Foodborne Illness and Protect Public Health 

Outcome 1.1: Prevent Contamination	.........................................................................	4 

Outcome 1.2: Limit Illness From Regulated Products..................................................7 

Goal 2: Modernize Inspection Systems, Policies, and the Use of Scientific Approaches

Outcome 2.1: Improve Food Safety and Humane Handling Practices

Through Adoption of Innovative Approaches.......................................9	

Outcome 2.2: Enhance Access to Complete and Accurate Information

 to Inform Decisions..............................................................................11 

Goal 3: Achieve Operational Excellence

Outcome 3.1: Maintain a Well-Trained and Engaged Workforce...............................13 

Outcome 3.2: Improve Processes and Services..........................................................15 

Appendix I. Public Health Indicators.......................................................................................16 

Appendix II. Agency Scorecard................................................................................................20 
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 															

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 															

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 			 	 	 	 	 			 	

	 			 	 	 	 		 	 			 	

	 			 	 	 	 		 	 	 	 			 	 	 	 	

Message From the Acting Deputy Under Secretary

and the Acting Administrator

We are very pleased to release FSIS’ FY 2017 Year in Review document. The report provides an overall 

summary of the agency’s performance, as well as key accomplishments to track the agency’s effectiveness

toward meeting its mission and goals. The information in this report represents FSIS' consistent tracking of

its outcomes, intended results, measures, and the agency's overall performance this past year.

FY 2017 was the first year of implementation for FSIS' new Strategic Plan, which focuses on new 

approaches to enhance food safety compliance, data capabilities, and our employees' skills and

expertise to modernize the way we protect public health. This first year saw many successes, thanks to

the dedication and hard work of our employees across the Nation who protect public health and ensure

the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products every day. Expanding our use of Public Health Risk 

Evaluations (PHREs) and Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS), drafting a new Swine Modernization Rule,

continued implementation of the Poultry Slaughter Modernization Rule, and incorporation of Siluriformes

inspection (catfish) into our processes were just a few key areas of focus in FY 2017.

In addition to these successes, the agency made great strides in ensuring that FSIS continues to be a

great place to work. An increased focus on employee recruitment and retention, improved employee

engagement through i-Impact, and an emphasis on equal employment opportunities have helped our

employees remain dedicated to accomplishing our mission. 

We are proud of our accomplishments over the past year. Moving forward, we will support Secretary 

Sonny Perdue's vision of OneUSDA to provide the best customer service as we work dilligently to protect

public health. 

Carmen Rottenberg	 Paul Kiecker,

Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Acting Administrator,

Office of Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service
 

 	 	

 

 

 

																													 	 	 																													

 

 

 

 

 

 

 	 	 	

 

 

 	 	 	 	

 

 

 	 	 	 		

	 	 											

 

 	 	

 

 	 	 	 	 		

 

 

 	 	 	

 	 	 	

 	 	 	

 	 	

 	 	 	

 

 

 

 	 	

 

 	 	 	

 

 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	

 	 	 	 	 	 		

	 	

 	 	 	

 	 	

	 	

 	 	

 

 	 	

 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

 	 	 	 	

 	 	 	 	 	

 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

CCMS Consumer Complaint Monitoring 

System 

CDC Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention

CSI Consumer Safety Inspector 

CY Calendar Year 

E. coli Escherichia coli

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity

EG Enterprise Governance 

EWA Early Warning Alert 

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Survey 

FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service

FY Fiscal Year 

HHS Health and Human Services 

IFSAC Interagency Food Safety Analytics

Collaboration

IDP Individual Development Plan 

IPP Inspection Program Personnel

IT Information Technology

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control

Point 

Lm Listeria monocytogenes

MPI Meat and Poultry Inspection

NPIS New Poultry Inspection System

PHIS Public Health Information System

PHR Public Health Regulation

PHRE Public Health Risk Evaluation

PHV Public Health Veterinarian 

RTE Ready-to-Eat 

STEC Shiga-toxin producing E. coli 

WGS Whole Genome Sequencing

FSIS Offices, Program Areas, or Staffs

Codex Codex Alimentarius 

CRS Civil Rights Staff

HR Human Resources 

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer

OCIO Office of the Chief Information

Officer

ODIFP Office of Data Integration and Food

Protection

OFO Office of Field Operations

OIC Office of International

Coordination

OIEA Office of Investigation,

Enforcement and Audit 

OM Office of Management

OOEET Office of Outreach, Employee

Education and Training

OPACE Office of Public Affairs and

Consumer Education

OPHS Office of Public Health Science

OPPD Office of Policy and Program

Development 

FY 2017 Year In Review 
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 				

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

-

- 

Introduction

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), is responsible for protecting the public’s health by ensuring the safety of meat, poultry, and

processed egg products. FSIS is granted authorities under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry

Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act, as well as humane animal handling

responsibility through the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. FSIS employs approximately 9,500

employees working collectively to conduct a broad range of food safety activities to achieve FSIS’

overall vision—that everyone’s food is safe. FSIS employees are highly trained, motivated, and skilled

professionals working as “one team with one purpose.” 

FY 2017 marked the launch of the agency’s new FSIS 2017-2021 Strategic Plan. The 3 goals, 6 outcomes, 

and 15 objectives set forth in this Strategic Plan directly inform the agency’s Annual Plan, and provide an

integrated framework that guides how FSIS fulfills its mission and addresses 21st-century public health

challenges. This Year in Review document highlights key actions and activities completed during FY 2017

in fulfilling these Plans.

Vision: Everyone’s food is safe 

Mission: Protecting the public’s health by ensuring 

the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products 

OUTCOME OBJECTIVE 

GOAL 2 

Modernize Inspection

Systems, Policies, and

the Use of Scientific

Approaches

GOAL 3 

Achieve Operational

Excellence

1.1—Prevent Contamination

1.2—Limit Illness From

Regulated Products

2.1—Improve Food Safety and

Humane Handling Practices

Through Adoption of

Innovative Approaches

2.2—Enhance Access to

Complete and Accurate

Information to Inform

Decisions 

3.1—Maintain A Well-Trained

and Engaged Workforce

3.2—Improve Processes

and Services 

1.1.1—Drive Compliance With Food Safety

Statutes and Regulations

1.1.2—Strengthen Sampling Programs

1.1.3—Ensure Establishments Are Meeting

Pathogen Reduction Performance Standards

1.1.4—Promote Food Defense Practices

1.2.1—Improve Food Safety at In-Commerce

Facilities

1.2.2—Improve Response to Foodborne Illness

Outbreaks and Adulteration Events

1.2.3—Increase Public Awareness of Recalls, Foodborne

Illness, and Safe Food Handling Practices

2.1.1—Modernize Scientific 

Techniques and Inspection

Procedures

2.1.2—Increase Adoption of

Humane Handling Best Practices

2.2.1—Improve the Reliability,

Access, and Timely Collection and

Distribution of Information

3.1.1—Improve Recruitment and Retention for

Mission Critical Positions

3.1.2— Enhance Training and Development

Opportunities Across Competency Areas

3.1.3— Ensure Equal Opportunity and a

Diverse and Inclusive Environment

3.2.1—Enhance Efficiency and Effectiveness of

Key Business Processes and Systems

3.2.2—Improve Service Delivery

GOAL 1 

Prevent Foodborne

Illness and Protect

Public Health

ACCOUNTABLE • COLLABORATIVE • EMPOWERED • SOLUTIONS ORIENTED

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 1
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Introduction

FSIS implemented its FY 2017 Annual Plan by utilizing its performance management framework, which

includes monitoring and reporting processes underpinned by the agency’s Enterprise Governance (EG)

process. FSIS uses its EG process to present public health and other mission-related topics to executive

leadership for collaborative decision making and implementation. Three EG boards regularly meet and,

along with their associated work groups and committees (sub-boards), provide key analysis, evaluation,

and recommendations regarding program implementation and enhancements that support data-driven

decision making. To strengthen its EG process in FY 2017, FSIS conducted assessments of its sub-boards 

and information technology (IT) governance, developing visualization and tracking tools, and updated its

approach to gather and assess information to better support decision making and funds allocation for new

and continuing initiatives. FSIS also continues to move forward on integrating Enterprise Risk Management

principles and practices, as required by the Office of Management and Budget, into its governance

process. 

