United States Department of Agriculture 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

STRATEGIC PLAN

2017­2021

-

Table of Contents 

I. Message From the Administrator 

II. Acronyms 

III. Introduction 

IV. Executive Summary 

V. Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation 

VI. Working With Our Partners 

VII. Public Health Indicators 

VIII. Strategic Plan Goals, Outcomes, and Objectives 

Goal 1: Prevent Foodborne Illness and Protect Public Health 

Outcome 1.1. Prevent Contamination 

Objective 1.1.1. Drive Compliance With Food Safety Statutes and Regulations 

Objective 1.1.2. Strengthen Sampling Programs 

Objective 1.1.3. Ensure Establishments Are Meeting Pathogen Reduction Performance Standards 

Objective 1.1.4. Promote Food Defense Practices 

Outcome 1.2. Limit Illness From Regulated Products 

Objective 1.2.1. Improve Food Safety at In-Commerce Facilities 

Objective 1.2.2. Enhance Response to Foodborne Illness Outbreaks and Adulteration Events 

Objective 1.2.3. Increase Public Awareness of Recalls, Foodborne Illness, and Safe Food Handling Practices 

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 

Objective 2.1.1. Modernize Scientific Techniques and Inspection Procedures 

Objective 2.1.2. Increase Adoption of Humane Handling Best Practices 

Outcome 2.2. Enhance Access To Complete and Accurate Information to Inform Decisions 

Objective 2.2.1. Improve the Reliability, Access, and Timely Collection and Distribution of Information 

Goal 3: Achieve Operational Excellence 

Outcome 3.1. Maintain a Well-Trained and Engaged Workforce 

Objective 3.1.1. Improve Recruitment and Retention for Mission Critical Positions 

Objective 3.1.2. Enhance Training and Development Opportunities Across Competency Areas 

Objective 3.1.3. Ensure Equal Opportunity and a Diverse and Inclusive Environment 

Outcome 3.2. Improved Processes and Services 

Objective 3.2.1. 

Objective 3.2.2. Improve Service Delivery 

Appendixes 

Glossary of Terms, Definitions, Organizations, Collaborations, Systems, and Laws
 

Prevalence and All Illness Indicators
 

Descriptions of Measures
 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017 2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 3 

    

       

Message from the Administrator 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 2017–2021 Strategic 

Plan builds on prior successes and reflects emerging issues that 

FSIS faces in ensuring that the food products we regulate are 

safe to eat. By using cutting­edge yet practical science, enhanced data 

capabilities, and our employees’ skills and expertise, we will continue to 

Our system of inspection is the most reliable and well documented 

in the world. Among FSIS’ greatest accomplishments over the past 5 

years is the reduction of pathogens in meat, poultry, and processed egg 

products. In the past few years, we published several groundbreaking 

regulations, including the Poultry Slaughter Modernization Rule, which mandates that all poultry 

establishments take scientifically­based approaches to prevent contamination, rather than 

addressing contamination after it has occurred. The rule also provides establishments with the 

option to join the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS). With NPIS, food safety inspectors are 

Control Point (HACCP) systems by increasing their food safety and sanitation tasks, which is a 

FSIS also determined that Salmonella and Campylobacter are hazards reasonably likely to occur 

in the poultry slaughter process and that establishments should address these pathogens in their 

hazard analyses. Further, the agency finalized new standards for Salmonella and Campylobacter 

contaminated ground beef product from commerce, FSIS established new trace back procedures 

related to shiga toxin-producing E. coli and set new requirements for establishments and retail 

stores to keep new supplier and other new production records for ground beef. FSIS also 

established new labeling requirements for mechanically tenderized raw beef products so that 

product labels now provide consumers and the food service industry essential information on safe 

preparation. As we continue to strengthen these and similar approaches, including enhancements 

to safety­based labeling initiatives, we have also enhanced collaboration in a variety of ways 

with many domestic and foreign partners in preventing food contamination and resulting illness 

outbreaks in a variety of ways.  

I’m proud of the work that has gone into the 2017­2021 FSIS Strategic Plan from employees 

throughout the agency. In addition to establishing a clear foundation for our long­range and 

day­to­day operations, the Plan positions the agency to anticipate future needs and challenges. 

We will continue to engage and empower our employees as we maintain and further build one 

team, with one purpose, working diligently every day to protect public health by preventing 

foodborne illness.  

Sincerely, 

Alfred V. Almanza 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acronyms
 

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution 

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

ARS Agricultural Research Service 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

CCMS Consumer Complaint Monitoring System 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid 

DVMS District Veterinary Medical Specialists 

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERS Economic Research Service 

FAS Foreign Agricultural Service 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FDOSS Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System 

FNS Food and Nutrition Service 

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service 

FSA Food Safety Assessment 

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

HMSA Humane Methods of Slaughter Act 

HR Human Resources 

IFSAC Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration 

IT Information Technology 

NARMS National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System 

NACMCF National Advisory Committee on Microbiological 

Criteria for Foods 

NIFA National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

NRTE Not-ready-to-eat 

PHIS Public Health Information System 

PHRE Public Health Risk Evaluation 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

WGS Whole Genome Sequencing 
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

 

Introduction 


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is the public health agency in the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) responsible for protecting the public’s health by ensuring the safety of the 

Nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry, and processed egg products.1

 FSIS ensures food 

safety through the authorities of the Federal Meat Inspection Act,2 the Poultry Products Inspection 

Act,3 and the Egg Products Inspection Act, as well as humane animal handling through the Humane 

Methods of Slaughter Act.5 

FSIS consists of about 9,600 employees, the majority of whom work on the frontlines in 

establishments across the country to ensure the production of food is safe. Our workforce 

leverages tools such as the Public Health Information System (PHIS) to meet existing requirements 

and anticipate future public health issues and trends. Our personnel possess diverse skill sets and 

competencies that complement one another. We have a large number of food, consumer safety, 

and import inspectors; public health veterinarians, enforcement, investigations and analysis officers; 

chemists, microbiologists, and epidemiologists; and a range of other public health professionals. 

In addition, we have personnel skilled and trained in policy development; data, scientific, and lab 

analysis; and a range of financial, administrative, investigative, technical, and communications 

specialists, as well as in other functions that support FSIS’ food safety, public health, and food 

defense6 mandates and policies. 

Figure 1. FSIS District Office and Regulated Establishment Locations. 

1 As of December 2015, fish of the order Siluriformes are included in this definition. See 80 Federal Register 75589, 

December 2, 2015. 

2 Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA, P.L. 90-492). 

3 Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA, P.L. 90-492). 

4 Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA, P.L. 91-597). 

5 Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA, P.L. 85-765). 

6 Food defense is the protection of food products from intentional contamination or adulteration where there is an 

intent to cause public harm or economic disruption. 

1 
Executive Summary 

The strategic goals, outcomes, objectives, and measures set forth in this FY2017­2021 Strategic Plan 

(hereafter Plan or Strategic Plan) provide an integrated framework for understanding how FSIS is 

fulfilling our mission and addressing 21st­century public health challenges. 

FSIS activities contribute to USDA’s FY2014­2018 Strategic Goal 4, “Ensure that all of America’s 

children have access to safe, nutritious, and balanced meals,” and the outcome, “reduction in total 

number of Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes (Lm), and Escherichia coli (E.coli) illnesses from all 

USDA­regulated products.” 

The FSIS Vision and Mission, as well as our Core Values—Accountable, Collaborative, Empowered, 

and Solutions-Oriented—frame the goals, outcomes, objectives, and measures in this Plan. 

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 Well­Trained 

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—Enhance 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 

2  FOOD  SAFETY  AND  INSPECTION  SERVICE  20 17­202 1  STRATEGIC  PLAN 

ACCOUNTABLE • COLLABORATIVE • EMPOWERED • SOLUTIONS­ORIENTED 
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Goal 1 

Prevent Foodborne Illness 

and Protect Public Health 

Our primary mission goal, “Prevent Foodborne Illness and Protect Public 

Health,” directly represents the day-to-day work of a large majority of 

our employees. Its outcomes are to prevent contamination and to limit 

illness from regulated products. FSIS will achieve these outcomes through 

several objectives aimed at protecting against unintentional and intentional 

contamination. Specifically, we will: 

N Drive compliance with food safety statutes and regulations by 

N Focusing assessments of domestic establishments’ food safety systems 

using tools such as alerts that identify patterns and trends 

in noncompliance. 

N Enhancing product sampling, outreach, technical assistance, and 

information sharing with other countries regarding FSIS’ regulatory 

requirements and FSIS’ work to ensure public health standards for food 

safety are established and met. 

N Reduce the presence of hazards in food through influencing the behavior 

of establishments by increasing the percentage of products from 

FSIS-regulated establishments sampled for microbial or chemical hazards, 

as well as verifying the effectiveness of establishments’ food safety 

programs and process controls to increase the percent of establishments 

that meet new pathogen reduction performance standards. 

N Improve food safety at in-commerce facilities by using a risk-based 

approach to target FSIS’ resources, including resources used for 

surveillance activities, investigations, enforcement activities, and other 

initiatives, with an increased focus on Lm in retail delis. 

N Enhance response to outbreaks through improved communications and 

information sharing, and collaborating with partners on investigations and 

removal of contaminated product from commerce. 

N Sustain progress in food defense by assuring that establishments adopt 

and incorporate food defense practices into their day-to-day operations, 

and that agency personnel and industry are prepared and able to respond 

to acts of intentional contamination. 

N Increase public awareness of recalls, foodborne illness, and adoption of 

safe food practices through the execution of more proactive strategies 

and social science research. 

3 
Goal 2 

Modernize Inspection Systems, Policies, 

and the Use of Scientific Approaches 

Our secondary mission goal, “Modernize Inspection Systems, Policies, and 

the Use of Scientific Approaches,” represents key methods and approaches 

we intend to use to enhance how we realize our food safety and public 

health mission. Its outcomes are to adopt innovative approaches and improve 

information and data access. FSIS will achieve these outcomes through 

objectives aimed at modernizing scientific techniques and inspection 

procedures, increasing awareness of humane handling best practices; and 

improving the reliability, access, and timely collection and distribution of 

information and data. Specifically, we will: 

to aid in accurately identifying and expeditiously responding to outbreaks, 

conducting trace backs,7 and studying the environmental influences on 

pathogens in regulated establishments. 

Use data from our Public Health Information System (PHIS) and new data 

generated from enhanced scientific techniques to facilitate inspection 

task scheduling across individual establishments. 

Increase awareness of humane handling best practices through broader 

and targeted outreach to the livestock industry, specifically on handling 

and stunning requirements. 

Improve reliability, access, collection, and timely distribution of 

information and data to facilitate communications among FSIS 

headquarters and field employees, and external stakeholders, by ensuring 

employee access to systems and tools and the ability to obtain FSIS 

data, targeted reports, and other information needed to prioritize and 

manage work. 

7 “Trace back” is a method used to determine the source and scope of the product/processes associated with 

the outbreak and document the distribution and production chain of the product that has been implicated in a 

foodborne illness or outbreak. Additionally, investigators may conduct “trace forward” activities to document the 

distribution of all implicated lots of food from the source once the source of an implicated food item is established. 

4  FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION S ERVICE 2017­2021 STRATEGIC PL AN 
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Goal 3 

Achieve Operational Excellence 

Our third goal, “Achieve Operational Excellence,” pinpoints key areas where 

we seek improvement in how we do business to better support achieving 

our first two goals and our overall mission. Its outcomes focus on recruiting, 

engaging, and training our workforce, and on improving our processes and 

services through several objectives. Specifically, we will: 

N Improve recruitment and retention for mission-critical positions, primarily 

through strategies that target key occupations. 

N Enhance training and development opportunities in several managerial, 

inspection, and technical areas through using competency models and 

expanded training and development approaches. 

N Ensure equal opportunity and a diverse and inclusive environment for 

employees through encouraging model Equal Employment Opportunity 

approaches as well as continuing to deploy and enhance workplace 

environment activities. 

N Enhance efficiency and effectiveness of key business processes and 

systems, while also improving service delivery, through analysis of existing 

processes and services and identification of areas for streamlining and 

quality improvement. 

5 
Planning, Implementation, 

and Evaluation 

Plan Development: The FSIS strategic planning effort began with 

documenting our vision, mission, and shared core values, and with 

establishing an overarching approach to Strategic Plan development. 

This ensured that this Strategic Plan addresses food safety concerns of today 

and the future. A guiding principle in the Plan’s development included a focus 

on establishing goals, outcomes, objectives, and performance measures that 

FSIS can easily use to track success. Plan development included significant 

internal and external stakeholder engagement, including soliciting input from 

FSIS employees across the country, as well as FDA, CDC, and others. 

