EHJ October 2002, pages 296-299 Following a study to review the effectiveness of food safety enforcement auditing by the Food Standards Agency, John Haswell examines some of the findings and calls for more effective communication between the FSA and local authorities

How effective has the Food Standards Agency (FSA) audit process been in improving local authority enforcement standards and in changing attitudes? And has the FSA met its own aims - as detailed in chapter five of the framework agreement?

In a study of 18 local authorities, whose audit reports have been published on the FSA website, a number of patterns and trends emerged from the "identified strengths" findings and the recommendations made. A questionnaire circulated to these local authorities generated a 100 per cent response rate (18/18) and some clear opinions, illustrating both the benefits and limitations of the audit process, were noted. The questionnaire probed areas relating to pre-audit preparation, the actual audit and post-audit improvements and changes, and lead to some interesting findings.

AUDIT AIMS

According to chapter five of the framework agreement, the audits are aimed at ensuring that "local authorities are providing an effective service to protect the public." The following list illustrates the eight audit aims, together with direct (anonymous) comments, taken verbatim from responses to the study questionnaire. Arguably, these comments call into question whether the FSA can claim success in meeting these aims at the time of this research.

1. Help to protect public health by promoting effective local enforcement of food law: "The final report identifies 'strengths' and 'weaknesses' in equal rating when weaknesses were very often trivial. Although technically we were not meeting the standard, the weaknesses were inconsequential to us and to public health."
2. Maintain and improve consumer confidence: "The audit was merely checking on administration (procedures, records etc) and not on any outcomes - improvements which our service is providing in the local community."
3. Assist in the identification and dissemination of good practice to aid consistency: "You end up with a better food service having prepared for the audit. However, the attitude and competency of the auditors [is] so poor, [that] added to their inflexibility to accept alternative approaches to what they consider correct, ends up outweighing the benefits."
4. Provide information to aid the formulation of FSA policy: The FSA has indicated that it will not be its policy to either make resources available, nor to intervene in how local authorities allocate resources to food safety enforcement, both areas that would be welcomed by questionnaire respondents. According to a spokesperson: "Local authorities allocate resources to services on the basis of local service demands and this does sometimes 'squeeze' regulatory services, but these are often issues that need to be resolved at a local level."
5. Promote conformance with the "food law enforcement standard" (the standard) and any relevant central guidance or codes of practice: "The audit was essentially of the files and at times seemed to be based on guidance, giving advice on what 'accurate records in retrievable form' means, that had not been seen by officers. At times it was not clear if records were required to enable the auditor to audit them or for the provision of the service."
6. Provide a means to identify under-performance in local authority food law enforcement: "It is accepted that it is extremely difficult to ensure reports are consistent and do not reflect the style of the author, however it is recommended that some thought is given to the language in which reports are written. The nature of the report format is such that the first six pages are general in nature, page seven is positive and the rest of the report is neutral or negative." A further comment stated: "I am not altogether in favour of the report being made public at the first stage. If we do not improve - then fair enough. Does the FSA want us to publish written warnings to food businesses on our website for all to see?"
7. Promote self-regulation and peer review, such as inter-authority auditing (IAA): "Generally the IAA found very little wrong with the service. However, as the auditors were known to us this may have led to less impartiality than with the FSA." A further respondent added, "In general the FSA auditors were from local authorities (on secondment to the FSA) - there would be problems in including the findings of IAA in monitoring returns [as suggested in a question] because of the frequency at which they are performed."
8. Identify continuous improvement: "Possibly too early to say [whether or not the FSA will be following up recommendations] as the audit was only in June 2001. Environmental Health News has indicated that the FSA intends to revisit in six months... [but] it is still not clear whether it intends [to do so]. It has not been indicated directly to this service."

In general, the answers provided to the questionnaire suggested that the FSA has not been particularly interested in seeking to verify whether continuous improvements are being made. Only five of the 18 respondents indicated that the FSA had sought any kind of follow up since the audit.

TOO MUCH NEGATIVITY, TOO LITTLE COMMUNICATION

The Pennington Report (1997) confirmed the importance of the local authority's role in protecting the public's health by effectively enforcing food safety. The FSA prioritised administrating local enforcement and undertook a series of activities in April 2000, which highlighted deficiencies in local authority enforcement. The upshot of this saw the publication of the framework agreement in September 2000.

The local authorities consulted in this study reacted positively to the re-administering of their policies and procedures around the FSA framework. Many have benefited from the impetus that the agreement provided and have gone on to improve their systems and documentation. However, there have been real concerns about growing workloads and lack of resources. Local authorities require regulation to ensure the appropriate use of resources, but it is clear that enforcement authorities are struggling to make their existing resources meet their present workload.