In addition to improving its internal EG processes, FSIS also maintained and enhanced its multitude of

partnerships and collaborations with Federal, State, and industry partners and stakeholders.1 This included 

a wide array of activities related to foodborne illness surveillance and monitoring, interagency data and

analysis coordination, and other cross-cutting activities.

1

Activities, measures, and targets related to governance and collaboration were outlined in the FY 2017 Annual Plan.

2 FY 2017 Year In Review 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

- 

Introduction

FY 2017 at a Glance 

FSIS made great strides in continuing its mission to protect public health in FY 2017. The newly released

Strategic Plan (2017-2021) allowed the agency to continue its focus on using new and innovative science,

technology, and practices to protect public health and prevent foodborne illness. Out of the 24 of 25

Strategic Plan measures that the agency set baselines for or tracked in 2017, FSIS met or exceeded 21 

measured targets (defined as 98%+ of target)- strong performance for the year. This included targets on

sampling, pathogen reduction performance standards, Early Warning Alerts (EWAs) to establishments,

WGS, and several other activities. The agency fell just shy of meeting its target for scheduling PHREs, and

did not meet its targets associated with employee retention and with occupational competency models/

gap assessments. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 3
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

							 					 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 					 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 													

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

FY 2017 Select Accomplishments

Outcome 1.1: Prevent Contamination

FSIS protected public health by preventing contamination in domestic and foreign-produced FSIS-regulated products.

This was achieved by driving compliance with food safety regulations and statutes, strengthening sampling programs,

ensuring establishments are meeting pathogen reduction performance standards, and promoting food defense. FSIS

met or exceeded five of its six Strategic Plan measures’ targets for this Outcome, and also saw strong performance

related to annual metrics. Specific accomplishments and results in FY 2017 include the following:

• Implemented New Performance Standards: FSIS uses

pathogen reduction performance standards to assess the

food safety performance of establishments.2 In 2016, FSIS

began the implementation of new pathogen reduction

performance standards for Salmonella and Campylobacter

in raw chicken parts and not ready-to-eat (RTE) comminuted

chicken and turkey products, along with implementing

the current Salmonella and Campylobacter performance

standards for raw chicken and turkey carcasses. In FY 2017,

FSIS began measuring the percentage of establishments

that met these performance standards for several productpathogen pairs.

FSIS VERIFIED FOOD SAFETY 

REQUIREMENTS WERE MET 

IN ESTABLISHMENTS THAT

SLAUGHTERED OR PROCESSED 

155 MILLION HEAD OF LIVESTOCK

AND 9.45 BILLION POULTRY

CARCASSES, AS WELL AS 3.1 BILLION

POUNDS OF PROCESSSED EGG PRODUCTS. 

• Expanded Use of PHREs: The PHRE is a decision-making process FSIS uses to determine whether a Food Safety

Assessment or immediate enforcement action is warranted by placing establishments that exhibit certain public

health risk “triggers” on a prioritized list for evaluation. For much of FY 2017, the percentage of establishments

scheduled for PHREs due to public health risk determinants was under 1.3%, close to or meeting quarterly and

annual targets. FSIS will continue to take steps to reduce non-compliance related to these public health risk

determinants.

• Enhanced Domestic Sampling Program: FSIS enhanced its sampling program in FY 2017 to test for Campylobacter

and Salmonella in more regulated products and saw the following accomplishments:

o Closed sampling gaps by beginning to sample giblets, necks, and 1⁄2 and 1⁄4 chicken carcasses; poultry

slaughtered in religious-exempt establishments; and low volume producers of chicken and turkey carcasses,

comminuted chicken and turkey, mechanically separated chicken and turkey, and chicken parts.

o Updated its sampling algorithm for RTE products to refocus sample collection- giving greater weight to

product alternatives, product type percent positive, and establishment size.

o Collected pork samples to determine a prevalence estimate of Salmonella and Shiga toxin-producing 

Escherichia coli (STEC) in certain pork products to determine whether new performance standards or

guidance are warranted.

2

Under a performance standard, each establishment is subject to a series of sampling occasions within a given timeframe. If the number of positive

samples during that timeframe is less than or equal to a maximum allowable number of positive samples, then the establishment is considered to be

passing the performance standard. If the number of positive samples exceeds the maximum allowable, then the establishment is considered to be failing

the performance standard. 

4 FY 2017 Year In Review 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

							 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

							 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 		 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

 

- 

• Ensured State Programs Complied With Federal Standards: FSIS ensured that States with an “at least equal to”

Meat and Poultry Inspection (MPI) program maintained compliance with Federal requirements through various

forms of monitoring. This included exceeding the agency’s annual targets for completing on-site audits for eligible

State MPI programs and auditing nine State MPI laboratories.

• Conducted Outreach to Small and Very Small Establishments: FSIS provided information and technical

assistance to owners and operators of small and very small establishments to assist them in complying with FSIS

laws, regulations, and/or guidance. In FY 2017, FSIS conducted outreach at 13 high-impact industry events and

held 12 webinars for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) contacts and university extension

coordinators to provide information on food safety practices, and collaborated with key coalitions and networks to

hold several informal meetings with small producers.

FSIS INSPECTORS • Promoted Food Defense: FSIS promoted food defense practices through

CONDUCTED AROUND revision of a food defense task, providing updated guidance and tools, 6.9 MILLION FOOD collaborating with Federal agencies, and reaching out to industry and

SAFETY AND FOOD other stakeholders. For example, the agency updated the food defense 

DEFENSE PROCEDURES task for inspection personnel and used task data to develop a baseline

ACROSS APPROXIMATELY for the percent of establishments that maintain food defense practices. 6,500 FSIS also developed several food defense quick reference guides to ESTABLISHMENTS. disseminate to industry and FSIS personnel (e.g., food defense guidance

document in the Inspection Program Personnel (IPP) Help Button and the

Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration visor card).

• Improved Strategies for Sampling Imported Products: FSIS revised its import sampling plan, and a cross-office

workgroup identified new strategies to reduce point-of-entry violations and to focus on increasing the country/

product combinations from equivalent countries that

FSIS tests for both biological and chemical hazards.