Implementation Through Governance: FSIS will implement this Plan by 

utilizing and enhancing its agency-wide governance approach to deliberation 

and decisionmaking. FSIS has an evolving and robust governance structure 

that has changed the agency’s culture to be more performance- and 

results- driven. FSIS will utilize this structure and associated decisionmaking 

processes to assess short- and longer-term progress toward reaching Plan 

goals, outcomes, objectives, and associated measure targets. This includes 

enhancing its review of policies, operational proposals, and scientific 

proposals before FSIS’ Management Council, composed of the agency’s 

senior executives, considers them. FSIS will also identify better approaches 

to incorporate input from the frontline field workforce on critical issues and 

needs, and to ensure FSIS develops and refines its initiatives and policies in a 

collaborative, inclusive, data-driven, and transparent manner. Similarly, FSIS 

also intends to improve how it disseminates information about its governance 

processes and decisions. FSIS will continue to develop and publish an annual 

plan that directly links to the Strategic Plan and highlights the activities the 

agency plans to conduct in a given year. 

Performance Tracking and Monitoring: FSIS will continue to foster a 

performance-based environment by tracking Plan progress on at least a 

quarterly basis using an agency-wide Scorecard. FSIS will assign executives 

and senior staff to monitor progress and ensure FSIS meets intended targets 

to allow for timely and necessary adjustments to goals, outcomes, objectives, 

activities, or approaches. 

Evaluation: Internal accountability is core to FSIS’ culture. The agency 

conducts ongoing reviews of programs, processes, and policies to assess their 

efficacy, ensure that relevant management controls are in place, and make 

sure that our governance processes used to consider and make decisions 

on changes and improvements to our programs, processes, and policies are 

working. FSIS plans to conduct a mid-point review of this new Plan to assess 

its progress, relevancy, and status. The agency will make adjustments in 

strategies as necessary to achieve desired outcomes and ensure a modern 

approach to public health protection. FSIS will continue to align its annual 

executive and employee performance plans to strategic and annual plan 

activities to ensure accountability in evaluating performance. 

6 FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Working With Our Partners 


A continued focus on collaboration provides an overarching frame for this 

Strategic Plan.8 FSIS will build on successes from existing collaborations and 

public-private partnerships to effectively leverage resources. In the years 

ahead, public and private sector stakeholders and consumers will continue 

to benefit from an increasingly integrated network working together toward 

improved food safety. FSIS works closely with many partners within the 

USDA, including, but not limited to, the following: 

N Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), on programs to ensure quality and 

availability of wholesome food across the country, including sharing of 

data, coordination on recalls and illness outbreaks, and export verification 

activities. 

N Agricultural Research Service (ARS), on conducting research based 


on FSIS’ Research Priorities list to develop and transfer solutions to 


agency needs. 


N Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), on protecting and 

promoting U.S. agricultural health, specifically related to APHIS’ role in 

administering the Animal Welfare Act, and protecting against agricultural 

pests and diseases, including biosecurity practices and One Health 

objectives. 

N Economic Research Service (ERS), on informing and enhancing 

decisionmaking on economic and policy issues, including cost calculation 

models and risk assessments. 

N Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), on ensuring access to healthy and safe 

food for participants in Federal nutrition assistance programs. 

N Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), on communicating equivalency 

programs and policy to foreign governments and promoting food safety 

and food defense capacity building internationally. 

N National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), on advancing 

knowledge of food safety and food defense by supporting research, 

education, and extension programs in the Land-Grant University System 

and other partner organizations. 

FSIS also works with several other Federal agency partners outside USDA, 

including through consortia, advisory committees, task forces, and other fora. 

Partners include, but are not limited to, the following: 

N The Department of Health and Human Services’ U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), on protecting consumers against impure, unsafe, 

and fraudulently labeled food products.9 FSIS primarily works with the 

following FDA entities: 

N The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, on ensuring that the 

food supply is safe, sanitary, wholesome, and honestly labeled. 

N The Center for Veterinary Medicine, on drug residue tolerances. 

N The Office of Regulatory Affairs, FDA’s inspection and regulatory 

laboratory field force, to coordinate oversight, recalls, and other 

enforcement activities in dual jurisdiction facilities. 

8 This focus directly supports USDA Strategic Plan FY2014-2018, Goal 4, Objective 4.3, p.29. 

9 See CFSAN. FDA, through CFSAN, regulates foods other than the meat, poultry, and egg products 

that FSIS regulates. 

7 
N The Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), on gathering data on foodborne illnesses, 

investigating foodborne illnesses and outbreaks, and monitoring the 

effectiveness of prevention and control efforts in reducing foodborne 

illnesses. CDC also plays a key role in building State and local health 

department epidemiology, laboratory, and environmental health capacity 

to support foodborne disease surveillance and outbreak response. 

N The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), on ensuring that 

FSIS is able to respond quickly and effectively to any attacks on the food 

supply, to major disease outbreaks, or to other disasters affecting the 

national food infrastructure. For example, FSIS collaborates with Customs 

and Border Protection to identify, target, and stop high-risk, ineligible, and 

potentially ineligible shipments of food products closer to, if not prior to, 

the time of entry into the United States. 

N The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), primarily on reducing 

risks posed by pesticides through the National Residue Program, and on 

decontamination of facilities and products. 

FSIS’ collaborative efforts with its Federal partners continue to include 

data collection and analytics to facilitate risk-based targeting of FSIS 

inspection, laboratory, and policy development resources, and activities that 

focus on better and more harmonized attribution of foodborne illnesses to 

specific foods. They also include enhanced information sharing to facilitate 

transparency to the public, and improved policies, procedures and actions 

through joint development with partners, where practical. 

Our collaborative efforts extend beyond Federal agencies, and aim to reduce 

organizational barriers to cooperation among a growing range of domestic 

and international public- and private-sector organizations. To improve food 

safety outcomes in a manner that would be impossible to achieve alone, 

FSIS also partners with State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, 

including through Food and Agriculture Government and Sector Coordinating 

Councils. Specifically, FSIS, together with its public health partners at these 

levels, works quickly to limit outbreaks and accurately identify products 

that may cause illness. For example, FSIS will continue to partner with local 

governments on trace back/trace forward efforts, and will similarly work 

to increase information sharing across public sector partners, food safety 

organizations, and industry. Internationally, FSIS leads the interagency 

partnership known as the U.S. Codex Office,10 which engages a variety of 

stakeholders in the development and advancement of science-based food 

standards for the benefit of the United States and the worldwide community. 

10 Codex Alimentarius (Codex) is a joint program of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the 

World Health Organization, with more than 180 country members and observer organizations. The United States 

is a founding member of Codex and currently hosts three committees. The interagency Codex program involves 

many key regulatory and trade agencies, including the FDA, CDC, AMS, FAS, EPA, the Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative, the U.S. Department of State, and others. 

8 FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

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. FSIS has 

assessed, and will continue to assess, its progress in reducing contamination 

of, and illnesses associated with, FSIS-regulated products. Below, we briefly 

describe the indicators of public health progress using product contamination 

rates and estimates of FSIS-attributable illnesses. 

FSIS Microbiological Contamination Rates 

One set of indicators FSIS will use to assess the agency’s progress in 

reducing food-related illnesses are the results from its microbiological 

sampling programs, which measure the rate of microbial contamination of 

FSIS-regulated products. A reduction in the microbiological contamination 

rate should lead to a decrease in illnesses by reducing consumers’ exposure 

to foodborne pathogens. FSIS designed its sampling programs to provide 

estimates of the prevalence of specific pathogens in a given FSIS-regulated 

product, and can thus be used to indicate public health progress. 

These contamination rates rely solely on testing data from FSIS-regulated 

establishments, and therefore avoid some of the uncertainties inherent 

when estimating the contribution of FSIS-regulated foods to illnesses using 

other measures. Contamination rates do not, however, provide a direct 

estimate of the foodborne illnesses in the population, and only reflect FSIS’ 

influence on a limited number of product–pathogen pairs for which FSIS can 

estimate prevalence. 

Public Health Indicators 

Microbiological Contamination Rates 


1) Prevalence rate of E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef and E. coli and 


non-O157 STEC for specific components 


2)	 Prevalence rate of Salmonella in specific raw chicken, turkey, and 


ground beef products 


3)	 Prevalence rate of Campylobacter in certain subsets of raw chicken 


and turkey products 


4)	 Volume-weighted percent positive of Lm and Salmonella in 


RTE products 


All Illness 

5)	 # of Salmonella illnesses from FSIS-regulated products

6)	 # of Campylobacter illnesses from FSIS-regulated products

7)	 # of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses from FSIS-regulated products

8)	 # of non-O157 STEC illnesses from FSIS-regulated products

9)	 # of Lm illnesses from FSIS-regulated products

9 
FSIS Illness Estimates 

FY 2011-FY 2016 All-Illness Measure 

FSIS has used an “All-Illness” measure to monitor, report on, and evaluate 

its progress in reducing illnesses attributable to FSIS-regulated products 

since 2010. This measure estimated and tracked the change in the combined 

number of Salmonella, Lm, and E. coli O157:H7 illnesses associated with 

FSIS-regulated products, with targets based on ambitious Healthy People 

2020 illness reduction goals.11 The measure provided an indication of public 

health progress using human illness data and reflected the contribution 

of FSIS activities outside of FSIS-regulated establishments to reducing 

and preventing illnesses—such as the agency’s in-commerce, import, 

recall, outbreak investigation, and consumer outreach activities. However, 

the measure was subject to large amount of inherent uncertainty12 and 

year-to-year variability. 

11 See Healthy People 2020. In the past, FSIS tied illness reduction goals to pathogen-specific Healthy People 2020 

illness reduction goals. FSIS calculated the measure using pathogen-specific case rates from CDC’s Foodborne 

Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) program; a 3-year window of CDC Foodborne Outbreak 

Surveillance System (FDOSS) data to estimate the fraction of outbreak illnesses that are attributable 

to FSIS-regulated products; the 2009 U.S. Census population estimate; and a published scaling factor 

(Scallan et al., 2011). 

12 Uncertainties stem from the following: 1) issues with the completeness and generalizability of outbreak data, 

and the attribution estimates derived from these data; 2) a lag in availability of outbreak data, preventing 

near-term progress monitoring and assessment; and 3) the influence of factors beyond FSIS’ control—such as 

outbreaks not associated with FSIS-regulated products—on the number and fraction of illnesses attributed 

to FSIS-regulated products. 

10 FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

FY 2017-FY 2021 Illness Estimates 

To address some of the limitations of the 2011-2016 All-Illness measure while 

retaining the strengths of using an indicator based on actual illnesses in the 

U.S. population, FSIS updated its method for estimating illnesses attributed 

to FSIS-regulated products. FSIS has done so primarily by incorporating 

an improved attribution methodology from the Interagency Food Safety 

Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC)13 to make the indicator less sensitive to 

year-to-year fluctuations. In addition, rather than presenting one combined 

illness estimate, FSIS will develop and review separate illness estimates for 

Salmonella, Lm, E. coli O157:H7, non-O157 STEC, and Campylobacter. These 

updates will provide greater transparency and understanding regarding the 

pathogen(s) causing the majority of estimated illnesses, facilitating a more 

detailed assessment of agency progress. To further improve transparency 

and provide a more complete picture of the trends related to U.S. illnesses, 

FSIS will also present and review the most current CDC FoodNet case rate 

data. Because the case rates are available in a timelier manner than the data 

needed to estimate illnesses from outbreaks, this should provide a more 

current view of illness trends. 

As a food safety public health agency, FSIS needs to evaluate its progress 

in decreasing the number of foodborne illnesses. By developing, presenting, 

and monitoring complementary indicators—contamination rates seen in 

FSIS sampling programs, illness estimates from FSIS-regulated products for 

specific pathogens, and CDC FoodNet case rates—FSIS and other interested 

parties will be able to better recognize near-term and longer term public 

health progress, and better determine where to focus efforts to improve 

public health. 

13 See Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC). IFSAC was established in 2011 to improve 

coordination of Federal food safety analytics efforts and address crosscutting priorities, such as foodborne illness 

attribution, for food safety data collection, analysis, and use. 

11 
12 GOAL 1 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Goal 1: Prevent Foodborne Illness and 

Protect Public Health Goal 1 

Goal 1 directly represents FSIS’ public health regulatory 

mission to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg products 

are safe and to reduce preventable foodborne illness from 

FSIS-regulated foods. Thousands of FSIS inspectors across 

the United States are working to achieve this mission every 

day by carrying out tasks to verify industry compliance with 

applicable U.S. food safety regulatory requirements. The 

agency’s regulatory oversight and enforcement extends to 

both imported and domestically produced food products 

and assures consistent application of regulations and 

statutes. 

Outcome 1.1 

Prevent Contamination 

N Ensuring that imported 

FSIS-regulated food products 

produced under foreign 

inspection systems meet 

FSIS’ level of protection, 

as determined through our 

equivalence process, and 

facilitated through outreach and 

technical assistance activities. 

Expand sampling programs to 

address gaps in pathogen testing 

in FSIS-regulated products, which 

will serve to influence domestic 

establishments, and foreign 

establishments that export to the 

United States, to decrease the 

presence of hazards in food and 

further improve their food safety 

systems and programs. 

FSIS will strive to protect public 

health through reducing foodborne 

illness by preventing contamination 

in domestic and foreign produced 

FSIS-regulated food products as 

follows: 

N Drive compliance with food 

safety statutes and regulations by N

N Using Public Health Risk 

Evaluations (PHREs)14 and 

Food Safety Assessments 

(FSAs)15 to ensure that domestic 

establishments are implementing 

food safety programs and 

process controls that facilitate 

hazard identification and 

mitigate hazards. 

