In 2008 we conducted the 1st US-wide survey of Environmental Health Professionals. Our purpose was to probe how EH professionals viewed their role in incident management. The authors believed that EH should logically be considered part of the extended food supply chain from an incident mitigation perspective. We thought sharing this older presentation might be of some value – particularly with the recent focus on food supply chains incidents.

1. Analysis: A National Survey
of Environmental Health
Professionals
72nd Annual Educational Conference
National Environmental Health Association
June 2008
Tucson, Arizona
Omar Keith Helferich, Ph.D.
M. Douglas Voss, Ph.D.
John E Griggs, Ph.D.

2. Presentation Outline
• Survey Background and Demographics
• Summary of Key Results
• Significant Response Differences by Categories
• Understanding Open-Ended Responses
• 5 Key Takeaways
• Recommendations

3. • Department of Homeland Security
•National Center for Food Protection and Defense
•University of Minnesota
• Michigan State University
•Griggs and Associates
• National Environmental Health Association
SURVEY FUNDING AND
PARTICIPATION

4. • Current Position
• Years of Experience
• Registered Sanitarian or EH Professional
• Professional Classification
• Emergency Experience
• Population of Geographic Jurisdiction
• NEHA Region
DEMOGRAPHICS

5. Respondents
Number of Respondents by Group
250
200
150
100
50
0
City, County, State Uniformed

6. Years of Experience
Years of Experience
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
< than 5 5 to 9 > than 20 15 to 19 10 to 14

7. Professional Status
Registered Sanitarian or EH Specialist
250
200
150
100
50
0
Yes No

8. Job Classification
Job Classification
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

9. Self Rating: Specific Hazards / Incident
Experience
Self Rating
Hazards Covered/Level of Experience
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

10. Population of Area Served
Population of Geographic Jurisdiction
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
250,000 and 100,001 to 50,001 to 25,001 to Under 25,000
above 250,000 100,000 50,000

11. Respondents by Region
Respondents by Region
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

12. • Hazard Area Importance
• NRP and NIMS
• Preparedness and Response
• Agency Needs
• Challenges Faced
• Collaboration Needs
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

13. Hazard Area Importance - Mean
Mean Response
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
What do EH professionals feel is the most important hazard area in
which they should expend limited resources? Rank 1 to 7.

14. Familiarity with NRP
Familiarity with NRP
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
(My) familiarity with NRP.

15. Familiarity with NIMS
Familiarity with NIMS
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
(My) familiarity with NIMS

16. Our Agency’s All Hazards Plan has…
Agreement with Statements About Plan
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Agree
126
107 107 103
90
83
63
52 49 52 52
47 44 41 40
36 34 35
21
12 14 11
5 7 9
Written Clear Roles Tested Evaluated Technology to
Support

17. We Must Communicate Better With…
Need Improved Communication…
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Agree
130
98
93 92
46
22
10
1 2 2
With PH Organizations With Non-PH Organizations

18. • Hazard Area Importance
• NRP and NIMS
• Preparedness and Response
• Agency Needs
• Challenges Faced
• Collaboration Needs
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

19. Knowledge and Skills Needed for All
Hazards Preparedness and Response
Rank Need Mean
Response
1 Additional formal training and drills across EH jurisdictions 1.633
Formal training and drills with other government incident response
1 agencies 1.643
Additional formal training and drills with other agencies in my
1 jurisdiction 1.677
2 Increased human resource staffing and funding 1.762
2 Formal training and drills with private organizations 1.807
Improved use of technology for infield inspections and sharing of
2 results 1.862
Formal written definitions of EH inspection and assessment
3 methods 1.895
3 Improved documented procedures and guidelines 1.914
Greater understanding of the National Incident Management System
3 (NIMS) 1.995
4 Greater understanding of the National Response Plan (NRP) 2.068
What is most needed to ensure preparedness for All-Hazard Incidents?

20. Greatest Challenges Faced by Our Agency
for Preparedness
Rank Challenge Mean
Response
1 Acquiring additional funding for EH staffing 1.682
2 Achieving adequate funding for tools and technology 1.889
Identification of required competencies and delivering training at
3 the local level 2.056
The lack of coordinated efforts among the many response agencies
3 (e.g. law enforcement, fire, health, and other non-profit) 2.134
3 The lack of appropriate tools and assessment methods 2.247
3 The lack of registered sanitarians 2.336
Acceptance and integration of EH roles within the Federal Incident
3 Command System (ICS) infrastructure 2.336
What are the greatest challenges to EH agencies in All Hazards incident preparedness?

21. Greatest Challenges Faced by Our Agency
for Response
Rank Challenge Mean
Response
1 A lack of inspection results shared in a timely manner 2.862
2 A lack of accurate inspection results 3.209
What are the greatest challenges to EH agencies in All Hazards incident response?