• Continued Outreach to International Stakeholders:

FSIS organized, managed, and participated in outreach

activities and various engagements with foreign officials

to promote international, science-based food safety

standards. This included co-hosting a meeting with

the World Health Organization/Pan American Health

Organization and U.S. Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) to create guidance for developing countries on

how to utilize WGS for foodborne disease surveillance

and outreach efforts to advance U.S. positions on

international standard setting by the Codex Alimentarius

Commission.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 5 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

OUTCOME 1.1: Prevent Contamination

Strategy/Action Area Measure Desired 

Direction Target Actual Performance

Public Health Risk 

Evaluation (1.1.1.1)

% of establishments scheduled for a 

Public Health Risk Evaluation due to 

public health risk determinants

1.24% 1.31%3 

International Sampling/

Assessment (1.1.1.2)

% of country/product combinations 

from equivalent countries that FSIS 

tests for biological and chemical 

hazards

19% 22% 

International Outreach 

(1.1.1.3)

% increase in participation in FSIS 

outreach activities by foreign 

governments and officials

3% 14%

Sampling (1.1.2.1) % of products from establishments 

that FSIS samples 44% 46%

Performance Standards 

(1.1.3.1)

% of establishments that meet 

pathogen reduction performance 

standards

77% 77.2%

Food Defense (1.1.4.1) % of establishments that maintain 

food defense practices 85% 85% 

3

Starting in Q4, the Strategic Plan PHRE measure includes establishments that have exceeded the Salmonella Performance Standards for Chicken

and Turkey Carcasses (Category 3), which increased the percentage of PHREs due to public health risk determinants to 1.78%. Due to changes in the

methods for determining Category 3 establishments, this data was not available to use in the calculation of the FY 2017 baseline used to set quarterly

targets. Once a full year of Category 3 data is available (in summer 2018), FSIS plans to recalculate the baseline and set new targets with Category 3

establishments included. 

6 FY 2017 Year In Review 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

							 					 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 			

							 					 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 	

														 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	

 

- 

Outcome 1.2: Limit Illness From Regulated Products

FSIS focused on activities to improve food safety at in-commerce facilities, increase responsiveness to foodborne

outbreaks, and expand public awareness of food safety practices to limit illness. FSIS met or exceeded its targets for

three measures in this Outcome. Accomplishments and results include the following: 

• Improved Food Safety by Monitoring Retail Delis

Adherence to FSIS Guidelines: FSIS assessed food safety

at in-commerce facilities by performing surveillance at

retail delis to determine whether retailers are following

the agency’s recommended actions to control Listeria

monocytogenes (Lm) in RTE meat and poultry products.

• Strengthened Partnerships with Federal and State

Entities: FSIS further enhanced collaborations with Federal

and State partners to facilitate timely foodborne illness

outbreak investigations and response activities, with a

focus on information sharing. For example, to enhance

collaborative outbreak investigations and food safety

hazard assessments, FSIS and the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a joint in-plant and laboratory outbreak investigation exercise, along

with refresher training on FSIS regulations and procedures, per an FSIS-CDC Memorandum of Understanding. FSIS

also began publishing outbreak reports on its website to share lessons learned with partners. Other partnership

activities included the following:

o Publishing a new 5-year Interagency Food Safety Analytic Collaboration (IFSAC) Strategic Plan and hosted a

public webinar on the Plan with more than 300 registrants.

o Ensured FSIS engagement with each of the FDA-State Rapid Response Teams.

o Conducted a survey of State partners to determine ways to better understand their communication and

collaboration needs.

FSIS' FOODKEEPER APP WAS • Strengthened Public Engagement: By adopting a more

DOWNLOADED APPROXIMATELY proactive strategy that combined use of traditional media, 150,000 TIMES digital engagement, events, and social media, FSIS increased 

IN FY 2017. awareness on recalls, foodborne illness, and safe food 

handling practices. FSIS achieved more than 400 English

and Spanish story placements, many through the Thanksgiving and summer campaigns, and saw a high number 

of impressions and clicks for its public outreach and educational efforts, meeting its overall indexed target. FSIS

also began limited social science research on consumer food 

safety practices, yet was not able to baseline or measure progress

FSIS ACHIEVED APPROXIMATELY because of unforeseen delays, and will do so in FY 2018.

53 MILLION WEIGHTED

IMPRESSIONS FROM ALL 

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND

EDUCATION EFFORTS IN 

FY 2017. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 7
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

OUTCOME 1.2: Limit Illness From Regulated Products

Strategy/Action Area Measure Desired 

Direction Target Actual Performance

Deli/Lm Compliance in % of in-commerce facilities that are 

following FSIS Deli Lm guidelines 60% 

10 

5.0%

N/A

64.7% Retail (1.2.1.1)

Number of State and local partners 

who, because of FSIS outreach Outbreak efforts, can provide information 31 Response (1.2.2.1) that improves identification of 

contaminated product

% increase in public awareness of 

Public Awareness safe food handling guidance and 21.3% (1.2.3.1) recalls through communications 

channels 

Consumer Behavior % increase of consumers who follow N/A4 N/A (1.2.3.2) safe food handling behaviors

4

The baseline and targets for this measure are being set in FY 2018.

8 FY 2017 Year In Review 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

- 

FY 2017 Select Accomplishments

Outcome 2.1: Improve Food Safety and Humane Handling Practices Through Adoption of 

Innovative Approaches

FSIS continued to focus on identifying and implementing new techniques, technologies, approaches, and other ways of

doing business that enhance public health protection and humane handling of livestock. The agency met or exceeded

all three of its measures’ targets related to this Outcome. Actions taken include the following:

• Expanded Capacity of FSIS Laboratories to Conduct WGS: FSIS continued to

expand its capacity to characterize isolates from samples the Agency collects using

WGS. The Agency placed particular emphasis on using this technology to better

understand Lm harborage at establishments.

• Worked to Modernize FSIS Data Systems: FSIS continued progress on

modernizing surveillance and investigation data systems. The agency made

enhancements to the Public Health Information System (PHIS) by enhancing

import functionality and preparing to deliver export functionalities in PHIS, to

decrease manual input of data and improve efficiency and reduce

paper usage. FSIS also worked to improve external data systems by 

beginning to integrate the Consumer Complaint Monitoring System 

(CCMS) and the electronic Consumer Complaint Form with PHIS;

CCMS’ functionality with mobile devices; and development of a

Spanish online complaint reporting form.

FSIS CONDUCTED WHOLE 

GENOME SEQUENCING 

ON MORE THAN 7,000

ISOLATES, DOUBLE

THAT OF FY 2016. 

• Analyzed Effectiveness of EWAs for Improved Industry Performance: FSIS introduced a new key performance

measure that estimates the percentage of establishments that improve their performance (i.e. lower rate of noncompliances) within 120 days of receiving a Public Health Regulation (PHR) EWA. FSIS completed two consecutive

baseline analyses to establish targets for this measure.

• Developed and Tested New Tools for Inspectors: FSIS engaged in developing and testing multiple tools that can

support inspectors’ decision making on food safety issues. For example, FSIS conducted in-field trials for two new

handheld devices. FSIS determined that the tools did not meet FSIS’ evaluation criteria (suitability, time to results,

and usability by inspectors). FSIS also proposed criteria to assess an in-field device that can detect pathogens in

real time, and developed a pilot project on multi-drug resistant Salmonella to identify conditions that may lead to

cross-contamination during slaughter and processing.