N Increase the number of 

establishments that are meeting 

pathogen reduction performance 

standards for all pathogens, 

including performance standards 

for Salmonella and Campylobacter 

in raw chicken parts and notready-to-eat (NRTE) comminuted 

chicken and turkey products 

through targeting inspections, 

PHREs, FSAs, and follow-up 

sampling to assess whether 

establishments’ process controls 

are working. 

N Promote food defense practices 

and promote preparedness 

through continued monitoring to 

assess whether establishments are 

implementing defense principles, 

concepts, and practices as part of 

their day-to-day activities. 

14 The PHRE is a new decisionmaking process that FSIS will use to determine whether an FSA needs to be scheduled. 

It is a distinct, separate activity from an FSA. See FSIS Directive 5100.4 Rev. 1. 

15 The purpose of an FSA is to assess and analyze an establishment’s food safety system to verify that the 

establishment is able to produce safe and wholesome meat or poultry products in accordance with FSIS statutory 

and regulatory requirements. See FSIS Directive 5100.1 Rev. 4. 
 

 

Objective 1.1.1 

Drive Compliance With Food Safety Regulations and Statutes 

Domestic Activities 

implementing and maintaining food safety and food defense practices— 

help increase overall industry compliance with regulations and statutes. An 

establishment’s specific compliance history provides a basic understanding of 

how well it is maintaining process controls and implementing its food safety 

programs and highlights areas needing particular attention and improvement. 

Compliance history may also provide insight into an establishment’s 

corrective and preventive actions to enhance process controls and prevent 

adulterated or mislabeled meat, poultry and processed egg products from 

entering commerce. 

MEASURE 1.1.1.1: % of establishments scheduled for a 

Public Health Risk Evaluation (PHRE) due to public 

health determinants 

The agency conducts PHREs and FSAs to ensure that regulated 

establishments have developed and implemented food safety systems that 

prevent food safety hazards from occurring. The agency currently generates 

a monthly prioritized list of establishments to consider for potential “for 

cause” FSAs based on public health risk determinants or triggers. PHREs and 

FSAs often result in improvements to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 

Point (HACCP) system design and process controls and/or reduction in n 

oncompliance, thus helping to reduce hazards present in food.16 

FSIS will continue to perform activities and take steps to reduce 

non-compliance related to these public health risk determinants that result 

in recommendations of “for cause” FSAs.17 By assessing establishments’ food 

safety systems and using tools such as alerts to identify patterns or trends, 

FSIS can drive improvements in industry compliance. FSIS will continue to 

obtain input from industry, consumer groups, and independent external peer 

reviewers to move forward with strategies that encourage establishments 

to adopt the measures necessary to avoid, for example, repeat enforcement 

actions resulting from violations of public health regulations. Continued 

innovations and improvements in food production require that FSIS increase 

its agility in ensuring compliance. FSIS will also continue to enhance and 

utilize science-based tools and approaches and provide inspection personnel 

with real time inspection data to increase industry compliance with food 

safety regulations and statutes. (See also 2.1, 2.2.) 

16 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) is a process control system designed to identify and prevent 

microbial and other hazards in food production. It includes steps to address food safety hazards that can be 

introduced in an establishment, and that occur before, during, and after entry in the establishment, and critical 

limits that must be met at each control point. It is designed to prevent problems before they occur and to correct 

deviations as soon as they are detected. 

17 A positive sample result prompts a “for cause” FSA. This includes production and shipment of adulterated product, 

or any other high priority food safety-related incident. See 9 CFR Part 417. 

GOAL 1 13 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 
14 GOAL 1 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

International Activities 

The agency anticipates continued growth in the number of foreign meat and 

poultry inspection programs seeking an equivalence determination from FSIS,18 

which is necessary to become eligible to export meat, poultry, or processed 

egg products to the United States. FSIS’ equivalence process ensures that 

imported FSIS-regulated food products produced under foreign inspection 

systems meet FSIS’ level of protection. More specifically, the FSIS process 

for determining equivalence, as well as for verifying ongoing equivalence, 

includes three important elements: document review, on-site audits, and once 

eligible, port-of-entry re-inspection. One component of the port-of-entry 

inspection process that ensures that FSIS assesses the public health impact 

of imported meat, poultry, and processed egg products is the collection 

and analysis of product samples in a manner that accounts for risk to public 

health and the impact on agency resources. 

To strengthen existing efforts in sampling and testing imported products, 

FSIS will deploy sample collection models that will best inform exposure 

of the public to food safety hazards from eligible countries and individual 

certified establishments in those countries.19 FSIS will also better align its 

domestic and international program sampling objectives. As part of this 

effort, FSIS will develop and make available a plan for stakeholder input 

that includes one or more pilot projects that test options for maximizing 

data retrieval within practical resource limits. Ultimately, FSIS will implement 

a more effective mechanism for testing imported product to ensure our 

equivalence process is aligned with domestic policy and protective of 

public health. 

MEASURE 1.1.1.2: % of country/product combinations 

from equivalent countries that FSIS tests for 

biological and chemical hazards 

In addition, through educational seminars, various technical assistance 

exchange programs, meetings with FSIS officials and USDA-sponsored 

visits to U.S. laboratories and regulated establishments, FSIS is working with 

foreign regulatory counterparts to share information about FSIS regulatory 

requirements, and about how the agency uses the latest technology to ensure 

protective public health standards for food safety. A better understanding 

of the U.S. science-based regulatory system, and hands-on demonstrations 

of our inspection programs, will expand FSIS’ international influence and 

encourage adoption of equivalent national inspection programs throughout 

the world. In the next few years, FSIS intends to reach out to international 

regulatory counterparts who are currently implementing or working to 

modernize existing food safety inspection programs to inform them of our 

best practices and technological advances and work with them to improve 

food safety standards and vital health protections worldwide. 

MEASURE 1.1.1.3: % increase in participation in 

FSIS outreach activities by foreign governments 

and officials 

18 Equivalence is the acceptance of alternative measures that meet an importing Member’s appropriate level of 

sanitary or phytosanitary protection,” not duplication or “sameness” of measures. World Trade Organization. 

19 See also Objective 1.1.2. 
GOAL 1 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

FSIS will also continue its important work as the home of the U.S. Codex 

Office, promoting the development of science-based international food 

standards that protect the health of consumers, ensure fair practices in the 

food trade, and promote standards harmonization. Codex outreach work also 

encourages the adoption of science-based standards and decisionmaking 

processes by foreign governments to promote food safety. 

Objective 1.1.2 

Strengthen Sampling Programs 

FSIS uses sampling program results as further verification of establishments’ 

food safety programs and process controls, and as a measurement of the 

effectiveness FSIS regulations, policies, and procedures. 

FSIS is expanding the breadth, depth, and frequency of its sampling to 

better address gaps in testing for pathogens and chemical residues in 

FSIS-regulated products.20 Approaches include unifying testing so that FSIS 

only collects one sample for each product and tests it for multiple microbiological hazards or chemical residues, and leveraging new technology to 

increase precision, gain efficiencies, and better identify and define hazards 

and problems. FSIS will use both routine and non-routine sampling to 

influence the behavior of establishments to decrease the presence of hazards 

in food, and will continue to use sampling data to make determinations on 

tightening or expanding current pathogen reduction performance standards. 

MEASURE 1.1.2.1: % of products from establishments 

that FSIS samples 

Although a number of FSIS sampling programs include collecting samples 

of a variety of product types and testing these samples for multiple microbiological hazards and chemical residues, there are some combinations of 

establishments, hazards, and products that the agency does not currently 

sample or test. For example, FSIS maintains a number of exclusions or 

exceptions in a variety of sampling programs for different regulatory and 

policy reasons. FSIS will continue to use a risk-based approach in closing 

these exceptions, to the extent practicable. In addition to increasing the 

percentage of different products FSIS tests, FSIS will also increase the 

percentage of establishments at which it collects samples to close identified 

sampling gaps, reduce exceptions to what it samples and tests, and gather 

knowledge on the relative risk of contamination of regulated products. 

This approach will allow for improved allocation of resources while closing 

sampling gaps and will maximize the public health benefit through prioritizing 

testing by degree of hazard. 

20 See also Objective 1.1.1, and FSIS Data: Analysis and Reporting sampling program links for more information. 

15 
GOAL 1 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Objective 1.1.3 

Ensure Establishments Are Meeting Pathogen Reduction 

Performance Standards 

Salmonella and Campylobacter bacteria are among the most frequent causes 

of human foodborne illness attributed to meat, poultry, and egg products in 

the United States. Current commercial production and slaughter practices the 

U.S. industry employs do not fully eliminate the pathogens; however, industry 

can minimize Salmonella and Campylobacter contamination by employing 

proper sanitary dressing procedures and applying interventions during 

slaughter and the fabrication of the carcasses into parts and comminuted 

product. FSIS uses pathogen reduction performance standards21 to assess the 

food safety performance of establishments that prepare meat and poultry 

products. FSIS implemented the current Salmonella and Campylobacter 

performance standards for raw chicken and turkey carcasses in 2011, and in 

2016 began the implementation of new pathogen reduction performance 

standards for those pathogens in raw chicken parts and NRTE comminuted 

chicken and turkey products. FSIS designed these new performance 

standards to achieve at least a 30-percent reduction in illnesses from 

Salmonella, and a 33-percent reduction in illnesses from Campylobacter for 

raw chicken parts and comminuted chicken and turkey products in line with 

the reduction goals in Healthy People 2020.22 

MEASURE 1.1.3.1: % of establishments that meet 

pathogen reduction performance standards 

FSIS anticipates that establishing the standards, tracking, and posting how 

each establishment is performing relative to the standards, and targeting 

inspection activities—PHREs, FSAs, and follow-up sampling to assess whether 

an establishment maintains sufficient process control—is expected to reduce 

the occurrence of pathogens in/on poultry products to meet the standards. 

Tracking the percentage of industry meeting the performance standards 

provides a measure of product contamination and an indication of public 

health improvement. 

To drive continual improvements moving forward, FSIS will also assess the 

available data annually and consider developing more stringent pathogen 

performance standards. In addition, FSIS will continue to collect sampling 

data to develop raw pork standards and will continue to explore possible 

standards and guidance for other chicken parts (e.g. giblets, necks, and half 

and quarter carcasses), ground beef, and other beef products to further 

reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter illnesses. 

21 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. 

22 These standards are aligned to meet Healthy People 2020 goals to reduce Salmonella by about 25 percent and 

Campylobacter by about 33 percent by year 2020. 

16 
GOAL 1 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Objective 1.1.4 

Promote Food Defense Practices 

FSIS will remain vigilant and will sustain progress made to date in the 

area of food defense and preparedness to respond to acts of intentional 

contamination of food. The evolving threat landscape and emerging risks— 

including natural disasters, extreme weather events, disease pandemics, 

manmade hazards, terrorist attacks, and cyberattacks—demand that the 

agency continue to build on significant progress made in increasing its 

capability and capacity to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and 

recover from all hazards. 

MEASURE 1.1.4.1: % of establishments that maintain 

food defense practices 

Through collaboration with industry to date, FSIS successfully promoted 

voluntary adoption of food defense plans by at least 85 percent of regulated 

establishments, an increase of 51 percent since the start of the effort in 2006. 

FSIS will continue to promote voluntary adoption of food defense practices 

by monitoring that establishments have adopted plans and by ensuring 

the agency increasingly integrates food defense principles, concepts, and 

practices into daily activities. 

FSIS will expand on its existing strategies to encourage establishments 

to integrate food defense practices into their day-to-day operations. FSIS 

intends to leverage data collected through monitoring and surveillance, 

significant incident reporting, and strategic partnerships to prioritize food 

defense- and preparedness-related outreach to and collaboration with 

industry and agency personnel. For example, FSIS will use routine analysis 

of data from its incident management system to identify emerging trends 

and to prioritize its preparedness efforts. In addition, the agency will seek to 

integrate and align its food defense-specific policy directives with those for 

inspection of slaughter and processing activities and products; compliance 

evaluation and enforcement; exports and imports; laboratory services; and 

facilities, equipment, and sanitation. The intent of these activities is to have 

a positive effect on inspection personnel and industry in terms of both 

utilization of resources and comprehensiveness of protective measures. FSIS 

will also continue to utilize PHIS and other tools to assess the percentage of 

FSIS-regulated establishments that maintain food defense practices. 

Relatedly, FSIS will continue to promote preparedness of agency and industry 

personnel to drive toward enhanced capabilities and capacities to respond to 

and recover from threats and hazards of greatest risk. Preparedness activities 

will include conducting a larger number of exercises across the country to 

validate response and recovery plans and to minimize negative public health 

and economic impacts. 

Outcome 1.2 

Limit Illness From Regulated Products 

In addition to the daily work of food safety inspectors, FSIS conducts 

extensive investigation and compliance activities at in-commerce facilities, 

such as warehouses, distributors, food transporters, and retail delicatessens. 