22. Agreement that a written All Hazards plan
exists… by job classification
Rank Professional Classification Response Mean
1 Supervisor 1.594
1 Technician 1.667
1 Director 1.667
1 Other 1.813
2 Manager 2.043
2 Senior Sanitarian 2.057
5 Sanitarian 2.096

23. Agreement the All Hazards plan clearly
defines the EH role… by job classification
Rank Professional Classification Response
Mean
1 Director 1.979
1 Technician 2.000
1 Supervisor 2.219
1 Manager 2.457
5 Other 2.500
5 Sanitarian 2.558
5 Senior Sanitarian 2.651

24. Agreement that the All Hazards plan is
formally evaluated… by job classification
Rank Professional Classification Response
Mean
1 Supervisor 2.031
1 Director 2.125
1 Technician 2.333
2 Manager 2.600
2 Other 2.688
5 Sanitarian 2.742
5 Senior Sanitarian 2.766

25. Need to communicate EH role outside of
public health… by job classification
Rank Professional Classification Response
Mean
1 Senior Sanitarian 1.390
1 Other 1.500
1 Director 1.583
1 Supervisor 1.656
1 Manager 1.667
2 Sanitarian 1.731
5 Technician 2.667

26. Differences for increased human resource
staffing/funding… by job classification
Rank Professional Classification Response
Mean
1 Other 1.438
1 Director 1.521
1 Supervisor 1.524
1 Technician 1.667
1 Manager 1.826
5 Senior Sanitarian 1.943
5 Sanitarian 1.995

27. Differences in ranking most important hazard
areas… by size of jurisdiction
Water Supply
Rank Population Response Mean
1 Under 25,000 1.538
1 100,001 to 250,000 1.882
1 50,001 to 100,000 2.264
5 250,000 and above 2.572
5 25,001 to 50,000 2.677
Waste Water
Rank Population Response Mean
1 100,001 to 250,000 3.906
1 Under 25,000 3.950
1 250,000 and above 4.228
1 50,001 to 100,000 4.423
5 25,001 to 50,000 4.798

28. Differences in belief that EH roles are
clearly defined… by size of jurisdiction
Rank Population Response Mean
1 Under 25,000 1.769
1 100,001 to 250,000 2.224
1 50,001 to 100,000 2.300
5 250,000 and above 2.482
5 25,001 to 50,000 2.933

29. Improved documented procedures &
guidelines needed… by size of jurisdiction
Rank Population Response Mean
1 50,001 to 100,000 1.767
1 250,000 and above 1.778
2 25,001 to 50,000 2.033
2 100,001 to 250,000 2.054
5 Under 25,000 2.308

30. Need greater understanding of NIMS for
preparedness… by years of experience
Rank Years of Experience Response Mean
1 > 20 1.82
1 15 to 19 1.85
1 10 to 14 1/93
5 5 to 9 2.12
5 <5 2.22

31. •What else should we be doing?
•Where are our greatest opportunities to improve preparedness?
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES

32. Express views and opinions…
• Are there other areas in which you feel your
EH agency should be involved?
• Where are the greatest opportunities to
improve public health all-hazards
preparedness within the next two years?

33. Other areas for EH agency involvement
1. 42% of respondents indicated the need to focus
on specific threats (e.g., CBRNE, HAZMAT, Disease)
2. 32% indicated a need to assist in response to any
disaster; with focus on post-disaster housing,
shelter, clinical services, sanitation, and animal
related issues
3. Others cited EHP role clarification and the need
for collaboration and public education, planning,
and training

34. Greatest opportunities to improve
preparedness in the next 2 years?
1. 30% of respondents indicated that collaboration
provides the greatest opportunity... coordination,
joint-planning/training, and public-private
partnerships
2. 24% believed training is a significant opportunity
3. 20% cited the need to clarify EHP’s role
4. Others cited the need for funding, planning and
process improvements, better tools, and better
use of volunteers

35. 5 KEY TAKEAWAYS

36. 5 Key takeaways
1. Leadership must work to clarify the role of the
EHP
2. Must collaborate with other EHP’s and other
public/private parties
3. Must focus on specific threats in planning and
training
4. In the event of an incident, EHPs should lead in
efforts to coordinate provision of food, shelter,
medicine
5. Incident preparedness and response are key
EHP activities… tools, funding, staff, and training
are needed to efficiently and effectively perform
these activities in addition to primary activities.

37. RECOMMENDATIONS

38. Formally Define the Role
of Environmental Health
Agencies in responding
to All Hazards

39. Develop a Plan to Lead
efforts to coordinate the
provision of food,
shelter, medicine and
other needs of the public

40. Recommended for Consideration
Implement a program to
communicate the EH role
Initiate a plan to increase
collaboration and training across
public and private agencies
Define the role of Environmental
Health in more rapidly identifying
contamination sources and at-risk
food purchase and consumption
sites.

41. Recommended for Consideration
•
Develop Standards for Critical
Needs for All Hazards EH Response
Plan
Initiate program to increase access
to funding for staffing and agency
toolstechnology
Expand program for collaboration,
training and drills across agencies
and industry
Resurvey EH Professionals to
track changing opinions

42. CONTACT INFORMATION

43. Contacts
• Omar Keith Helferich, Ph.D.
– Supply Chain Sustainability LLC
– e-mail: helfe1k@cmich.edu
• M. Douglas Voss, Ph.D.
– University of Central Arkansas
– E-mail: voss@uca.edu
• John E Griggs, Ph.D.
– Supply Chain Sustainability LLC
– e-mail: johng@supplychainsustainability.com