• Continued Implementation of the New Poultry

Inspection System (NPIS): As part of the Poultry Slaughter

Modernization Rule, establishments continued to have the

option to join NPIS. This inspection system is designed to

facilitate pathogen reduction in poultry products. With NPIS,

IPP are now better equipped to verify that establishments

maintain effective HACCP systems by increasing food safety

and sanitation tasks, which is a more effective and efficient

way to use our inspection resources. NPIS was adopted in all

establishments that opted in and were ready to adopt the

new system as of the end of FY 2017.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 9
	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	

 

 10

• Drafted Swine Modernization Rule: After analyzing and finding

significant positive results from its pilot, FSIS drafted a new rule to

modernize swine slaughter inspection. This proposed rule is specific to

swine slaughter establishments and is composed of two distinct parts:

a required establishment sampling program and a voluntary inspection

system called the New Swine Slaughter Inspection System (NSIS).

Through the proposed rule, FSIS intends to improve the effectiveness of

market hog slaughter inspection while making better use of the agency’s

inspection resources and ensuring the humane handling of hogs.

• Encouraged Adoption of Humane Handling Best Practices: The agency

continued to encourage adoption of humane handling best practices,

including focusing on livestock restraint and/or stunning requirements.

To encourage increased industry compliance, the agency required Public

Health Veterinarians (PHVs) to increase the frequency of the PHV reviews

to determine whether an establishment is operating under a Robust

THE AGENCY PERFORMED MORE 

THAN 178,000 ACTIVITIES

TO VERIFY AND ENFORCE HUMANE 

HANDLING REQUIREMENTS. 

Systematic Approach, and

to inform establishments of 

these results. Additionally,

FSIS delivered refresher 

training specific to

consciousness determination

to more than two-thirds of PHVs in livestock slaughter establishments. 

OUTCOME 2.1: Improve Food Safety and Humane Handling Practices Through 

Adoption of Innovative Approaches

Strategy/Action Area Measure Desired 

Direction Target Actual Performance

% of all isolates that FSIS sampling 

generates that are subject to WGS 52% 73% 

% of establishments whose PHR noncompliance rate decreases 120 days 

after receiving an early warning alert

70.80% 72.69%

% of slaughter establishments 

compliant with all livestock restraint 

and/or stunning requirements

89% 89% 

Whole Genome 

Sequencing (2.1.1.1)

Early Warning Alerts 

(2.1.1.2)

Humane Handling 

(2.1.2.1) 

10 FY 2017 Year In Review 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 					 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 				

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 					 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 	

														 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 	

 

							 					 	 	 	 	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 					 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 					 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 	

							 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

 

	 	 	 	 		

							 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

							 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	

 

- 

Outcome 2.2: Enhance Access to Complete and Accurate Information to Inform Decisions

FSIS continued to increase and improve information accessibility and flow within and across the organization and to

develop and deploy supportive tools to do so. This also included making key information more available to external

audiences. FSIS met or exceeded all three measures’ targets in this Outcome, with supporting activities that include

the following: 

• Developed and Distributed Key Food Safety Information to Internal and External Stakeholders: FSIS continued

to leverage various communication technologies to distribute information both internally and externally regarding

food safety and regulatory policy implementation. This included the following:

o Published the Compliance Guidelines for Beef Processing, which intend to help educate small and very small

establishments on evaluating process control within slaughter and processing operations.

o Began sending Quarterly Establishment Information Letters to

establishments to provide timely and comprehensive sampling IN FY 2017, askFSIS results for all products sampled at the establishment within the CUSTOMERS VISITED past 12 months. THE SITE MORE THAN 

o Issued the New Technology Directive5, which provides improved 578,000 TIMES, guidance for how to review requests to use new technology. CONDUCTED MORE THAN 

o Created videos for communicating humidity monitoring guidance, 225,000 SEARCHES,

in partnership with a university. AND VIEWED PUBLISHED

ANSWERS NEARLY o Established and identified IPP knowledge gaps on process control

662,826 TIMES. and created an action plan for developing IPP Job Aids to help

address this issue.

• Improved Access to IT Systems and Tools: FSIS worked to review electronic access to information and tools

for agency employees. FSIS also continued to enhance the IPP Help Button, and similarly, added a help button

specifically for supervisors. These sites provide performance-related information, training reinforcement,

instructional resources, simulations, tutorials, Q&A’s, videos, and how-to guides at employees’ fingertips to

support their work on an as-needed basis.

• Evaluated Access to Data Analysis and

Visualization Tools: To conduct effective, timely, and

actionable analyses, the agency sought to increase the

ability of analysts to access, analyze, and visualize FSIS

data. Using a new survey instrument, FSIS calculated a

composite score for its analysts based on the frequency

and number of tools used, and the time allocated to

access, analyze, and visualize agency data. The agency

also made available two new key platforms to assist in

data visualization and analytics.

5

See FSIS Directive 5020.2: The New Technology Review Process.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 11
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 12

• Began Development of Establishment-Specific Datasets and Other Data for Public Release: To further allow

customers to make more informed choices and motivate individual establishments to improve performance, FSIS

released additional establishment-specific data sets, including establishment demographic data, an MPI directory

supplement, RTE meat and poultry sampling, egg products sampling, import refusals, raw ground beef sampling,

and raw beef trim sampling data.

OUTCOME 2.2: Enhance Access to Complete and Accurate Information to Inform Decisions

Strategy/Action Area Measure Desired 

Direction Target Actual Performance

% increase in the composite score of 

analysts able to access, analyze, and 

visualize FSIS data

17.1

(score)

18.8

(score)

% of employees with online access to 

FSIS-approved systems 70% 70% 

% of establishment-specific and other 

FSIS datasets made publicly available 7 9 

Analyst Access (2.2.1.1)

Online Access (2.2.1.2)

Data Posting (2.2.1.3) 

12 FY 2017 Year In Review 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

- 

FY 2017 Select Accomplishments

Outcome 3.1: Maintain a Well-Trained and Engaged Workforce 

FSIS relies on its workforce and administrative support systems to achieve success and accomplish its food safety

mission. In FY 2017, the agency focused on several activities, including hiring, deploying existing and new training,

expanding Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and diversity in its workforce, and meaningfully improving the

organizational climate and employee engagement. FSIS met its targets for five of the seven measures in this Outcome.

Specific achievements included the following:

• Improved Recruitment and Retention for Mission Critical Positions: FSIS implemented an expanded set of

recruitment, retention, relocation, and other new and innovative initiatives to increase hiring for mission critical

occupations. This included an “on site” targeted hiring event for mission critical occupations and veterinarian

scholarship opportunities for field locations. The initiatives helped FSIS maintain its hiring levels for food inspector;

consumer safety inspector (CSI); veterinarian; enforcement investigations and analysis officer positions; and other

mission critical positions. However, the agency was not able to reach its target to retain employees after the 2-year

mark and has put in place additional onboarding strategies and other incentives in an effort to increase the rate

for specific occupations.

• Improved Employee Engagement: FSIS improved

employee engagement through implementing or

continuing a variety of programs. These included

launching Phase II of i-Impact, which helps all

employees understand their role in ensuring food

safety. Both Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)

participation and trends increased related to both

FSIS’ unique FEVS index as well as the governmentwide indices (Employee Engagement, Leaders Lead,

Supervisors, and Intrinsic Work Experience).

• Continued Work on Enhancing Employee Training

and Development: FSIS developed a plan for utilizing

competencies to determine training priorities, and

a method to assess knowledge gained from training

efforts using updated methods to analyze training

results to better interpret and measure training

outcomes. FSIS also developed a plan to begin assessing competency gaps in the FSIS workforce. Senior-level

employees also completed 250 leadership/360 assessments, and the agency implemented a new management

procedure for tracking Individual Development Plans.