When illnesses associated with FSIS-regulated products do occur, the agency 

investigates them to limit the impact of any outbreaks on the population. 

In doing so, FSIS will continue to rely on and improve its partnerships and 

communication with Federal, State, local, and industry partners to quickly 

17 
and accurately identify the contaminated products, the source establishment 

from which the product was made, and if possible, the cause of the outbreak 

so the public health hazard can be eliminated. FSIS further engages in public 

education and outreach to increase safe food handling practices, providing 

information through a broad range of communications channels to educate 

consumers on safe food handling practices, improve overall public awareness, 

and share best practices with industry. 

Objective 1.2.1 

Improve Food Safety at In-Commerce Facilities 

Without careful handling and regulatory compliance by our Nation’s food 

retail, warehouse, and other “in-commerce” facilities, safely processed 

products can be temperature-abused or mishandled in ways that cause them 

to become contaminated and/or adulterated on their way to the consumer. 

These facilities are more inherently risky due to the volume of the products 

handled by such establishments, and the hazards they present. With several 

hundred to thousands of in-commerce facilities that handle FSIS-regulated 

products in every State, FSIS, with State and local regulatory agencies, 

must strategically utilize regulatory resources to maximize coverage and 

efficiencies to ensure that food remains safe as it moves through the supply 

chain from production to actual consumption. FSIS plans to improve food 

safety by targeting a larger number of higher risk in-commerce facilities for 

surveillance and follow-up investigations to reduce the rate of food safety 

violations. 

MEASURE 1.2.1.1: % of in-commerce facilities that are 

following FSIS Deli Lm guidelines 

The approach that FSIS will deploy will include, in part, additional emphasis 

on retail locations that handle FSIS-regulated products, with a particular 

focus on Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) illnesses associated with deli products; 

Lm has a higher fatality rate than other foodborne pathogens,23 and deli 

products sliced at retail establishments are the source of many Lm illnesses. 

24 Safe food handling practices, thorough cleaning and sanitation procedures, 

maintenance of the facility and equipment, and good employee practices can 

decrease the likelihood of ready-to-eat (RTE) foods becoming contaminated 

in retail delis. FSIS will take steps to further educate the industry on its Lm 

compliance guidelines and associated best practices,25 and to assess progress, 

compliance investigators will conduct assessments of retail establishments 

that have delis to determine the extent of industry’s adherence to recommendations associated with Lm FSIS compliance guidelines. FSIS will also 

leverage recent interagency work with FDA and the CDC on an Lm risk 

assessment; continue analytic and data support of HHS’ agency priority 

goal to reduce Lm; and continue work with FDA, the CDC, and the National 

Institutes of Health on using genomic methods when Lm outbreaks do occur 

to determine their source. 

23 Scallan, E., Hoekstra, R.M., Angulo, F.J., Tauxe, R. V., Widdowson, M.A., Roy, S.L., Jones, J.L., and P.M. Griffin. (2011) 

Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens. Emerging Infectious Diseases 17(1), 7-15. 

24 The FSIS Comparative Risk Assessment for Lm in Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Deli Meats (May 2010) estimated 

that of listeriosis illnesses attributed to deli meat, 83 percent are associated with deli meat sliced and packaged at 

retail Endrikat, S., Gallagher, D., Pouillot, R., Hicks Quesenberry, H., LaBarre, D., Schroeder, C.M., and J. Kause. (2010) 

A comparative risk assessment for Listeria monocytogenes in prepackaged versus retail-sliced deli meat. Journal of 

Food Protection 73(4), 612-619. 

25 See FSIS Best Practices Guidance for Controlling Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) in Retail Delicatessens, June 2015. 

GOAL 1 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

18 
GOAL 1 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

More broadly, FSIS will enhance its outreach and training through building on 

established partnerships and initiating new relationships with national and 

regional associations representing city, county, and State health agencies, 

food marketers, grocery stores, delis, and restaurants. Outreach activities will 

include, in part, participation in relevant annual conferences and trade shows 

attended by State and local government employees and industry where 

agency staff will provide updates on FSIS rules, regulations, and guidance 

affecting in-commerce facilities. 

Objective 1.2.2 

Enhance Response to Foodborne Illness Outbreaks and 

Adulteration Events 

FSIS works in collaboration with public health partners, including CDC, 

FDA, State-level departments of health and agriculture, and local health 

departments to quickly and accurately respond to reports of foodborne 

illness. Initial action steps require gathering information needed from case 

patients about food history and conducting laboratory diagnostics on 

human and food isolates. This information is essential to ultimately identify 

adulterated products and to ensure effective implementation of process 

controls, while addressing underlying issues that caused the adulteration. 

The agency will also utilize advances in technology to better understand and 

respond to foodborne hazards. 

MEASURE 1.2.2.1: Number of State and local 

partners who, because of FSIS outreach efforts, 

provide information that improves identification of 

contaminated product 

FSIS will enhance information sharing as well—in terms of timeliness and 

quality, and between partners—to improve the effectiveness of foodborne 

illness investigation and to reduce the potential for consumer exposure 

to adulterated products. By leveraging new technologies and improving 

communication and collaboration with public health partners, FSIS will 

enhance its capacity to take prompt, effective action toward protecting the 

public from contaminated products in commerce. Specific actions include the 

following: 

N Develop and implement a coordinated plan each fiscal year to ensure 

there is an established process among partners to conduct outreach 

activities and effectively collaborate during outbreaks. 

N Create and update Web pages to share foodborne illness resources with 

partners, including FSIS points of contact, FSIS investigation procedures, 

and information needed from partners that is useful to FSIS during 

investigations. 

N Ensure that all State and local partners have the contact information 


needed to report illness/outbreak information required for FSIS to 


effectively initiate investigative activities.
 

N Share appropriate investigative information and lessons learned with 

partners to strengthen relationships and improve public health response. 

N Conduct annual surveys of partners to assess trends and identify where 

improvements are needed to maintain successful partnerships for 

effective outbreak response. 

19 
20 GOAL 1 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

N Improve access to shopper card data for investigational use by engaging 

in partner workgroups. 

N Maintain open communication with public health partners, using 

electronic mail, webinars, and by participating in conferences, events, and 

meetings. 

N Continue to strengthen relationships across FSIS program areas to 

optimize responsiveness during investigations and maximize the use of 

surveillance data. 

N Modernize data systems supporting surveillance and investigation to 

ensure the systems are inter-operable, to enhance analytic capabilities for 

detection of associations, trends, and emerging risks. 

N Increase use of new technologies, such as whole genome sequencing, to 

supplement information obtained during an investigation and to improve 

the effectiveness of responses to outbreaks. 

Objective 1.2.3 

Increase Public Awareness of Recalls, Foodborne Illness, and Safe 

Food Handling Practices 

FSIS’ outreach and educational activities that extend beyond the 

establishments it regulates to the public can also help prevent or reduce 

foodborne illness. Strategic communications with the public about FSIS 

actions, including current recalls and dissemination of information that 

encourages safe food handling practices through a broad range of channels 

can help reduce illness from contaminated products that reach the consumer. 

The agency will continue to extend and expand its food safety message of 

“Clean, Separate, Cook, and Chill” through using public service advertising, 

media outreach, events, partnerships development, and campaigns 

incorporating social media channels, and through tailoring messages during 

holidays, seasons, and other events. 

MEASURE 1.2.3.1a-b: % increase in public awareness 

of safe food handling guidance and recalls through 

communications channels 

FSIS will continue its strategic communications and outreach efforts using 

an approach that focuses on adopting more proactive strategies in addition 

to using traditional media, advertising, events, and social media outreach. 

The agency also plans to broaden its engagement with key stakeholders to 

educate the public, including through new digital media outreach tools. 

For example, FSIS will: 

N Explore innovative information delivery by incorporating recall and safe 

food handling guidance into mobile applications 

N Expand on current initiatives to promote safe food handling behaviors in 

the media through interviews and proactive outreach to journalists 
GOAL 1 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

  

N Leverage existing partnerships and develop new ones to give others 

working in public health the tools necessary to promote our safe food 

handling guidance. 

In a limited fashion, FSIS also will conduct research on consumer adoption 

of safe food handling practices to inform the agency about meaningful ways 

to explain food safety risks to consumers. FSIS will use data sources that 

regularly track media coverage and communications channels to gauge 

success, as well as explore new ways to assess effectiveness of messaging, 

including with Federal, academic, and other food safety partners. 

MEASURE 1.2.3.2: % increase of consumers 

identified who follow safe food handling behaviors 

21 
22 GOAL 2 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Goal 2: Modernize Inspection Systems, Policies, 

and the Use of Scientific Approaches Goal 2 

This Goal focuses on modernizing inspection techniques, 

methods, and practices. The food industry has seen 

innovative enhancements in food production, changes 

in manufacturing practices, expanding product lines, 

and far-reaching distribution chains—and FSIS continues 

to adapt to these and other changes. In addition, the 

American people have increasing expectations from FSIS 

that animals are treated humanely in food production 

processes. 

Science-based approaches have provided additional 

insights into the ever-changing and adaptive nature of 

the foodborne pathogens associated with FSIS-regulated 

products. To protect public health, FSIS continues to 

explore new techniques for detecting, tracking, and 

characterizing these pathogens. At the same time, new 

information technologies are allowing organizations like 

FSIS to collect, integrate, distribute, and analyze large 

amounts of information and data to guide inspection 

activities. FSIS is using this information to guide and 

distribute future inspection and surveillance resources 

across the regulated industry. FSIS plans to take full 

advantage of this convergence of science, data, information 

flow, supportive technology, and information processes 

to protect public health and ensure the humane handling 

of livestock. 

Outcome 2.1: 

Improve Food Safety and Humane 

Handling Practices Through 

Adoption of Innovative Approaches 

The variety of potential food-related 

hazards, the science associated 

with these hazards, and the number 

of industry players continue to 

evolve and grow. FSIS continues 

to improve its understanding of 

the introduction and presence of 

microbial and chemical hazards on 

regulated products from slaughter 

through processing in order to 

reduce these hazards. Laboratory 

technological advancements, 

including rapid microbial diagnostics, 

in-field screening, and whole genome 

sequencing (WGS), offer FSIS and 

its partners opportunities to detect, 

characterize, and track individual 

food safety hazards along the farm 

to fork continuum, and to use the 

information gained from these 

new techniques to modernize 

inspection approaches. 

FSIS has identified new scientific 

techniques that it will evaluate and 

adopt, as appropriate, to meet the 

agency’s goal of enhanced public 

health protection that should 

positively affect work flow and 

decisionmaking. FSIS will consider the 

costs, ease of use, and training needs 

associated with these innovations 

in this evaluation. FSIS will analyze 

the food safety data that these 

techniques provide in more innovative 

ways to determine associations and 

trends. FSIS will use this analysis to 

influence how inspectors plan their 

work at individual establishments. 

Combining these approaches will 

assist FSIS in improving policies 

and procedures. 
 

 

Objective 2.1.1 

Modernize Scientific Techniques and Inspection Procedures 

FSIS will continue to focus on how to best use and adapt innovative scientific 

techniques, modernize and enhance inspection practices and methods, and 

deliver tailored data and information to facilitate food safety decisionmaking. 

Doing so will provide our inspectors, regulatory partners, and the public with 

information to reduce food contamination and foodborne illness outbreaks. 

Key areas of focus are as follows: 

Rapid in-field screening is one of several inspection activities on which 

FSIS relies. For hazards such as chemical residues, FSIS conducts 

in-field screens and sends screen-positive samples to its laboratories for 

confirmation to expedite compliance decisionmaking. FSIS aims to apply 

the same approach to microbial hazards by leveraging new scientific 

techniques and exploring advancements to its current inspection strategy. 

For on-site microbiological hazard detection at individual establishments, 

FSIS will develop a new real-time analytical tool for use by FSIS inspection 

personnel. This new in-field screening tool will provide inspection 

personnel with more timely information to make regulatory decisions on 

such areas as the adequacy of sanitary operations at establishments and 

to identify potential pathogen contamination of regulated products. 

MEASURE 2.1.1.1: % of all isolates that FSIS sampling 

generates that are subject to WGS 

Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) characterizes bacterial genomes 

with greater precision and granularity than previous methods. Application 

of WGS by FSIS will aid in accurately identifying and expeditiously 

the environmental harborage and movement of pathogens in regulated 

establishments. Additionally, WGS will facilitate an in-depth understanding 

of harmful traits, such as bacterial virulence and antimicrobial resistance, 

and further aid in making inspection decisions as well as future policy 

development. FSIS has started building WGS capacity and intends to have 

WGS fully implemented into its sampling programs—to generate real-time 

analysis to inform FSIS’ food safety and public health regulatory decisions. 

Specifically, FSIS will use WGS analytics to help develop individualized 

inspection strategies for certain food pathogens and to inform the 

need for establishments to enhance sanitary practices and programs. 

