VNE EN# #HE PRACTICE
6en **e88
BUILDING CAPACITY
A Vision for Inspector Routing to Build Capacity
Darryl Booth, MBA
ity, we should support a vision for reducing these costs where we can, without under- mining the public’s health. Many agencies already mitigate fuel and some indirect costs by deploying fleets of fuel- ecient or electric vehicles. Others encourage inspectors to start and/or end their workdays at strategic locations (e.g., district oce, inspec- tor’s home). Some have policies that encourage ecient travel patterns. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a few agencies experimented with remote inspections, which still might exist where distances are great. It is complicated. Inspector responsibili- ties introduce varied and competing priori- ties. Optimization is more complex than just reducing miles driven or prioritizing right turns, a callback to a widely acknowledged United Parcel Service (UPS) strategy and case study (Prisco, 2017). The point is that inspectors balance more during their workdays than miles or hours. Inspectors balance those things plus the implementation of public health policy! Intuitive Optimization Works Pretty Well Most experienced environmental health inspectors intuitively balance their top two or three priorities quite eectively. What I mean is that an inspector already knows the urgent complaint investigation is top priority and might work on routine inspections in that general area. Without much formal thought or a paper trail, this inspector already con- siders expected trac flows, facility hours, and even noninspection obligations such as returning to the oce at the end of the work- day. It is intuitive and quite eective. This standard is the baseline for any improvement.
Editor’s Note: A need exists within environmental health agencies to increase their capacity to perform in an environment of diminishing resources. With limited resources and increasing demands, we need to seek new approaches to the practice of environmental health. Acutely aware of these challenges, the Journal publishes the Building Capacity column to educate, reinforce, and build on successes within the profession using technology to improve eciency and extend the impact of environmental health agencies. This column is authored by technical advisors of the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) Data and Technology Section, as well as guest authors. The conclusions of this column are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of NEHA. Darryl Booth has been monitoring regulatory and data tracking needs of environmental public health agencies for more than 20 years. He serves as a technical advisor for the NEHA Data and Technology Section. Booth is the general manager of environmental health at Accela.
T he cost to put inspectors in the field is a big component of any health de- partment budget. For the many agen- cies that are fee-supported, this cost is a sub- stantial component of the permit or license fee charged to operators. What are the costs to provide field inspec- tion services? As you probably know, direct costs are easily attributable to the services and indirect costs are sometimes less visible but still part of the total cost for the program. Here is a basic breakdown of the costs asso- ciated with field inspection: • Direct costs (directly attributable to the service) » Inspector wages and benefits » Fuel
» Vehicle maintenance and depreciation » Vehicle insurance » Technology (e.g., mobile phone, hotspot, tablet computer, software) • Indirect costs (indirectly attributable to the service) » Share of department overhead (e.g., building, maintenance, support and supervisorial sta) » Contributions to carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions and air pollution » Contributions to trac congestion » Opportunity costs (i.e., the value of what was given-up to conduct field inspections) Since these are substantial costs and we continuously strive to increase our capac-
30
Volume 86 • Num)er 10
Powered by FlippingBook