• Continued to Ensure Equal Employment Opportunity: FSIS continued to ensure equal opportunity for all

employees and to promote a diverse and inclusive environment. Activities included improving how competency

on EEO topics is measured through training, issuing updates to several policy statements to increase employee

awareness, and increasing the percentage of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) acceptance rate for informal

EEO complaints. In completing these and other activities, FSIS met or exceeded its related metrics in this area.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 13
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 14

OUTCOME 3.1: Maintain a Well-Trained and Engaged Workforce

Strategy/Action Area Measure Desired 

Direction Target Actual Performance

Mission Critical Positions (3.1.1.1) % mission critical positions filled 95.0% 94.4%

Mission Critical 

Retention (3.1.1.2)

% of employees who remain with 

FSIS for 2 years or more 74% 71% 

T&D Knowledge Gained

(3.1.2.1)

% increase in knowledge gained 

in key occupations (CSI, PHV, and 

Enforcement Investigations and 

Analysis Officer) within 180 days

78.9% 78.9%

T&D Assessed Gaps 

(3.1.2.2)

% of the workforce for which 

competency gaps have been assessed 8% 4%

ADR index (3.1.3.1) % ADR acceptance rate for informal 

(and formal) EEO complaints

48% 

(informal)

28% 

(formal)

55% 

(informal)

17% 

(formal)

EEO/CR Training 

(3.1.3.2)

% of employees completing 

mandatory training who 

demonstrate EEO/CR competency 

requirements

100%6 100% 

Engagement (3.1.3.3) % improvement on key employee 

engagement FEVS questions 67.95% 73.65%

6

This measure's target was set to the baseline and complete work to perform this measure for future years; that is what the 100% represents. In FY 2018,

the agency's target for this meaasure is 78%.

14 FY 2017 Year In Review 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

- 

Outcome 3.2: Improve Processes and Services 

In FY 2017, FSIS strengthened its commitment to integrating continuous process improvement practices to ensure that

FSIS uses limited resources efficiently and effectively. The agency exceeded both of its measures under this outcome.

Specific accomplishments included:

• Continued to Improve Human Resources (HR) Hiring Practices: FSIS continued to pursue hiring excellence goals

through improving the end-to-end hiring process and time to hire. Some of the actions included assessing hiring

timeframes and processes and developing new materials, tools, and training that enable communications across

programs and HR staff. The agency also identified occupations or programs experiencing hiring process challenges

and developed and implemented solutions in those areas.

• Refined Procurement Practices: FSIS focused on improving long-term acquisition planning for investments

necessary to facilitate efficiencies, timely execution, and quality outcomes. FSIS developed and deployed a more

comprehensive process that increased collaboration among program managers, contracting officers, and executive

sponsors to achieve organizational goals. FSIS also provided tools for managers to incorporate advanced planning

into the budget process by identifying appropriate project needs, timelines, success indicators, and performance

metrics, and procurement methods for known actions early in the program and budget development process.

• Improved IT Practices: FSIS delivered top-rated IT investments that leveraged opportunities for shared services

and continued to improve and rigorously align organizational business and management processes, data flows,

and technology that support sound operations.

• Enhance Service Delivery: In FY 2017, FSIS developed a more robust service standard for service and product

delivery components and customer-facing roles and responsibilities. Using a data-driven approach, FSIS was able

to assess status and quality of service to identify areas needing improvement, including through the use of an

agency-wide customer service survey, as well as through recommendations resulting from internal evaluations.

To improve in some less strong areas, FSIS developed agency policy and guidance for IT investment planning and

control, a project to be further completed in FY 2018, and updated other guidance and operating procedures.

OUTCOME 3.2: Improve Processes and Services

Strategy/Action Area Measure Desired 

Direction Target Actual Performance

Process Index (3.2.1.1) % of defined process times met for 

hiring, procurement, and IT7 75% 80% 

Satisfaction Index 

(3.2.2.1)

% satisfaction with training, IT, 

procurement, and hiring 58% 62% 

7

FSIS set baselines and targets for hiring and IT in FY 2017 and plans to set its baseline for procurement in early FY 2018; as such this measure reporting

represents hiring and IT only. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 15
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

16

Appendix I. Public Health Indicators

As a public health agency, one of FSIS’ primary goals is to reduce foodborne illness in the U.S. population by decreasing

exposure to pathogens. As discussed in the agency’s 2017-2021 Strategic Plan, in addition to using agency-specific

measures, FSIS annually tracks progress in reducing contamination of, and illnesses associated with, FSIS-regulated

products using the following three indicators together: 

1. Prevalence and volume-weighted percent positive estimates from the agency's microbiological sampling

programs.

2. Illness estimates for Salmonella, Campylobacter, Listeria monocytogenes (Lm), Shiga toxin-producing

Escherichia coli (STEC)) O157:H7, and non-O157 STEC.

3. The most current CDC Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) case rate data for the

pathogens referenced.

FSIS Contamination Rate Indicators 

The contamination rate indicators measure the rate of microbial contamination in some FSIS-regulated products.

It is calculated using the results from FSIS sampling programs. The percentage of positive samples for individual

establishments are weighted by the establishment’s production volume to estimate either the volume-weighted

percent positive or, when the sampling is designed to be nationally representative, the prevalence of a specific

pathogen in a specific product.

The following domestic sampling programs provide data that are sufficiently representative,8

 to evaluate prevalence in 

the following product/pathogen combinations:

• E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef

• E. coli and non-O157 STEC for ground beef and beef manufacturing trim

• Salmonella in specific raw chicken, turkey, and ground beef products

• Campylobacter in specific raw chicken and turkey products.

The Lm and Salmonella in RTE products sampling program also allows tracking of volume-weighted percent positives.

Table 1 shows the data from FSIS sampling programs for calendar year (CY) 2015 through CY 2017 for the

aforementioned product–pathogen pairs. Although there are limitations to the data—for example, the different

sampling procedures do not permit comparisons across different product–pathogen pairs and different consumption

patterns affect the public health risks from the different products—FSIS can evaluate changes in the contamination

rate over time as one early indicator of whether possible improvements in public health were made.

8

Considerations when using FSIS data to estimate prevalence can be found in Use of FSIS Regulatory Verification Sampling to Generate Prevalence

Estimates.

16 FY 2017 Year In Review 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

- 

Appendix I. Public Health Indicators

Table 1: Estimated National Prevalencea or Volume-Weighted Percent Positive for 

Product–Pathogen Pairs for CY 2015, 2016*

, and 2017 from FSIS Sampling Programs

Product–Pathogen Pair CY2015 CY2016 CY2017^ 

Raw Ground Beef–E. coli O157:H7 0.05% 0.11% 0.05%

Raw Ground Beef–Salmonella 2.91% 3.68% 2.25%

Beef Manufacturing Trimmings–E. coli O157:H7 0.13% 0.04% 0.14%

Beef Manufacturing Trimmings–non-O157 STEC 0.45% 0.39% 0.26%

Beef Manufacturing Trimmings–Salmonella 1.74% 2.16% 1.81%

Chicken Carcasses–Salmonella 1.20% 2.97% 5.82%

Chicken Carcasses–Campylobacter 1.18% 1.33% 1.89%

Turkey Carcasses–Salmonella 0.62% 0.86% 0.56%

Turkey Carcasses–Campylobacter 0.71% 0.49% 0.16%

Chicken Parts–Salmonella 23.01% 15.35% 14.60%

Chicken Parts–Campylobacter 14.51% 7.89% 2.69%

Comminuted Chicken–Salmonella 30.76% 36.65% 39.17%

Comminuted Chicken–Campylobacter 3.45% 5.32% 8.77%

Comminuted Turkey–Salmonella 14.36% 16.33% 14.37%

Comminuted Turkey–Campylobacter 0.00% 0.09% 0.53%

RTE (random selection)–Salmonellab 0.00% 0.03% 0.00%

RTE (random selection)–Lmb 0.08% 0.01% 0.02%

RTE (risk-based selection)–Salmonellab 0.00% 0.06% <0.01%

RTE (risk-based selection)–Lmb 0.09% 0.05% 0.14%

a: All values are prevalence estimates except where noted.

b: Value presented is volume-weighted percent positive.