FSIS will share what it learns about the harmful traits of pathogens with 

collaborating partners to track and potentially prevent these pathogens 

from adulterating food throughout the farm to fork continuum. This 

approach will specifically provide a more in-depth understanding of 

antimicrobial resistance in bacteria and further help FSIS, APHIS, CDC, 

population and animal agriculture.26 

26 FSIS also collaborates with ARS, CDC, and FDA under the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System for 

Enteric Bacteria (NARMS). Specific steps FSIS will take include continuing to provide data from pathogen sampling 

it conducts to Federal partners; participating in pilot studies, including through partner collaborations; and initially 

identifying the appropriate technologies or tools to better understand the movement of antimicrobial resistance 

along the farm to fork continuum. 

GOAL 2 23 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 
24 GOAL 2 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

N Establishment-Specific Inspection: Since its implementation in 2012, 

FSIS has used PHIS to assimilate high-quality data collected from 

establishments by inspectors and through other inspection-related data. 

FSIS has used these data to develop new broad-based policies and more 

informed sampling plan designs and inspection task procedures for 

inspectors in meat, poultry, and egg products establishments across the 

country. FSIS will better leverage PHIS data, combined with data from use 

of aforementioned new scientific techniques, to facilitate risk-informed 

inspection task scheduling across individual establishments. For example, 

FSIS will use PHIS data to enhance our analysis capabilities to generate 

Early Warning Alerts27 for inspectors at the individual establishment level 

and to deliver data to inspectors in a way that will allow them to use it 

to plan their day-to-day activities—with a focus on addressing specific 

emerging food safety concerns at establishments within their purview. 

This significant focus on providing data gathered through new analytical 

techniques at the first sign of an emerging concern or non-compliance 

trend can lead to establishments making necessary corrective actions 

sooner, and can have the benefit of reducing repetitive non-compliance 

over time. 

MEASURE 2.1.1.2: % of establishments whose 

non-compliance rate decreases 120 days after 

receiving an Early Warning Alert 

To better equip inspectors to input data into PHIS, FSIS will pilot and institute 

the use of modern tools, e.g. handheld devices for inspection verification, to 

enhance the type of, efficiency, and timeliness of data entered into PHIS for 

further analysis. FSIS will focus inspection modernization on inspector training 

and development-focused activities, such as enhancing its classroom and 

on-the-job training courses and other learning activities, and on improving 

guidance provided to inspectors that is necessary to perform their jobs. 

Objective 2.1.2 

Increase Adoption of Humane Handling Best Practices 

The Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) requires all livestock to be 

slaughtered using humane methods. FSIS requires official livestock slaughter 

establishments to produce a product safe for human consumption and ensure 

humane treatment throughout the process leading up to slaughter. 

A major reason for FSIS humane handling enforcement actions is the 

ineffective restraint and/or stunning of livestock. Establishments often employ 

a “one size fits all” approach to stunning and restraint, even though the 

establishment may be slaughtering several amenable species of varying sizes. 

As a result, stunning and restraint are areas that need increased attention, 

including education, outreach, and continued enforcement where warranted, 

to ensure industry complies with these important requirements in all livestock 

slaughter situations. 

27 FSIS uses decision criteria that include factors such as pathogen testing results, recalls, outbreaks, regulatory 

findings, and inspection results to prioritize its FSAs. Public Health Regulations (PHRs), formerly referred to as 

“W3NRs,” are a subset of regulations associated with higher noncompliance rates in establishments in the 3 months 

before a pathogen-positive (Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Non-O157 STEC, Lm, or Campylobacter) or enforcement 

actions, than in establishments without pathogen-positives or enforcement actions. Using PHIS data, FSIS uses the 

results of inspection tasks to calculate a PHR non-compliance rate for each regulated establishment. A PHR Early 

Warning Alert is issued when an establishment has a non-compliance rate that is elevated and is at or exceeds the 

FSIS Noncompliance Cut Point for Early Warning. 
 

 

MEASURE 2.1.2.1: % of slaughter establishments that 

are compliant with all livestock restraint and/or 

stunning requirements 

FSIS plans to develop and implement an education and outreach campaign, 

targeting small and very small establishments, to ensure more consistent 

application of humane handling best practices and compliance with humane 

handling regulatory requirements. FSIS will track progress by measuring the 

increase in the percentage of establishments that are compliant with livestock 

restraint and/or stunning requirements and implement enforcement actions 

as necessary to improve how animals are treated. 

District Veterinary Medical Specialists (DVMS) will deliver educational 

materials and guidance during their routine assessment visits, focusing on 

stunning. The DVMS can work individually with establishments, for example, 

to stress the importance of a well-planned and implemented systematic 

100 percent of the time. FSIS may develop this campaign in partnership with 

has elapsed to allow industry to incorporate recommendations, FSIS will then 

consider whether to intensify regulatory actions taken when repeat humane 

restraint incidents occur at specific establishments. FSIS will support these 

regulatory actions with increased analysis of enforcement actions taken, 

monitoring of corrective action plans put in place, and other activities. 

By working one-on-one with establishments on the areas of restraint and 

stunning, and in proactively partnering with industry to communicate 

appropriate techniques by industry to ensure that restraint and stunning 

practices, in establishments of all types and sizes, meet the intent of the law. 

Outcome 2.2 

Enhance Access to Complete and Accurate Information to Inform Decisions 

Over the past decade, FSIS has increasingly relied on science, data, and risk 

analysis to develop well-supported and implementable regulations, policies, 

and procedures. The agency has been able to do so by increasing the amount 

of data it collects and analyzes and developing new reporting and analytical 

tools for data. The agency needs to continue to increase and improve data 

and information flow and associated tools, to ensure information is available 

and accessible to the inspector for daily decisionmaking, and to management 

and senior leadership to assess agency performance. As the volume and 

quality of data available to analysts increases, FSIS will use advanced 

analytics and tools to provide more targeted, real-time information for use in 

both operational and policymaking activities, and will enhance mechanisms 

to make these more available to both internal and external audiences, as 

appropriate, in a manner that is easier to access and understand. 

GOAL 2 25 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 
26 GOAL 2 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Objective 2.2.1 

Improve the Reliability, Access, and Timely Collection and 

Distribution of Information 

FSIS intends to foster enhanced communication of key information and 

analysis among FSIS employees, and with external stakeholders. These 

activities underscore the importance of effective and efficient information 

flow throughout the agency and with stakeholders to harness data for 

day-to-day work and to answer important questions about programs, policies, 

and intended outcomes. 

During this strategic planning cycle, FSIS will increasingly identify and deploy 

more effective, timely approaches and tools that provide data and actionable 

information to FSIS employees. Having data available in readily usable 

formats will help reduce the amount of time needed to make regulatory 

enforcement determinations and to use data to inform the development of 

policies that improve the agency’s ability to protect public health. 

MEASURE 2.2.1.1: % of analysts able to access, 

analyze, and visualize FSIS data 

FSIS will also place particular emphasis on leveraging and enhancing PHIS, 

as well as increasing both the scope and quality of FSIS connectivity— 

including expanding the availability of handheld devices to support the 

needs of the agency’s field workforce. These actions will allow inspectors 

and field employees to more easily access specific, actionable, and available 

information—including enhanced and streamlined PHIS reports and alerts. 

Similarly, FSIS will improve its ability to analyze field data to generate more 

informed, individualized inspection task scheduling on a daily basis. 

MEASURE 2.2.1.2: % of employees with online access 

to FSIS-approved systems 

For regulatory decisionmaking, FSIS will conduct targeted pilots that involve 

presenting information in a variety of forms, including instructional media, 

videos, sketches, illustrations, graphics, and other visual tools, and soliciting 

input from our employees and regulatory and public partners to improve 

policy development and implementation outcomes. From these activities, 
 

GOAL 2 27 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

FSIS plans to better tailor agency communications on policy using strategies 

that work for different populations and will also aim to reduce any inconsistencies in policy understanding and applications, which can happen when 

FSIS uses less up-to-date or single-mode communication strategies. For 

example, whenever possible, FSIS will utilize communication technologies that 

aim to minimize long, text-only formats—to help improve understanding and 

application, and to assist in decisionmaking and behavior change central to 

successful food safety regulatory policy implementation. 

MEASURE 2.2.1.3: # of establishment-specific and 

other FSIS datasets made publicly available 

Beyond information and data sharing within the agency, FSIS will identify and 

employ effective mechanisms to make both data and analyses more available 

and accessible to external stakeholders by publishing establishment-specific and other datasets and providing timelier access to data, and clearer and 

more thorough technical documentation.28 These activities aim to improve 

FSIS personnel and stakeholder abilities to utilize FSIS data, gain a deeper 

understanding of changing trends in data, and increase the sharing of quality 

analyses that contribute to policy development. 

28 FSIS Establishment-Specific Data Release Strategic Plan. 
Goal 3: Achieve Operational Excellence
 Goal 3 

FSIS heavily relies on its workforce and support systems to 

achieve success and accomplish its food safety mission. To 

sustain success in continuing to recruit and retain a talented 

and motivated workforce, FSIS is committed to investing in 

its workforce at both the individual and organizational level, 

from recruitment through retirement. FSIS continues to 

focus on human capital planning objectives as a critical part 

of its long-term strategy to recruit and retain a high-caliber 

workforce, and the agency is better anticipating new 

information technology (IT) requirements that support the 

FSIS workforce. An increasingly vital part of our mission is 

to better equip our knowledgeable and capable employees 

with the data, information, and training they need to 

perform their jobs in an efficient and effective way, and in a 

manner that unites the workforce to fulfill its mission across 

the country. 

FSIS recognizes the need to deploy process and service 

enhancements to the workforce in a way that helps the 

agency work smarter in executing its food safety programs 

more effectively. In an increasingly competitive and 

changing landscape, FSIS will place particular emphasis on 

human resources, IT, and procurement to ensure processes 

are well understood and supportive of overall operational 

and mission success. Improving alignment within each 

of these systems can often drive a better return on FSIS 

investment, while ensuring sound personnel and resource 

management. The agency will take a more holistic 

approach to its service delivery, utilizing both standard and 

tailored approaches and metrics to improve overall quality 

customer and stakeholder satisfaction. 

Outcome 3.1 

Maintain a Well-Trained 

and Engaged Workforce 

Feedback from previous Federal 

Employee Viewpoint Surveys 

(FEVS)29 has shown that FSIS 

employees feel their work is 

meaningful and relates to FSIS goals, 

that they are dedicated to the FSIS 

mission, and that they are constantly 

looking for better ways to do their 

jobs. By investing in our workforce— 

at the beginning of careers 

through training and development 

opportunities, and in later career 

stages through maintaining, 

enhancing, and broadening key job 

skills and abilities—FSIS should be 

able to enhance job satisfaction, 

and keep employees engaged, 

contributing, and making a difference 

in the agency’s public health and food 

safety mission. FSIS will continue 

current initiatives that focus on 

workforce planning; on defining 

and closing competency gaps; and 

on expanding diversity to better 

reflect the civilian labor force; and 

meaningfully improve 

the organizational climate and 

employee engagement.

 29 For more information, see FEVS. 

28 	 GOAL 3 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 
 

 

Objective 3.1.1 

Improve Recruitment and Retention for Mission Critical Positions 

FSIS’ commitment to its mission of protecting public health is dependent 

upon attracting and retaining a qualified and competent workforce. More 

than 85 percent of FSIS’ employees, including all inspectors, are in mission 

critical occupations.30 In recruitment, FSIS plans to build on recent progress 

in addressing shortage categories by implementing an expanded set of 

recruitment, retention, and relocation incentives in certain occupations, and 

using multiple grade positions to establish career development opportunities 

throughout its organizational structure. 

FSIS Mission Critical Positions 

GS-1863 Food Inspectors 

GS-1862 Consumer Safety Inspectors 

GS-0701 Veterinarians 

GS-0696 

GS-1102 Contracting Specialists 

GS-0201 Human Resources Specialists 

GS-2210 Information Technology (IT) Management Specialists 

GS-0110 Economists 

GS-0511 Auditors 

FSIS is also taking several steps to improve employee retention in addition to 

addressing employee engagement and satisfaction. The agency is currently 

expanding its detail opportunities program, job shadowing, job swaps, and 

apprenticeship concepts. FSIS has also tracked several specific occupational 

series and while overall retention statistics are not outside of the government 

norm, certain positions are of concern; FSIS will pilot new and innovative 

initiatives in these areas. For example, public health veterinarians continue 

to be hard to recruit and retain in certain areas of the country, and these 

aforementioned initiatives may meet their needs. 

MEASURE 3.1.1.1: % mission critical positions filled 

MEASURE 3.1.1.2: % of employees who remain with 

FSIS for 2 years or more 

30 ­

ignated mission critical occupations include GS-1863; GS-1862; GS-701, and GS-696. OPM/Government-wide 

designated mission critical occupations include GS-0110, GS-0201, GS-0511, GS-1102, and GS-2210. 

GOAL 3 29 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 
30 	 GOAL 3 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

FSIS will also continue to place additional emphasis on hard-to-fill positions. 

