Food safety regulation reporting case study食品安全监管报告的案例研究.docx

Development of Local Government Food Safety Regulation Reporting:A Case StudyReporting data collected by councils to the Department of Health for food safetyregulatory activities is a new requirement that is currently being prepared for, andactivities are well-advanced to assist this introduction with an IT solution, funded bythe State Government.The purpose for having a state-wide picture is to provide policy makers andregulators (including councils) with information about administration of the Food Actto better target their regulatory effort to businesses with the highest food safety risk.Benefits will accrue to councils, the food businesses and community organisationsthey register, and the state government.Currently very little information exists about food businesses registered by councils,with no state-wide information about even basic things, such as how many foodbusinesses are registered in Victoria, how many prosecutions are undertaken, howmany and what sort of businesses are de-registered, which types of businesses havethe most food safety problems, and so on.Lack of central reporting of food safety regulatory activities by councils has also beenfound to be a fundamental weakness in Victorias food safety regulatory system byboth the Auditor General and the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission(VCEC) in various reports over the last 10 years, and in particular the most detailedVCEC report “Simplifying the Menu: Food Regulation in Victoria” released in 2008.This arises because 79 councils are involved, which each make their ownautonomous decisions about how they will administer their obligations under theFood Act 1984.The State Government rejected the idea that a centralisedregistration system should apply to registration of all food businesses, acknowledgingthat there are advantages with this function remaining with local government. Thebenefits include local knowledge, and building on the expertise of officers locatedacross the state in 79 councils. These are strong features of the food safety systemin Victoria.Given the devolved nature of the administration of the Food Act in Victoria, stepshave needed to be put in place to promote a greater level of consistency in theadministration of the Act by councils. The Act has undergone a number of changes toseek to achieve this. One of the set of changes relates to the reporting by councils ofdata for activities they undertake to administer the Act. Reporting will:provideongoing information onthe performance, challenges andaccomplishments of the food regulatory system to give insight to policy andoperational impacts of food regulation and identify issues and trends that requireattentionenable councils to benchmark their food regulatory activities against both those oflike councils and state trends and averages.1Department of Health/MAV Food Safety Coordination Project:The MAV has provided regular updates to councils about the activities undertakenthrough the DH/MAV Food Safety Coordination Project. The “Local GovernmentReporting Workstream” has been a key body of work of this project.Understanding the processes used for the development of reporting indicators forfood safety highlights the sorts of elements that are desirable if reporting by localgovernment to the state government is to be meaningful and costs and benefits areidentified and distributed. In the case of this project, the Department of Health issubstantially funding the IT changes that will assist councils report data, andproviding extensive training to officers and development of state-wide terminology.Costs incurred by councils can be funded through the fees they collect for businessregistration.The steps in the food safety reporting project have included:Acknowledgement by the Department of Health that because reporting was astate priority it would need state support if it was to achieve its goals.Use of an external consultant employed by the MAV meant a localgovernment perspective was given strong attention in the development ofadvice about what indicators were necessary or helpful to have on a state-wide basis, and what sort of systems might be considered to assist reportingby councils. A key requirement of the consultant was to consider thepracticalities of councils delivering the data.Acknowledgement by the Department that councils should not be asked forinformation that would not be used ie, no reports to end up in bureaucratic“black holes”, and that councils would receive the collated reports back fortheir operational use. Under the amended Food Act, the Department isrequired to publish an annual report. Quarterly reports on a secure websitewill be available to councils enabling them to compare their performanceagainst that of (de-identified) like councils and state averages.Identifying a technological solution as a way to minimize costs that would beincurred by councils to report data.Development of a “data dictionary”, with the assistance of a local governmentworking group, to achieve consistency of terminology, which is vital to thesuccess of IT systems, and to enable like information to be collated, and anelectronic premises classification tool. This will benefit food businessesoperating in multiple local government areas through greater consistency ofregulatory treatment by councils.Involving IT experts from the Department of Health and local governmentearly on, including the MAV ICT Committee.2A technological solution:After a number of alternatives were explored, the most cost-effective and practical ITsolution was for the Department of Health to fund the adjustments that could bemade to council IT systems, and for it to make adjustments to its systems to receivethe data. The aim was to minimize costs to councils and officer time involved inproviding reporting by utilizing data already being collected.The “MAV Local Government Reporting Project” commenced in 2009, under theguidance of the DH/MAV Food Safety Coordination Project Steering Committee. Itinvolves the MAV being the project manager on behalf of the State Government, topay council IT software vendors to makes changes to councils IT systems so thatthey can easily report data to the Department of Health.The intention is for council officers to “push a few buttons” and the data they collectas part of their administration of the Food Act 1984 will be transmitted to theDepartment on a quarterly basis. The Department will be required to produce anannual report based on the food related activities undertaken in Victoria. Quarterlystatistical reports will be available to councils via the Victorian Health InformationSurveillance System which is a secure website. Councils will be able to view theirdata, Department of Health regional areas and the state.The reporting requirement should be largely cost neutral for councils, given that theyalready collect and maintain data for their own purposes, and they can recoup coststhrough registration fees.The Department of Health has to also ensure its systems can receive the data, andtime and effort has been involved in this regard over the last couple of years.Learnings:Introducing food safety reporting is still in progress, with a Declaration setting out thestatutory requirements currently being drafted in consultation with a local governmentworking group. While there will, no doubt, be some complex and difficult issues towork through in transition to the new reporting system, the DH/MAV Food SafetyCoordination Project Steering Committee is optimistic these can be worked throughin an orderly way.The “learnings” that MAV has taken from this project include:Local government input from the commencement of the project has beenessential to ensuring that the reporting requirements that will be contained inthe Declaration are practical and have a purpose in improving regulation.Financial support by the State Government has been very important, andwithout it, the project would not have progressed. The MAV has been fundedsince 2005/06 to enable it to have the resources to support the DH/MAV FoodSafety Coordination Project. Substantial funding is also being provided toupgrade council IT systems to enable reporting to be easily transmitted.Senior departmental involvement and support is needed to garner fundingand ensure state government systems and processes can complement localgovernment reporting.Special consideration is required for the small number of smaller councils whodo not have the IT systems or volume of work to justify a technologic