other ( n = 7) jurisdictions. The resulting dataset represents one of the most compre- hensive national cross sections of the retail food regulatory workforce standardization landscape ever assembled. Standardization Status Overall, 281 jurisdictions (53%) reported FDA- guided standardization, 61 (12%) reported non-FDA-guided standardization, and 188 (35%) reported no formal standardization pro- cess (Table 1). Standardization status varied markedly by jurisdiction type. Among state- level agencies, 77% (50 of 65) reported FDA- guided procedures, reflecting strong institu- tional alignment with federal guidance at the policymaking tier. Local agencies showed the lowest FDA-guided adoption at 49% (221 of 451), with 39% of local agencies reporting no formal standardization process at all, thus rep- resenting the largest remaining engagement opportunity in the system. Among local and state jurisdictions with a standardization process, mandate rates were high: 85% of FDA-guided (231 of 271) and 83% of non-FDA-guided jurisdic- tions (50 of 60) reported standardization as a mandatory requirement for inspection staff. This finding indicates a shared insti- tutional commitment to inspector compe- tency across both standardization models. FDA-guided jurisdictions adhere closely to the FDA’s recommended 3-year restandard- ization cycle ( M = 3.0, SD = 1.3), while non- FDA-guided jurisdictions show greater vari- ability and a longer average renewal period ( M = 5.0, SD = 7.0).
TABLE 1
Standardization Status by Jurisdiction Type Among Respondents to the Retail Food Regulatory Workforce Standardization Census ( N = 530)
Jurisdiction Type
FDA-Guided # (%)
Non-FDA-Guided # (%)
No Standardization # (%)
# of Total Jurisdictions
State Local
50 (77)
5 (8)
10 (15)
65
221 (49)
55 (12)
175 (39)
451
Territorial
1 (50) 3 (60) 6 (86)
0 (0) 0 (0)
1 (50) 2 (40)
2 5 7
Tribal Other
1 (14)
0 (0)
Total
281 (53)
61 (12)
188 (35)
530
Note. FDA = Food and Drug Administration.
agencies, sample size adequacy was assessed against conventional survey power standards. Using the Raosoft sample size calculator with a 95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and a population of 3,065, the minimum required sample was calculated to be 343 responses (Raosoft, 2026). The 530 com- pleted responses exceeded this threshold by 54.5%, yielding a statistical power of 0.97, which is substantially above conventional thresholds of 0.80–0.90. These parameters confirm that the achieved sample provides sufficient precision for the descriptive estimates reported here. The email-based administration methodology is consistent with established survey practices. Fincham (2008) reported that email-based survey response rates typically range from 25–30% in the absence of reinforcement strat- egies. The observed 16.8% rate that we report, while below this range, is consistent with multiagency governmental surveys in which respondent burden and competing institu- tional priorities affect participation rates. The adequacy of the sample is further supported by the disproportionate establishment coverage of respondents: jurisdictions that completed the census collectively regulate approximately 70% of all reported retail food establishments in the U.S., thus providing a meaningful rep- resentation of the system’s inspection capacity regardless of response rate. Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to character- ize jurisdiction standardization status and
practices overall as well as by standardiza- tion category and jurisdiction type. Continu- ous variables are summarized as means and standard deviations; categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages. Where informative, 95% confidence intervals were calculated for key proportions using nonmissing denominators. Open-text barrier responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis to identify recurring themes with associated counts and percentages (Gal- ura et al., 2022; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; O’Cathain & Thomas, 2004). Participation was voluntary and subject to nonresponse bias; therefore, results are pre- sented descriptively and were not weighted. Projections to the full national SLTT popu- lation applied respondent-observed rates by jurisdiction type to estimated total agency counts (65 state/territorial; 3,000 local) from census enrollment data (FDA, 2026a), with average inspector workforce sizes from respondent data used to estimate total inspec- tion personnel in each category.
Workforce Capacity and Establishment Coverage
Workforce capacity differed substantially and consistently across standardization cat- egories (Table 2). FDA-guided jurisdictions reported a mean of 11 employees and 10 full- time employees (FTEs) engaged in retail food inspection, more than double the averages of 5 employees and 4 FTEs reported by non- standardized jurisdictions. Most significantly, each FDA-guided jurisdiction regulated an average of 1,887 retail food establishments and collectively accounted for approximately 70% of all reported establishments (494,394 of 705,878 facilities). By contrast, nonstandardized agencies aver- aged 690 facilities, which is approximately
Results
Respondent Characteristics A total of 530 jurisdictions from 45 states completed the RFRWS Census; five states (Delaware, Louisiana, South Dakota, Rhode Island, and Vermont) were not represented. Local-level agencies represented 85.1% of respondents ( n = 451), state-level agencies 12.3% ( n = 65), and the remainder repre- sented tribal ( n = 5), territorial ( n = 2), and
17
November 2026 • Journal of Environmental Health
Powered by FlippingBook