The FSA is aware that some authorities have trouble in securing adequate resources. However, it envisaged that auditing would prove to be catalytic in raising the profile of food safety with councillors, and thereby encourage greater local funding for food enforcement. These findings do not illustrate that audits have improved the profile of flagging services with local councillors, and lack of resources, for some, remains a problem. If the FSA is to ensure effective enforcement, action is required regarding under-resourced authorities and further support must be provided so that the duties to the public can be met.

A prevailing issue to come out of the survey was the negative bias in reporting audits. In several cases, this negativity was perceived to contradict the "positive" messages conveyed by auditors. Negativity has demotivated the staff of several respondents, causing a slump in efforts and work levels. The reverse was noted where audits were positive, where staff were more likely to be revitalised and rises in work outputs were noted. Local authorities audited were divided into those that viewed the process with cynicism, and those that saw it as a positive experience, promoting team confidence.

If local authorities are to believe the aims published in the framework agreement, then future audits must become an exercise in construction, not destruction. At a time when the environmental health profession is having difficulties with staff recruitment, the ability to retain staff by projecting a positive image is something that both local authorities and the FSA need to tackle.

The findings of the study also indicate that communication between local authorities and the FSA is poor and the information in several audit reports was noted to have contained contradictions and inaccuracies. In addition, several authorities have experienced problems in returning performance-monitoring data because of IT inadequacies. Clearly, an improvement in the exchange of information between the FSA and local authorities is required.

While effective communication is essential for exchanging ideas and good practice, according to Vicki Law of the Local Authorities Co-ordinator of Regulatory Services (Lacors) the body has only been notified of three examples of best practice following the first 30 audits. Yet respondents who received a "good" audit have claimed to have been inundated with requests for information and advice. Guidance to auditors should be forthcoming about what is considered to be "best practice". Best practice should then be disseminated among local authorities to spare them having to utilise scarce resources in inventing similar practices for themselves.

Although respondents identified several concerns and weaknesses with the framework agreement and the FSA audit, they remained convinced that the impartiality of the FSA was preferential to inter-authority audit (IAA). Only two thirds of respondents were involved in IAA and the deficiencies identified in the questionnaire need to be overcome if more are to become involved. The introduction of "peer-auditor" training could, for example, see IAA link with the FSA scheme to enable audits to provide both independence and empathy.

FOLLOW-UP WORK ESSENTIAL

Arising from this research, the following recommendations may be worthy of consideration:

• a larger study should be undertaken, once the FSA has completed more audits. Any further studies may wish to look at Scottish authorities separately. There may also be a benefit in separating the reports of food hygiene enforcement from trading standards functions;
• the FSA's audit aims (as published in the framework agreement) must be re-emphasised to ensure that auditors use them and local authorities are aware of why they are being appraised;
• only auditors' recommendations that significantly detract from food safety enforcement should be emphasised by the FSA. Whether publicising failures has a benefit in helping to meet audit aims should also be re-evaluated;
• recognition should be given where a local authority has improved. The introduction of "recent improvements" as a category in the audit report may be considered to accent the hard work undertaken in this area;
  - food enforcement professionals and the FSA should promote the importance of their work in safeguarding food. This could benefit partnership working, improve consumer confidence and promote the importance of food safety funding at a local level;
• examples of best practice from all local authorities during audits could be accrued and disseminated;
• recognition that the notification of an audit to local councillors has not always succeeded in redressing resource imbalances, and that there may be a need for further action against local councils where under-resourcing persists;
• a practical assessment of officers' capabilities and visual confirmation of their effectiveness in enforcing food safety laws could be incorporated into the scope of the audit;
• the FSA could consider working more closely with local and regional IAA, and look at the resource implications of having two assessments. The possibilities of hybrid system could also be considered; and
• failing to effectively follow-up audits has called into question the significance of any findings. Following positive revisits, a press release lauding the improved authority, their management and staff would motivate food enforcement staff, act to improve customer confidence and demonstrate the benefits of the FSA audits.

John Haswell has been a food safety officer with Test Valley Borough Council since 1989. During this time, he gained experience in several aspects of the environment and health but specialised in food, having completed the Higher Certificate in Food Premises Inspection. In 1998, he decided to embark upon a part-time study path to become an environmental health officer having been involved in the successful training of several sponsored students within the local authority.

This is an edited version of a student EHO presentation given at the CIEH annual conference in Harrogate in September. For further details on the study and its findings please contact John Haswell at Test Valley Borough Council by e-mail: jhaswell@testvalley.gov.uk