Retention of food inspectors presents challenges in certain locations; some 

advance into consumer safety inspector positions, but because those 

positions require additional higher level education, FSIS aims to improve 

its efforts to better allow for career advancement.31 Human resources and 

information technology specialists also have higher-than-average attrition 

rates during the first 2 years of employment with FSIS, thus FSIS intends to 

identify and deploy specific strategies for recruitment and retention in these 

areas. For example, FSIS will fully participate in USDA’s IT Fellows program, 

partner on and pilot evolving training and certification programs, and better 

utilize other existing programs, internship and fellowship opportunities, and 

social media channels. For specific populations such as veterans 

new to Government, where the agency also sees a higher-than-average attrition rate, FSIS will collaborate with other agencies, such as the 

Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor, to establish programs 

to benefit veterans. 

Objective 3.1.2 

Enhance Training and Development Opportunities Across 

Competency Areas 

A highly skilled and diverse workforce is an organization’s most important 

asset. Without training and retaining the right people, in the right jobs, with 

the right skills, an organization cannot succeed. FSIS intends to maintain 

and enhance its already talented and skilled workforce by using several 

strategies focused on training the workforce of today and tomorrow. To this 

end, FSIS recently initiated a leadership assessment program and developed 

FSIS-specific technical and leadership competency models to serve as a 

springboard for enhanced training development. 

MEASURE 3.1.2.1: % increase in knowledge gained in 

key occupations within 180 days 

MEASURE 3.1.2.2: % of the workforce for which skill 

gaps have been assessed 

To date, FSIS has established formalized expectations and certifications, 

where appropriate, in mission critical occupations, either because of Government-wide or specific occupational requirements. FSIS will maintain these 

training expectations while expanding programming to additional critical and 

non-mission critical occupations, and by utilizing best practices and internal 

and Departmental resources to develop traditional and innovative training 

modules that equate to more formalized training certification programs. 

To measure progress, FSIS will implement approaches to assess knowledge 

gained from these efforts. 

31 See Objectives 2.1.2 and 3.1.2 for related strategies. 
GOAL 3 31

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

As FSIS continues its work on identifying key competency gaps, it will 

support a range of training and development activities, including formal 

programs, refresher trainings, developmental assignments and details, annual 

competencies and fill key gaps. This includes the following:

to improve leadership and management competencies in the areas of 

accountability, vision, problem-solving, and leveraging diversity.

animal pathology, regulation compliance, consumer safety knowledge, 

and critical thinking.

Provide opportunities through alternative delivery methods and 

approaches that are suitable to content and the audiences, such as 

through using Virtual Reality approaches and other new learning 

platforms that bring interactive elements to the classroom or workplace 

environment. 

FSIS will continue to analyze and use FEVS results and employee responses 

to training, to advance content development and training delivery, and 

to accompany course development and delivery enhancements with 

improvements in analyzing training results to better interpret and measure 

actual training outcomes. 

Objective 3.1.3 

Ensure Equal Opportunity and a Diverse and 

Inclusive Environment

FSIS recognizes that its ability to ensure food safety depends on its workforce 

environment—and places great emphasis on building and maintaining a safe 

and fair work environment that ensures equal employment opportunity, 

values diversity and inclusion, and engages its employees. FSIS will promote 

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), civil rights, and diversity by striving 

towards achieving Model EEO Program status.32 Key activities include the 

following: 

MEASURE 3.1.3.1: % Alternative Dispute Resolution 

acceptance rate for formal and informal EEO 

complaints 

MEASURE 3.1.3.2: % of employees completing 

mandatory training who satisfy EEO/CR 

competency requirements

Ensure agency leadership is committed to EEO and that it is integrated 

32 See Model EEO Programs.
 

 - 

of all EEO informal and formal complaints by continuing to properly 


resource its complaint management program. 


into the agency’s strategic mission and core values, including through 

annually issuing EEO and civil rights policy statements, and ensuring FSIS’ 

capital, and other key policy planning 

Continue to regularly review EEO programs and personnel policies 

and practices to ensure that FSIS complies with EEO laws and to 

identify potential barriers to equal employment, by conducting annual 

agency-wide barrier analyses and EEO compliance reviews of all program 

areas 

A key focus will be to encourage early resolution of EEO complaints through 

additional Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program marketing and by 

on EEO and civil rights and the benefits of diversity and inclusion, FSIS will 

also add to its existing training approach by assessing how employees have 

retained their learnings. 

MEASURE 3.1.3.3: % improvement on key employee 

engagement FEVS questions 

In addition to the above, FSIS will leverage and further implement strategies 

and activities that have been identified by cross-agency teams as well 

as management, and are aimed at increasing and enhancing employee 

engagement at all levels of the organization. To this end, FSIS will continue to 

utilize, communicate, and solicit feedback on annual FEVS results, and use an 

index of key questions from FEVS to measure progress. FSIS will also adopt 

relevant best practices to ensure meaningful leadership actions are taken on 

a regular basis, conduct additional analysis to pinpoint possible issues, and 

develop action plans each year that continue to push toward results that 

are more favorable. In addition, FSIS will continue to explore and implement 

activities that encourage an empowered and engaged culture, including 

through its “i-Impact FSIS” campaign, which aims to communicate each 

individual’s “line of sight” from daily work activities to the FSIS mission. 

Outcome 3.2 

Improve Processes and Services 

FSIS is committed to integrating continuous process improvement practices 

processes, records management, and associated services. This approach will 

maintain the data necessary to properly assess services across the business 

management landscape. 

32 GOAL 3 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017 2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 
GOAL 3 33

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

MEASURE 3.2.1.1a-c: % of defined process times met 

for hiring, procurement, and IT

Human resources: FSIS will continue to pursue hiring excellence goals 

through improving the end-to-end hiring process and time to hire. Activities 

will include assessing hiring timeframes and processes; and further 

developing materials, tools, and training that enable communications across 

are experiencing hiring process challenges and focusing on developing 

and implementing solutions in those areas. More broadly, FSIS will place 

special emphasis on better aligning strategic human capital management 

activities with government performance and results guidance, focusing on 

four key human capital systems—strategic planning and alignment, talent 

management, performance culture, and evaluation. Sound HR infrastructure 

will support these systems and enable enhanced communication, 

implementation, and assessment of associated policy, guidance, standard 

operating procedures, tools, information systems and education to promote 

continuous improvement. 

Procurement: The agency will focus on improving long-term acquisition 

and quality outcomes. This will include developing and deploying a more 

comprehensive process that increases collaboration among program 

organizational goals. This will also include providing tools for managers 

to incorporate advance 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. 

IT: Timely strategic planning, monitoring, and performance evaluation are 

critical to developing and deploying successful and mission-supportive 

systems and infrastructure. FSIS will work to deliver top-rated IT investments 

that leverage opportunities for shared service and cloud delivery, and will 

Objective 3.2.1 

and Systems 

Achieving excellence in business and management is key to FSIS’ success. 

It is critical that FSIS has supportive practices and systems in place that are 

its frontline workforce—to dedicate more of their time to day-to-day mission 

activities. Overall, FSIS will seek an improved understanding of, and rigorous 

alignment of, organizational business and management processes, data 

flows, and technology that support sound operations. FSIS will review its 

practices and systems to identify areas for improvements in human resources, 

IT, procurement, and records management processes while continuing to 

monitor other important functions to ensure high operational performance. 

FSIS will measure its success by assessing the time it takes to complete these 

procurements and IT investments. 
 -

evaluate these investments and systems to ensure the agency makes needed 

improvements and keeps pace with key priorities. More modern systems will 

successfully provide technology platforms that leverage current and historical 

data, properly depict workflow and controls, are logically organized, and allow 

for data analysis that is supportive of many mission needs. In some cases, the 

agency will combine the functionality of multiple systems, and in other cases, 

will retire systems with little to no future organizational value. 

FSIS will also employ an enterprise approach to manage all of the 

agency’s electronic records as the agency transitions to electronic records 

management as its primary method of records preservation. This approach 

create, receive, or handle electronic records to ensure compliance regarding 

information creation, maintenance (i.e., use, storage, and retrieval), and 

disposal, regardless of media. 

Objective 3.2.2

 Improve Service Delivery 

that the delivery of high-quality services in a responsive manner—particularly, 

but not only, in acquisition management, human resources, and IT—is a critical 

component of achieving organizational excellence. 

MEASURE 3.2.2.1a-d: % satisfaction with key 

FSIS services 

Ensuring FSIS’ employees—who are all over the country and at any given 

time can be found in several hundred or more locations—get what they need 

when they need it is not an easy task, regardless of organizational level. It is 

paramount, at the field and in headquarters, that policy, process, and tools 

34 GOAL 3 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017 2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 
 

GOAL 3 35 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

able to get the right things done, at the right time, in the right way. 

The agency will develop a more robust service standard with service and 

product delivery components and customer-facing roles and responsibilities that enable better responses to organizational needs, to facilitate the 

FSIS workforce being able to obtain the information and support its needs, 

while advancing productive working relationships. This service standard will 

promote collaboration and resolution for mutual benefit when conflicts or 

challenges arise. 

FSIS will also provide tools for managers to incorporate these expectations 

into program and position standards, scorecards, accomplishment reports, 

and program briefings to better integrate service satisfaction into FSIS’ 

organizational systems and business procedures, and will analyze and report 

on the results of customer satisfaction and employee surveys. 

IT operations, including the FSIS Service Desk, are also vital in providing 

necessary support to agency employees. Customer satisfaction data will 

continue to help identify underperforming areas for quality and timely service 

improvements. Beyond FSIS Service Desk operations, FSIS will also work on 

key areas of improvement in governance, budgeting, program management, 

and organization and workforce as part of USDA’s implementation of the 

Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act.33 

FSIS will measure its progress in this area through a satisfaction index 

focused on hiring, procurement, IT, and training and development services 

derived from both internal and best practice survey mechanisms, as well as 

evaluating specific functional areas, when necessary, to identify potential 

improvements.34 

33 See P.L. 113-291, Subtitle D—Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform (FITARA), for more information. 

34 Relevant measures in other objectives include percent of employees with online access to FSIS using approved 

equipment (2.2.1), and percent Alternative Dispute Resolution acceptance rate for formal and informal EEO 

complaints (3.1.3). 
Appendix 1 Glossary

Terms and Definitions 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

ADR is a procedure designed to bring together the disputing parties in a 

complaint in order to provide them an opportunity to resolve the dispute 

themselves with the assistance of a neutral third party. 

Antimicrobial Resistance 

Antimicrobial resistance occurs when microorganisms such as bacteria, 

viruses, fungi, and parasites change in ways that render the medications used 

to cure the infections they cause ineffective. In other words, it is the ability of 

microbes to resist the effects of drugs – that is, the germs are not killed, and 

their growth is not stopped. 

Campylobacter 

Campylobacter is a bacterium that causes intestinal infections that are 

generally mild but can be fatal among very young children, elderly, and immunosuppressed individuals. 

E. coli O157:H7 (Escherichia coli O157:H7) 

E.coli is a bacterium that, if transmitted in humans by foods, animal contact, 

or drinking water, can cause bloody diarrhea, and can also lead to hemolytic 

uremic syndrome, a life-threatening disease. 

Establishment 

An establishment is any slaughtering, cutting, boning, meat canning, curing, 

smoking, salting, packing, rendering, or similar facility at which inspection 

is maintained under regulations of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, Poultry 

Products Inspection Act, Egg Products Inspection Act, and the Humane 

Methods of Slaughter Act. 

Food Safety Assessments (FSAs) 

An FSA assesses and analyzes an establishment’s food safety system to verify 

that the establishment is able to produce safe and wholesome meat or poultry 

products in accordance with FSIS statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Foodborne Illnesses 

Foodborne illnesses are illnesses caused by pathogens that enter the human 

body through foods. 

Foodborne Outbreak 

A foodborne outbreak is an occurrence of two or more people experiencing 

the same illness after eating the same food. 

Foodborne Pathogens 

Foodborne pathogens are disease-causing microorganisms found in food— 

usually bacteria, fungi, parasites, protozoans, and viruses. 

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) 

HACCP is a scientific system for process control that has long been used in 

food production to prevent problems by applying controls at points in a food 

production process where hazards could be controlled, reduced or eliminated. 

Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

36 
 

Humane Handling 

Per the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, the slaughtering of livestock 

and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter shall be carried 

out only by humane methods. The Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR 313) 

requires that animals are cared for in a manner identified as humane during 

the holding, movement, and handling of livestock in slaughter facilities leading 

up to slaughter. The Act requires that animals are rendered insensible to pain 

by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is 

rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or by 

slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or 

any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the 

animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the 

simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp 

instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering. 

Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) 

Lm is a pathogenic bacterium that can be carried in a variety of foods such as 

dairy products, red meat, poultry, seafood, and vegetables. 

Not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) 

NRTE is a meat or poultry product that is in a form that is not safe to 

consume without additional preparation to achieve food safety. NRTE 

product is required to bear safe-handling instruction (as required for non-RTE 

products by 9 CFR 317.2(1) and 381.125(b)) or other labeling that directs that 

the product must be cooked or otherwise treated for safety and can include 

frozen meat or poultry products (9 CFR 430.1). 