*CY estimates are provided to align with the CY FSIS Illness Indicator estimates and FoodNet Case Rates presented below. For FSIS’ estimated national

prevalence or volume-weighted percent positive for product–pathogen pairs by fiscal year, please see FSIS’s webpage at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/

portal/fsis/topics/data-collection-and-reports/microbiology/sampling-project-results. 

^ Please note that the exploratory raw pork projects (EXP_PK_ICT02, EXP_PK_NCT_02, EXP_PK_COM02), raw quarter and half chicken carcasses (EXP_

CPT_QH01), and raw chicken other parts (EXP_CPT_OT01) are sampling projects for which FSIS began publishing percent positive estimates in 2017.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 17
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Appendix I. Public Health Indicators

FSIS Illness Indicators

FSIS tracks its progress in reducing Salmonella, Campylobacter, Lm, E. coli O157:H7, and non-O157 STEC illnesses from 

FSIS-regulated products using individual estimates of foodborne illness attributed to FSIS-regulated products. The

Illness Indicators are calculated using a variety of data sources and parameters. FSIS must use multiple data sources, as

no one surveillance system captures all the necessary information to estimate the percent of illnesses attributable to

FSIS-regulated food products. 

Illness Estimation

FSIS calculates, for each pathogen, how many illness cases can be attributed to FSIS-regulated products using

pathogen-specific CDC FoodNet case rates and harmonized attribution fractions for each pathogen estimated using

IFSAC attribution methodology9 and CDC Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System (FDOSS) data, with the

exception of non-O157 STEC.10 The total estimated number of foodborne illness cases associated with FSIS-regulated

products is then multiplied by a population estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau and a pathogen-specific FSIS

scaling factor11 to arrive at a nationally representative estimate of foodborne illnesses associated with FSIS-regulated

products.12 Table 2 shows the annual illness estimates, for the baseline year, CY 2012,13 and new data for CY2013. Data 

from CY 2013 were used for the FoodNet case rate and the U.S. Census Population estimate to estimate illnesses for

2013. FSIS will continue to update the illness estimates annually to track progress.

Table 2: Estimates for Foodborne Illnesses Attributed to FSIS-Regulated Products, by Pathogen, for CY 2012 and 

2013 

Pathogens 2012 Illness Estimates 2013 Illness Estimates

Salmonella 429,842 431,220

Campylobacter 130,654 412,984^/

Listeria monocytogenes 127 91 

E. coli O157:H7 27,716 24,057

Non-O157 78,496 79,759

^The marked change in the Campylobacter estimates from 2012 to 2013 is due to a change in the way IFSAC chose to report Campylobacter

attribution. For 2013 estimates, IFSAC did not include Campylobacter outbreaks associated with dairy (68% of the total Campylobacter

attribution) for several reasons. Most Campylobacter outbreaks included in the database were associated with unpasteurized milk, which is not

widely consumed by the general population. Please see the full report for more details. 

9

IFSAC is a tri-agency collaboration (CDC, FDA, and FSIS) formed in 2011 to improve coordination of Federal food safety analytic efforts and address

cross-cutting priorities for food safety data collection, analysis, and use. For more details see Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration. For a full 

explanation of the IFSAC attribution methodology, see both the 2012 and 2013 IFSAC reports. 10FSIS uses an attribution estimate from Painter et al., 2013 because IFSAC did not estimate an attribution fraction for non-O157 STEC: Painter JA,

Hoekstra RM, Ayers T, Tauxe RV, Braden CR, Angulo FJ, et al. Attribution of foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths to food commodities by using

outbreak data, United States, 1998–2008. Emerging Infectious Diseases [Internet]. 2013 Mar. 11A scaling factor is a pathogen-specific value used to adjust for under-diagnosis of illnesses because of variations in medical care seeking behavior,

specimen submission, laboratory testing, and test sensitivity. For more information, please see Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson

M-A, Roy SL, et al. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2011 Jan. 12The FSIS Illness Indicator estimates cannot be directly compared to the previous FSIS All Illness Measure estimates. 13CY 2012 was selected as the baseline year because 2012 data were used in the IFSAC attribution estimates.

18 FY 2017 Year In Review 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

- 

Appendix I. Public Health Indicators

CDC FoodNet Case Rate Data 

To further improve transparency and provide a more complete picture of the trends related to U.S. foodborne 

illnesses, FSIS committed to reviewing and presenting the most current CDC FoodNet case rate data14, in addition to

the FSIS Illness Indicator. These case rates provide a more current view of overall illness trends. Table 3 shows the 

annual case rates for Salmonella, Campylobacter, Lm, E. coli O157:H7, and non-O157 STEC from CY 2010-2016. 

Table 3: CDC FoodNet Case Rates (cases/100,000 persons), CY 2010-201615 

Pathogens 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016* 

Salmonella 17.60 16.45 16.42 15.19 15.45 15.89 15.40

Campylobacter 13.60 14.28 14.30 13.82 13.45 12.97 11.79

Listeria 

monocytogenes 

0.30 0.31 0.25 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.26

E. coli O157:H7 0.90 0.97 1.12 1.15 0.92 0.95

Non-O157 1.00 1.10 1.16 1.17 1.43 1.64

2.84^

* Culture-confirmed incidence rates. Confirmed or culture-independent diagnostic test (CIDT) positive–only incidence rates are available in the

Incidence and Trends of Infections with Pathogens Transmitted Commonly Through Food and the Effect of Increasing Use of Culture-Independent

Diagnostic Tests on Surveillance — Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, 10 U.S. Sites, 2013–2016 report available here.

^For STEC, all serogroups were combined, because it is not possible to distinguish between serogroups using CIDTs.

14The CDC FoodNet case rate represents all cases captured in the FoodNet system, not just those specific to FSIS. 15Case rate data obtained from annual CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWR). The rate of infection per 100,000 persons is calculated

using number of cases reported from FoodNet sites for the 12 months ending in the year of report and U.S. Census estimates of population under

FoodNet surveillance. FoodNet uses updated census population estimates for the most recent CY available when surveillance data for a full year is

reported. Due to the timing of the release of Census data, these population estimates are for 1 year earlier than the year of the surveillance data.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 19
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

Measure Measure Description Desired 

Direction

Q4 FY 2017 

Target

Q4 FY 2017 

Actual Performance

Appendix II. Agency Scorecard

Goal 1: Prevent Foodborne Illness and Protect Public Health

Outcome 1.1: Prevent Contamination

Public Health Risk 

Evaluation (1.1.1.1)

% of establishments scheduled for a Public Health Risk 

Evaluation (PHRE) due to public health risk determinants 

This measure calculates the percentage of establishments 

scheduled for a PHRE due to specific public health criteria, out

of all establishments eligible for a PHRE. Establishments are 

eligible for a PHRE by having at least one (1) performed Hazard

Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) related task within

the measurement timeframe, and an Establishment Status

of “Active” in PHIS. Starting in Quarter 4, the Strategic Plan

PHRE measure includes establishments that have exceeded 

the Salmonella Performance Standards for Chicken and Turkey 

Carcasses (Category 3), which increased the percentage

of PHREs due to public health risk determinants to 1.78%.

Due to changes in the methods for determining Category 

3 establishments, this data was not available to use in the 

calculation of the FY 2017 baseline used to set quarterly

targets. Once a full year of Category 3 data is available (in

summer 2018), FSIS plans to recalculate the baseline and set

new targets with Category 3 establishments included. 

1.24% 1.31%

International

Sampling /

Assessment (1.1.1.2)

% of country/product combinations from equivalent 

countries that FSIS tests for biological and chemical hazards 

This measure calculates the cumulative percentage of all

country/product combinations submitted through import

reinspection that are assigned lab analyses for biological and

chemical hazards through PHIS.

19% 22%

International

Outreach (1.1.1.3)

% increase in participation in FSIS outreach activities by 

foreign governments and officials 

This measure counts the number of countries and the number 

of foreign officials that FSIS reached with the U.S. Codex

Alimentarius (Codex) Office and other FSIS international

outreach and education activities aimed at encouraging the

adoption of science-based standards at the international

level and in individual countries. Data were collected from 

participation records from FSIS- and Codex-sponsored

outreach events, educational seminars, and surveys of

participants.

3% 14%

Sampling (1.1.2.1)

44% 46%

% of products from establishments that FSIS samples 

This measure calculates the percent of product/establishment

pairs in domestic slaughter and production that are subject to

sampling. Sampling directly informs FSIS about microbiological 

contamination rates and, by increasing the percentage of

sampling, FSIS will have better data to pinpoint and prevent

contamination.

20 FY 2017 Year In Review 
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

- 

Measure Measure Description Desired 

Direction

Q4 FY 2017 

Target

Q4 FY 2017 

Actual Performance

Appendix II. Agency Scorecard

Performance 

Standards (1.1.3.1)

% of establishments that meet pathogen reduction 

performance standards (Key Performance Measure) 

For each pathogen/product pair with a performance

standard, this measure is calculated by dividing the number 

of establishments that passed all of their included moving 

windows by the total number of establishments with at least 

one completed moving window that passed or failed. Includes 

chicken carcasses, turkey carcasses, and several others for 

Salmonella and Campylobacter in comminuted chicken and 

turkey and chicken parts. 

77% 77.2%

Food Defense 

(1.1.4.1)

% of establishments that maintain food defense practices

This measure calculates the percentage of FSIS-regulated 

establishments that maintain food defense practices. This

includes policies, procedures, and/or countermeasures that

establishments put in place to mitigate the vulnerability to

intentional adulteration at actionable steps in processing

and manufacturing (or re-inspection and staging for import

establishments), storage, and shipping and receiving. For

import establishments, these tasks will include re-inspection

and staging rather than processing/manufacturing. FSIS

inspectors complete verification tasks to confirm that food

defense practices are in place at establishments.

85% 85%

Outcome 1.2: Limit Illness From Regulated Products

Deli/Lm Compliance 

in Retail (1.2.1.1)

% of in-commerce facilities that are following FSIS Deli Lm 

guidelines 

This measure calculates the percentage of in-commerce 

firms that are following the eight most important public

health actions (based on a September 2013 Interagency

Risk Assessment of Lm in Retail Delicatessens) that retailers

can take in the delicatessen (deli) area to control Lm

contamination of RTE meat and poultry products. These

actions include product handling, cleaning and sanitizing,

facility and equipment controls, and employee practices. FSIS

compliance personnel determine how many delis are following 

FSIS recommendations through surveillance activities.

60.0% 64.7%

Outbreak Response 

(1.2.2.1)

# of State and local partners who, because of FSIS outreach 

efforts, can provide information that improves identification 10 31 

of contaminated product 

This measure calculates how many State and local 

partners, as a result of FSIS’ outreach efforts, indicate

through questionnaire responses and other measurable

communications that they have necessary information from

FSIS—such as whom to contact and what information FSIS

requires to launch and successfully carry out an outbreak

investigation. To initially assess progress in achieving this

measure, the agency developed and used a survey, intended 

for State partners, which established a baseline for FSIS’ 

effectiveness in providing partners the tools that they need to

ensure early reporting for a rapid response.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 21
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

Measure Measure Description Desired 

Direction

Q4 FY 2017 

Target

Q4 FY 2017 

Actual Performance

Public Awareness 

(1.2.3.1)

% increase in public awareness of safe food handling 

guidance and recalls through communications channels 

This indexed measure tracks the public outreach that FSIS 

conducts to communicate recalls and the importance of safe 

food handling practices. Data are collected from a variety

of impression and engagement statistics, including from

stories in the media, FSIS Meat and Poultry Hotline inquiries,

website traffic, social media, publications distributed, and

applications downloaded. The measure counts impressions or

engagements by type and a total is calculated, with a heavier 

weight placed on high-impact activities.

5.0% 21.3%

Consumer Bahavior

(1.2.3.2)

% increase of consumers who follow safe food handling 

behaviors 

This measure intended to calculate the percent increase in 

consumers who follow the safe food handling practice of

“Clean, Separate, Cook, Chill”—the key food handling message 

that FSIS promotes to the public. An unexpected delay in 

starting work did not allow for a baseline and targets for this

measure to be set in FY 2017. FSIS will set them in FY 2018

using the social science research that is underway. 

N/A N/A N/A

Goal 2: Modernize Inspection Systems, Policies, and the Use of Scientific Approaches

Outcome 2.1: Improve Food Safety and Human Handling Practices Through Adoption of Innovative Approaches

Appendix II. Agency Scorecard

Whole Genome 

Sequencing (WGS)

(2.1.1.1)

% of all isolates that FSIS sampling generates that are 

subject to WGS 

This measure calculates the percentage of isolates (the

pure form of the pathogen) from FSIS samples sequenced

using WGS. WGS is a laboratory process that determines the 

complete DNA sequence of an organism’s genome, which FSIS

can use to inform inspection activities as well as improve the

identification of food responsible for outbreaks. FSIS includes

in this measure laboratory samples sequenced for regulatory

sampling programs, the National Antimicrobial Resistance

Monitoring System (NARMS) surveillance sampling program,

special studies, and partner requests.

52% 73%

Early Warning Alerts 

(2.1.1.2)

% of establishments whose PHR non-compliance rate 

decreases 120 days after receiving an EWA (Key Performance 70.80% 72.69%

Measure) 

This measure calculates the percentage of establishments 

that improve their performance (fewer non-compliances)

within 120 days of receiving a PHR EWA. PHRs are a subset 

of regulations associated with higher noncompliance rates in

establishments in the 3 months before a positive pathogen

sampling result or enforcement actions, than in establishments

without pathogen-positives or enforcement actions. FSIS uses

results of inspection tasks to calculate a PHR non-compliance

rate for each regulated establishment and issues a PHR EWA 

when an establishment has a non-compliance rate that is 

elevated and is at or exceeds the FSIS Noncompliance Cut 

Point for Early Warning. 