Public Health Regulation (PHR) Early Warning Alert 

FSIS uses decision criteria that include factors such as pathogen testing 

results, recalls, outbreaks, regulatory findings, and inspection results to 

prioritize its FSAs. Public Health Regulations (PHRs), formerly referred to as 

“W3NRs,” are a subset of regulations associated with higher noncompliance 

rates in establishments in the 3 months before a pathogen-positive 

(Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Non-O157 STEC, Lm, or Campylobacter) or 

enforcement actions, than in establishments without pathogen-positives or enforcement actions. Using PHIS data, FSIS uses the results of 

inspection tasks to calculate a PHR non-compliance rate for each regulated 

establishment. A PHR Early Warning Alert is issued when an establishment 

has a noncompliance rate that is elevated and is at or exceeds the FSIS 

Noncompliance Cut Point for Early Warning. 

Public Health Risk Evaluations (PHREs) 

The PHRE is a new decisionmaking process that FSIS staff use to determine 

whether the FSIS District Office needs to schedule an FSA. The PHRE is a 

distinct, separate activity from the Food Safety Assessment (FSA). FSIS 

has a process whereby the District Office is provided a prioritized list of 

establishments for scheduling FSAs. The list is based on public health risk 

triggers, including whether an establishment has produced adulterated 

product, or whether an establishment has produced product associated with 

an outbreak. 

Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

37 
Salmonella 

Salmonella, the name of a group of bacteria, is one of the most common 

causes of food poisoning in the United States. The Salmonella family includes 

more than 2,300 serotypes of bacteria, which are one-celled organisms too 

small to be seen without a microscope. Two serotypes, Salmonella Enteritidis 

and Salmonella Typhimurium, are the most common in the United States. 

Strains that cause no symptoms in animals can make people sick, and vice 

versa. If present in food, Salmonella does not usually affect the taste, smell, 

or appearance of the food. The bacteria live in the intestinal tracts of infected 

animals and humans. Usually, symptoms last 4 to 7 days, and most people 

get better without treatment. However, Salmonella can cause more serious 

illness in older adults, infants, and persons with chronic diseases. Salmonella 

are killed by cooking and pasteurization. 

Trace back 

Trace back is a method used to determine the source and scope of the 

product/processes associated with the outbreak and document the 

distribution and production chain of the product that has been implicated in 

a foodborne illness or outbreak. 

Trace forward 

Once the source of an implicated food item is established, investigators may 

do a “trace forward,” which is a method used to document the distribution of 

all implicated lots of food from the source. 

Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) 

Whole genome sequencing is an advanced technique that determines the 

DNA sequence of microorganisms, and helps to differentiate them with 

greater detail than other contemporary technologies. In recent years, FSIS 

and other public health and regulatory partners in the United States began 

using whole genome sequencing as part of basic foodborne pathogen 

surveillance and strain identification during foodborne illness outbreaks. 

Similar to pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), FSIS intends to implement 

the use of this technology for characterization of all FSIS isolates. 

Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

38 
 

Organizations and Collaborations 

FoodNet 

The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) conducts 

surveillance for Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora, Listeria, 

Salmonella, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) O157 and non-O157, Shigella, 

Vibrio, and Yersinia infections diagnosed by laboratory testing of samples 

from patients. The network was established in July 1995 and is a collaborative 

program among the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 10 

State health departments—Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New 

Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, and selected counties in California, Colorado, and 

New York; FSIS; and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FoodNet 

accomplishes its work through active surveillance; surveys of laboratories, 

physicians, and the general population; and population-based epidemiologic 

studies. 

Food and Agriculture Government and Sector Coordinating Councils 

In 2003, the Federal Government designated the Food and Agriculture Sector 

as a critical infrastructure sector, recognizing its significant contribution to 

national security and the economy. Since then, the sector has successfully 

built public-private partnerships that improved information sharing, created 

forums to share best practices, and developed tools and exercises to improve 

incident response and recovery. FSIS will continue to work with partners from 

the private sector, academia, and Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial 

governments through the Food and Agriculture Government and Sector 

Coordinating Councils to promote voluntary adoption of food defense 

practices by FSIS-regulated establishments. 

Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC) 

To enhance the safety of our food, three Federal agencies—CDC, FDA, 

and FSIS—teamed up in 2011 to create the Interagency Food Safety 

Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC). The goal of this collaboration is to improve 

coordination of Federal food safety analytic efforts and address crosscutting 

priorities for food safety data collection, analysis, and use. The current focus 

of IFSAC’s activities is foodborne illness source attribution, defined as the 

process of estimating the most common food sources responsible for specific 

foodborne illnesses. 

Interagency Risk Assessment Consortium (IRAC) 

This consortium consists of representatives from U.S. Government agencies, 

institutes and centers with food safety responsibilities. Through the IRAC, 

the agencies collectively work to enhance communication and coordination 

among the member agencies and promote the conduct of scientific research 

that facilitate risk assessments. Such research assists the regulatory agencies 

in fulfilling their specific food-safety risk management mandates. 

The National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) 

This committee advises the Secretary of Agriculture on matters affecting 

Federal and State inspection program activities, including on food safety 

policies that will contribute to USDA’s regulatory policy development. 

Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

39 
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) 

This committee provides impartial scientific advice to Federal agencies to 

use in developing integrated food safety systems from farm to table and to 

ensure food safety in domestic and imported foods. 

PulseNet 

PulseNet is a national laboratory network, consisting of more than 83 

laboratories in 7 U.S. regions and headquartered at the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), that connects foodborne illness cases to 

detect outbreaks. PulseNet uses DNA fingerprinting, or patterns of bacteria 

making people sick, to detect thousands of local and multistate outbreaks. 

Since the network began in 1996, PulseNet has improved our food safety 

systems through identifying outbreaks early. This allows investigators to 

find the source, alert the public sooner, and identify gaps in our food safety 

systems that would not otherwise be recognized. 

Laws 

Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) 

The Egg Products Inspection Act, passed by Congress in 1970, provides for 

the mandatory continuous inspection of the processing of liquid, frozen, and 

dried egg products. 

Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 (FMIA) 

Enacted June 30, 1906, as chapter 3913, 34 Stat. 674, and substantially 

amended by the Wholesome Meat Act 1967 (P.L. 90-201), the FMIA requires 

USDA to inspect all cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and horses when slaughtered 

and processed into products for human consumption. 

Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957 (PPIA) 

Public Law (P.L. 85-172 dated August 28, 1957), amended by the Wholesome 

Poultry Products Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-492, August 18, 1968), requires USDA 

to inspect all “domesticated birds” (such as chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, 

and guineas) when slaughtered and processed into products for human 

consumption. 

Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) 

This Act amended the FMIA by requiring that all meat inspected at Federal 

establishments by FSIS, for use as human food, be produced from livestock 

slaughtered by humane methods in accordance with the Humane Slaughter 

Act of 1958. The 1958 Act required all livestock in the United States to be 

slaughtered humanely, except for Kosher, Halal, and other religious slaughter. 

Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

40 
Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Tools and Systems 

Consumer Complaint Monitoring System (CCMS) 

CCMS is an electronic database used to record, triage, coordinate, and track 

all consumer complaints reported to the agency. 

International Trade Data System (ITDS) 

ITDS is an electronic information exchange capability or “single window” 

through which businesses will transmit data required by U.S. Government 

agencies for the importation or exportation of cargo. 

National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) 

NARMS is a national public health surveillance system that tracks 

antimicrobial susceptibility among enteric bacteria from humans, retail meats, 

and food animals. 

Public Health Information System (PHIS) 

PHIS is FSIS’ system designed to integrate data from all Agency systems 

and program areas for use as a tool that supports decisionmaking about 

inspection, sampling, policy, and other food safety activities to protect public 

health. 

41 
Appendix II Public Health Indicators 

FSIS Contamination Rate Indicator 

Definition of the Contamination Rate Indicator 

The Contamination Rate Indicator measures the rate of microbial 

contamination in FSIS-regulated products. 

Data FSIS Uses To Estimate the Contamination Rate Indicator 

FSIS uses two primary data inputs to estimate the Contamination Rate 

Indicator: 

N Results from FSIS’ sampling programs provide the percentage of 

positive samples for individual establishments. The results are sufficiently 

representative of national rates to evaluate the following: 

N Prevalence rate of Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157:H7 in raw ground beef 

and E. coli and non-O157 STEC for specific components 

N Prevalence rate of Salmonella in specific raw chicken, turkey, and ground 

beef products 

N Prevalence rate of Campylobacter in certain subsets of raw chicken and 

turkey products 

N Volume-weighted percent positive of Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) and 

Salmonella in ready-to-eat (RTE) products 

N An establishment’s production volume, provided by FSIS inspectors, is 

used to weight the percentage of positive samples. Volume-weighted data 

are more representative of the national levels of contamination because 

the larger an establishment’s production volume, the more it contributes 

to the overall national contamination rate. 

How FSIS Estimates the Contamination Rate Indicator 

The Contamination Rate Indicator is calculated for individual product– 

pathogen pairs using the results from FSIS sampling programs. The 

percentage of positive samples for individual establishments are weighted by 

the establishment’s product volume to estimate either the volume-weighted percent positive or, when the sampling is designed to be nationally 

representative, prevalence of a specific pathogen in a specific product. 

Year-to-year changes in the contamination rate can then be evaluated. 

How FSIS Is Using the Contamination Rate Indicator During This 2017-2021 

Strategic Plan Cycle 

FSIS will use the Contamination Rate Indicator to track, on a quarterly or 

annual basis, changes in the contamination of FSIS-regulated products over 

time. A reduction in the microbiological contamination rate should lead 

to a decrease in illnesses by reducing consumers’ exposure to foodborne 

pathogens and, therefore, provides FSIS with an indication of how it could 

be affecting public health. FSIS will continue to track contamination rates 

internally and to report those rates publicly on its website. 

FSIS will continue to track progress in reducing contamination rates over time 

for the product–pathogen pairs listed above, and FSIS will track additional 

product–pathogen pairs as results from more sampling programs provide 

nationally representative results. 

Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

42 
Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

FSIS Illness Indicator 

Definition of the Illness Indicator 

The Illness Indicator is a suite of individual estimates of foodborne illnesses 

attributed to FSIS-regulated products. 

N Number (estimate) of Salmonella illnesses from FSIS-regulated products. 

N Number (estimate) of Campylobacter illnesses from FSIS-regulated 


products.
 

N Number (estimate) of Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) illnesses from 


FSIS-regulated products.
 

N Number (estimate) of Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157:H7 illnesses from 


FSIS-regulated products.
 

N Number (estimate) of non-O157 STEC illnesses from FSIS-regulated 


products.
 

Data FSIS Uses To Estimate the Illness Indicator 

FSIS uses four primary data inputs to estimate the Illness Indicator: 

N Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) FoodNet case rates. 

N Attribution estimates using CDC Foodborne Disease Outbreak 

Surveillance System (FDOSS) data and two methodological approaches; 

the Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC) harmonized 

attribution method for Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, and 

Lm; and the Painter et al., 2013 attribution estimate for non-O157 STEC 

illnesses, as IFSAC did not estimate an attribution fraction for non-O157 

STEC in the analysis. 

N U.S. Census Population Estimate. 

N Scaling Factors, Scallan et al. 2011, which provides a pathogen-specific, 

fixed scaling factor. 

How FSIS Estimates the Illness Indicator 

FSIS calculates, for each pathogen, how many cases can be attributed 

to FSIS-regulated products using pathogen-specific CDC case rates and 

attribution fractions. Once the total number of foodborne illness cases 

associated with FSIS-regulated products is estimated, it is multiplied by the 

population estimate and the pathogen-specific FSIS scaling factor to arrive 

at a nationally representative estimate of foodborne illnesses associated 

with FSIS-regulated products. The illness estimates utilized at baseline 

were calculated using calendar year (CY) 2012 data, as that was the most 

recent year of data used in the IFSAC attribution methodology. New illness 

estimates for each pathogen will be produced annually. Data used will 

correspond to the most recent year of data utilized for the IFSAC attribution 

estimate. As a result, it is likely that FSIS will report illness estimates that lag 

at least 1 year behind the actual reporting year. 

43 
Limitations of the Data and Methods 

The data and methods used to estimate foodborne illnesses are generally 

considered reliable, though limitations do exist, as with any data source or 

approach, with the CDC’s FoodNet and FDOSS data and the IFSAC and 

Painter methodologies. Further, while FSIS’ approach to only estimate 

illnesses for years in which the agency has all the available data it needs to 

perform the calculation allows for greater transparency, but it affects the 

timeliness of the indicator for performance measurement and decision-making. Given previous experience in using data inputs from various time periods 

to represent current year estimates, FSIS believes it is essential that all data 

are from the same time period to estimate illnesses. 

FSIS will provide annual illness estimates associated with individual pathogens 

rather than a summary measure to ensure greater transparency on the 

pathogens causing the majority of estimated illnesses and provide a more 

granular assessment of agency progress. 

Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

44 
Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

How FSIS Is Using the Illness Indicator During This 2017-2021 

Strategic Plan Cycle 

FSIS will use the Illness Indicator to track, on an annual basis, foodborne 

illnesses associated with FSIS-regulated products, yet will not use it as a 

performance measure. That said, this indicator is an improvement from FSIS’ 

previous All Illness Measure, as it utilizes new information—such as the IFSAC 

harmonized attribution methodology, and includes additional pathogens, such 

as non-O157 STECs and Campylobacter. FSIS must use multiple data sources 

as no one surveillance system captures all the needed information to estimate 

the percent of illnesses attributable to specific food products. As a result of 

these improvements, the new illness indicator estimates cannot be directly 

compared to the previous All Illness Measure estimates. 

45 
46 Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN

Goal 1: Prevent Foodborne Illness and Protect Public Health

Outcome 1.1 

Prevent Contamination 

Objective 1.1.1 

Drive Compliance with Food Safety Statutes and Regulations 

MEASURE 1.1.1.1 % of establishments scheduled for 

a Public Health Risk Evaluation due to public health 

risk determinants 

Agency Key Performance Indicator

This measure calculates the percentage of establishments scheduled 

for a Public Health Risk Evaluation (PHRE) out of the total number of 

establishments that are eligible for a PHRE. Establishments are scheduled 

based on specific public health criteria. Establishments are eligible for a 

PHRE by having at least one (1) performed Hazard Analysis Critical Control 

Point (HACCP) related task within the measurement timeframe, and an 

Establishment Status of “Active” in the FSIS Public Health Information System 

(PHIS). This measure was established because of the importance of PHREs as 

a tool to reduce and/or prevent contamination of regulated product.

MEASURE 1.1.1.2 % of country/product combinations 

from equivalent countries that FSIS tests for 

biological and chemical hazards

This measure calculates the percentage of all country/product combinations 

submitted through import reinspection. This measure is for re-inspections 

that are assigned lab analyses for biological and chemical hazards through 

PHIS. FSIS developed this measure because of the importance it places on 

sampling imports for microbiological and chemical hazards to reduce and/or 

prevent contamination of regulated product. 

MEASURE 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 reaches with FSIS U.S. Codex Office (FSIS/USCO) outreach 

and education activities aimed at encouraging the adoption of science-based 

standards at the international level and in individual countries. Data is 

collected from participation records from FSIS/USCO-sponsored outreach 

events, educational seminars, and surveys of participants. FSIS developed this 

measure to assess the number of countries and foreign officials it is reaching 

with its outreach and education activities. 

Appendix III: FSIS 2017-2021 Strategic Plan Performance Measures
Appendix 47

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Objective 1.1.2 

Strengthen Sampling Programs 

MEASURE 1.1.2.1 % of products from establishments 

that FSIS samples

Agency Key Performance Indicator

This measure calculates the percent of product/establishment pairs in 

domestic 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. 

Objective 1.1.3 

Ensure Establishments Are Meeting Pathogen 

Reduction Performance Standards

MEASURE 1.1.3.1 % of establishments that meet 

pathogen reduction performance standards

Department and Agency Key Performance Indicator

This measure calculates the percentage of establishments meeting FSIS’ 

pathogen reduction performance standards. 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 either passed or failed. Consistent with FSIS’ approach 

to posting aggregate performance standard results for chicken parts and 

comminuted poultry, initial calculations will incorporate pre-verification 

sampling data from exploratory sampling through PHIS during completion of 

the first 52-week moving window. FSIS developed this measure because of 

the importance it places on using performance standards to help reduce and/

or prevent the contamination of regulated product. 

Objective 1.1.4 

Promote Food Defense Practices 

MEASURE 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. FSIS developed this measure 

to reflect a modification to FSIS’ approach to conducting food defense 
48 Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN

verification tasks, both in terms of frequency and specificity, and aims to 

more directly consider the practices that establishments have in place to 

prevent intentional contamination of the food supply. 

Outcome 1.2 

Limit Illness From Regulated Products 

Objective 1.2.1 

Improve Food Safety at In-Commerce Facilities

MEASURE 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 Listeria 

monocytogenes (Lm) contamination of ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry 

products. FSIS compliance personnel determine how many delis are following 

FSIS recommendations through surveillance activities. This measure was 

developed due to the importance of the retail environment--and the potential 

positive impact of FSIS' in-commerce activities--in reducing Lm illnesses in 

the population. 

Objective 1.2.2

Enhance Response to Foodborne Illness Outbreaks 

and Adulteration Events

MEASURE 1.2.2.1 # of State and local partners 

who, because of FSIS outreach efforts, can 

provide information that improves identification 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 will use a 

questionnaire, intended for State partners, to gauge FSIS’ effectiveness in 

providing partners the tools that they need to ensure early reporting for a 

rapid response. FSIS developed this measure because receiving adequate and 

timely epidemiologic information from State and local partners is critical for 

FSIS to advance its investigations or take other actions needed to identify 

and eliminate the source of contamination.
Appendix 49

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Objective 1.2.3 

Increase Public Awareness of Recalls, Foodborne Illness, and Safe 

Food Handling Practices 

MEASURE 1.2.3.1a-b % increase in public awareness 

of safe food handling guidance and recalls through 

communication channels

Agency Key Performance Indicator

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 higher emphasis placed on high-impact activities. 

This measure is used to assess FSIS’ outreach to consumers and helps the 

agency refine how best to reach consumers to prevent illness. 

MEASURE 1.2.3.2 % increase in consumers identified 

who follow safe food handling behaviors

This measures calculates 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. FSIS will assess progress 

for this measure using data from consumer research studies, specifically 

a study of participants in a test kitchen, to assess how FSIS’ educational 

messages on “Clean, Separate, Cook, Chill” impact how well consumers 

prepare FSIS-regulated products. FSIS developed this measure to better 

understand how FSIS education and outreach activities directly impact 

how consumers handle food and to inform and guide future education and 

outreach efforts. 

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 

Objective 2.1.1 

Modernize Scientific Techniques and Inspection Procedures

MEASURE 2.1.1.1 % of all isolates that FSIS sampling 

generates that are subject to Whole Genome 

Sequencing (WGS)
50 Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN

This measure calculates the percentage of isolates (the pure form of the 

pathogen) from FSIS samples that are sequenced using whole genome 

sequencing (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. FSIS developed this measure because 

the increased use of WGS will provide greater understanding of bacterial 

genomes and thus inform inspection activities as well as outbreak traceback 

activities.

MEASURE 2.1.1.2 % of establishments whose 

noncompliance rate decreases 120 days after 

receiving an Early Warning Alert

Department and Agency Key Performance Indicator

This measure calculates the percentage of establishments that improve 

their performance (fewer non-compliances) within 120 days of receiving a 

Public Health Regulation (PHR) Early Warning Alert. 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 the results of inspection tasks to calculate a PHR 

non-compliance rate for each regulated establishment and issues a PHR 

Early Warning Alert when an establishment has a non-compliance rate that 

is elevated and is at or exceeds the FSIS Noncompliance Cut Point for Early 

Warning. This measure was selected because of the importance FSIS places 

on the PHRs to prioritize Food Safety Assessments (FSAs) and track how 

effectively FSIS’s inspection workforce reacts to and resolves public health 

issues, which should help reduce non-compliance. 

Objective 2.1.2

Increase Adoption of Humane Handling Best Practices

MEASURE 2.1.2.1 % of slaughter establishments that 

are compliant with all livestock restraint and/or 

stunning requirements

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). FSIS developed this measure to assess 

continued efforts in enhancing awareness and adoption of humane handling 

best practices, in particular by small and very small plants, and track the 
Appendix 51

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

effectiveness of FSIS educational outreach, guidance, and enforcement 

actions. The target was designed to promote the full compliance of humane 

handling regulations. 

Outcome 2.2 

Enhance Access to Complete and Accurate Information to Inform Decisions 

Objective 2.2.1

Improve the Reliability, Access, and Timely Collection and 

Distribution of Information

MEASURE 2.2.1.1 % of data analysts able to access, 

analyze, and visualize FSIS data

This measure calculates the percentage of FSIS data analysts who have 

access to and use FSIS’ major data systems, such as PHIS, can and do analyze 

and visualize FSIS data using statistical or other software. FSIS will assess 

progress in achieving this measure through an annual survey of FSIS analysts. 

FSIS developed this measure because of its focus on continually modernizing 

the agency's use of scientific approaches. 

MEASURE 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. FSIS established this measure to reflect the importance of both 

field and headquarters employees having high-quality and reliable email and 

Web access. 

MEASURE 2.2.1.3 # of establishment-specific and 

other FSIS datasets made publicly available

Agency Key Performance Indicator 

This measure counts the number of establishment-specific, and other FSIS 

datasets, made publicly available on data.gov and the FSIS website, which 

at baseline, includes the Progress Reports on Salmonella and Campylobacter

Testing, Summary of Recall Cases iand the Meat, Poultry, and Egg Inspection 

Directory. FSIS developed this measure to track progress in meeting the 

FSIS Establishment-Specific Data Release Strategic Plan and highlight the 

importance of FSIS’ efforts to increase transparency through sharing agency 

data with the public. 
52 Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN

Goal 3: Achieve Operational Excellence

Outcome 3.1 

Maintain a Well-Trained and Engaged Workforce 

Objective 3.1.1 

Improve Recruitment and Retention for Mission Critical Positions

MEASURE 3.1.1.1 % 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. 

MEASURE 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, to inform management views regarding 

overall employee satisfaction and engagement, and to monitor trends, 

including in specific occupations or demographic groups that may require 

new solutions to improve retention.

Objective 3.1.2 

Enhance Training and Development Opportunities Across 

Competency Areas

MEASURE 3.1.2.1 % increase in knowledge gained in 

key occupations within 180 days

This measure calculates the increase in knowledge gained through training 

for mission critical occupations, including for Consumer Safety Inspectors 

(CSI), Public Health Veterinarians (PHV), and Enforcement Investigations and 

Analysis Officers (EIAO). FSIS will assess progress in achieving this measure 

through pre- and post-training assessments and surveys of employees 

and supervisors. FSIS developed this measure to better gauge training 

effectiveness.

MEASURE 3.1.2.2 % of the workforce for which skill 

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; 
Appendix 53

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

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. 

FSIS selected this measure because of the importance of maintaining a 

well-trained workforce.

Objective 3.1.3

Ensure Equal Opportunity and a Diverse and Inclusive Envent 

 

MEASURE 3.1.3.1 % Alternative Dispute Resolution 

acceptance rate for formal and informal EEO 

complaints

This measure calculates the percentage of Equal Employment Opportunity 

(EEO) cases where the aggrieved party or the complainant chooses to use 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (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. FSIS developed 

this measure to assess its effectiveness in promoting ADR as a means to 

resolve complaints. 

MEASURE 3.1.3.2 % of employees completing 

mandatory training who demonstrate EEO/CR 

competency requirements

This measure indexes the % of employees completing mandatory training 

with those who demonstrate Equal Employment Opportunity/Civil Rights 

(EEO/CR) competency requirements, with a far heavier weight on the latter 

component. FSIS will assess progress in achieving this measure through 

scenario-based and other assessment questions for employees to assess 

understanding of the material. FSIS developed this measure to help assess 

workforce comprehension and adoption of EEO/CR behaviors. 

MEASURE 3.1.3.3 % improvement on key employee 

engagement FEVS questions

This measure indexes and weights eight key questions from the annual, 

Government-wide Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), as a 

proxy, to measure FSIS employee inclusion and employee engagement. 

The index blends questions from the FEVS Engagement, New IQ, and 

Satisfaction indices to inform the FSIS population on engagement, internal 

communications, satisfaction, and inclusion trends. 
54 Appendix 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN

Outcome 3.2 

Improve Processes and Services 

Objective 3.2.1 

Enhance Efficiency and Effectiveness of Key Business Processes 

and Systems 

MEASURE 3.2.1.1a-c % of defined process times met 

for hiring, procurement, and IT

This indexed measure focuses on improving process times met for three 

business processes: hiring, procurement, and information technology (IT) 

projects. The hiring process component of this index measure focuses on 

increasing the percentage of hiring actions that meet the process time, while 

using a definition of process time that includes critical activities before a 

hiring action is submitted, such as development of a position description and 

vacancy announcement. The procurement process component of this index 

measure focuses on increasing the number of procurement projects that 

meet the target processing times. The IT process component calculates the 

process times for which the percentage of development, modernization, and 

enhancement investments are met. A range of FSIS, departmental, and third 

party data sources will be used in assessing process times. There are also 

several sub-components and assumptions for these measures. For example, 

FSIS anticipates new baselines and targets each year for procurement 

process measures. For IT process measures, FSIS intends to calculate the 

percentage of relevant IT development projects for which Earned Value 

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

FSIS developed this measure to improve the execution of several key 

business processes. 
Appendix 55

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE 2017-2021 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Objective 3.2.2 

Improve Service Delivery

MEASURE 3.2.2.1a-d % satisfaction with key 

FSIS services

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 will assess 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. 

FSIS developed this measure to promote future improvements or changes 

to FSIS' service performance in these key services areas, and to provide 

management with the necessary information and tools to make decisions that 

will lead to higher levels of employee satisfaction.


’

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 USDAs 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. 

October 2016