22 FY 2017 Year In Review 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

- 

Measure Measure Description Desired 

Direction

Q4 FY 2017 

Target

Q4 FY 2017 

Actual Performance

Humane Handling 

(2.1.1.2)

% of slaughter establishments compliant with all livestock 

restraint and/or stunning requirements 89% 89%

Appendix II. Agency Scorecard

This measure calculates the percentage of slaughter facilities

that are 100 percent compliant with livestock handling and 

stunning requirements. To be 100 percent compliant, an

establishment must not have any of the three enforcement 

actions: a Notice of Intended Enforcement (NOIE), a

Suspension, or a Reinstatement of Suspension within the past 

fiscal year. Evaluating a shift in enforcement actions, rather

than non-compliance reports (NRs), is the most effective

measure for the humane handling goals because the agency 

is committed to reducing the occurrences of egregious acts

(captured in enforcement action documents).

Outcome 2.2: Enhance Access to Complete and Accurate Information to Inform Decisions

Analyst Access 

(2.2.1.1)

% of analysts able to access, analyze, and visualize FSIS data

This measure calculates a weighted score from survey results 

of FSIS data analysts who have access to and use FSIS’ major

data systems (such as PHIS), who can and have verified that

they analyze and visualize FSIS data using statistical or other

software. FSIS assesses progress in achieving this measure

through an annual survey of FSIS analysts. 

17.1 

(score)

18.8

(score)

Online Access 

(2.2.1.2)

% of employees with online access to FSIS-approved systems

This measure calculates the percentage of FSIS Federal 

employees with online access, such as connectivity or email

services, to FSIS-approved systems. 

70% 70%

Data Posting (2.2.1.3) # of establishment-specific and other FSIS datasets made 

publicly available (Agency Key Performance Measure) 

This measure counts the number of establishment-specific

and other FSIS datasets, made publicly available on data.gov 

and the FSIS website. FSIS developed this measure to track 

progress in meeting the FSIS Establishment-Specific Data

Release Strategic Plan and to highlight the importance of FSIS’ 

efforts to increase transparency through sharing agency data

with the public. 

7 9

Goal 3: Achieve Operational Excellence

Outcome 3.1: Maintain a Well-Trained and Engaged Workforce

% mission critical positions filled

This measure calculates the percentage of mission critical

positions FSIS has filled. FSIS is seeking an improvement in the

percent of positions filled that also allow for enhancements in

processes, training of new staff, and implementation of new

initiatives to acquire and retain the workforce.

Mission Critical

Positions (3.1.1.1) 95.0% 94.4%

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 23
	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

 

Measure Measure Description Desired 

Direction

Q4 FY 2017 

Target

Q4 FY 2017 

Actual Performance

Mission Critical

Retention (3.1.1.2)

% of employees who remain with FSIS for 2 years or more

This measure calculates employee retention rate after 2

years, excluding retirements and terminations. FSIS developed

this measure to help assess the effectiveness of retention

incentives and to monitor trends, including in specific

occupations or demographic groups that may require new

solutions to improve retention.

74% 71%

T&D Knowledge

Gained (3.1.2.1)

% increase in knowledge gained in key occupations (CSIs, 

PHVs, and EIAOs within 180 days)

This measure calculates the increase in knowledge gained 

through training for mission critical occupations, including

for CSIs, PHVs, and EIAOs. FSIS assessed progress in achieving 

this measure through pre- and post-training assessments and 

surveys of employees and supervisors. 

78.9% 78.9%

T&D Assessed Gaps

(3.1.2.2)

% of the workforce for which competency gaps have been 

assessed 

This indexed measure calculates the percentage of the FSIS 

workforce for which skill gaps have been assessed, as well as 

those being addressed. Indices include (1) % increase of the

workforce having competency models; (2) % increase of the

workforce for which skill gaps have been assessed, and (3)

% increase of the workforce for which skill gaps have been

addressed. 

8% 4%

ADR Index (3.1.3.1) % Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) acceptance rate for 

informal (and formal) EEO complaints

This measure calculates the percentage of EEO cases where 

the aggrieved party or the complainant chooses to use ADR in 

an attempt to resolve the complaint. This measure is known

as the ADR participation rate. For this measure, FSIS includes

both informal and formal cases, weighted 3-to-1, respectively,

as there are more informal complaints than formal complaints. 

48%

(informal)

28%

(formal)

55%

(informal)

17%

(formal)

EEO/CR Training

(3.1.3.2)

% of employees completing mandatory training who demonstrate EEO/CR competency requirements

This measure calculates the percentage of employees 

completing mandatory training who demonstrate EEO/

CR competency requirements. FSIS assesses progress in

achieving this measure through scenario-based and other 

questions embedded in training for employees to assess their

understanding of the material. 

100% 100%

Engagement (3.1.3.3) % improvement on key employee engagement FEVS questions

This measure indexes and weights eight key questions from

the annual Government-wide FEVS as a proxy to measure FSIS 

employee inclusion and employee engagement. The index 

uses questions from FEVS Engagement, New IQ, and Satisfaction indices to inform the agency on engagement, communications, satisfaction, and inclusion trends.

67.95% 73.65%

24 FY 2017 Year In Review 

Appendix II. Agency Scorecard
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

- 

Measure Measure Description Desired 

Direction

Q4 FY 2017 

Target

Q4 FY 2017 

Actual Performance

Appendix II. Agency Scorecard

Outcome 3.2: Improve Processes and Services

Processes Index 

(3.2.1.1)

% of defined process times met for hiring, procurement, and 

IT 

This indexed measure intends to drive improvements on 

defined process times for hiring, procurement, and IT. In

FY 2017, FSIS set initial baselines for the measure’s hiring

and IT components and is conducting additional work on

procurement in early FY 2018.

Hiring: This focuses on increasing the percentage of hiring 

actions that meet the process time, with a 131-day baseline.

While derived from the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)-required time of 80 days, FSIS added pre-recruitment

activities to capture activities prior to submission of the

manager’s request to fill a position, such as development of

the position description and vacancy announcement.

IT: This calculates the process times for which development,

modernization, and enhancement investments are met for

specific projects. FSIS calculates the percentage of relevant IT

development projects for which Earned Value Management

(EVM) is maintained within the Department’s required range.

Procurement: FSIS is defining this baseline in Q1 FY 2018.

75% 80%

Satisfaction Index

(3.2.2.1)

% satisfaction with training, IT, procurement, and hiring

This measure indexes information regarding employee

satisfaction levels on key services—hiring, procurement, IT,

and training. A range of FSIS, departmental, and third party 

data sources will be used in assessing services. FSIS assesses 

progress in achieving this measure through an FSIS-wide 

customer service survey, which will measure employees'

perceptions of key aspects of services performance, such as

timeliness, knowledge, and quality.

58% 62%

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 25
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

FSIS CORE VALUES

ACCOUNTABLE

FSIS holds itself accountable in fulfilling its regulatory

mission and in serving the public interest. 

COLLABORATIVE

FSIS actively promotes and encourages collaboration

within our agency and with our partners to prevent 

illness and protect public health. 

EMPOWERED

FSIS employees are empowered with the necessary 

training, tools, and approaches they need to make and 

carry out informed decisions that protect public health 

and promote food safety. 

SOLUTIONS-ORIENTED

FSIS is committed to deploying effective,

evidence-based solutions to ensure that the Nation’s

food supply is safe. 

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and 

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs 

are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public 

assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity 

conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by 

program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally,

program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found 

online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and 

provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call 

(866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office

of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410;

(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

March 2018