1 / 15

Developing Universal Regulatory Guidelines for Special Events: a Multi-Jurisdictional Approach

Developing Universal Regulatory Guidelines for Special Events: a Multi-Jurisdictional Approach. Jeffrey M. Brasel, Ph.D., R.E.H.S. Senior Environmental Health Specialist. WARNING!. This presentation contains Regulatory Ignorance, Lack of Common Sense, and Bare Butts.

taylor
Download Presentation

Developing Universal Regulatory Guidelines for Special Events: a Multi-Jurisdictional Approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Developing Universal Regulatory Guidelines for Special Events: a Multi-Jurisdictional Approach Jeffrey M. Brasel, Ph.D., R.E.H.S. Senior Environmental Health Specialist

  2. WARNING! • This presentation contains Regulatory Ignorance, Lack of Common Sense, and Bare Butts Viewer Discretion is Advised…

  3. Problem Statement • Sub-Problems • Unregulated or under-regulated aspects of sanitation. • Autonomy and discontinuity among special event regulators and regulations. • Despite the trends for more and larger special events and the relevant risks there are still inconsistencies and gaps in regulation among jurisdictions across the United States.

  4. Event Complexity and RisksAn Historical Perspective

  5. Regulations and InfrastructuresDelegation of Authority • States write Statutes • Local jurisdictions adopt state regulations or write their own. • Infrastructures built upon internal regulatory mandates. • Nevada, for example, has 1 Statute and 4 separate regulations. • California has over 50 Health Jurisdictions

  6. Variables Time Behavior Over Time Risk to the Public Event Complexity Existing Regulations Regulatory Infrastructures

  7. Jurisdictions Develop Regulations Autonomously Regulation of Sanitation at Special Events Uniform Guideline to Develop Regulations Systems Archetypes It is our duty to enforce our local regulations Some issues are not important Fixes that Backfire Local Issues Force Regulatory Revisions Inconsistencies Develop in Regulations B B Collaboration Among Stakeholders

  8. Jurisdictions Develop Regulations Autonomously Regulation of Sanitation at Special Events Uniform Guideline to Develop Regulations Systems Archetypes It is our duty to enforce our local regulations Some issues are not important Fixes that Backfire Local Issues Force Regulatory Revisions Inconsistencies Develop in Regulations B Event Promoters and Vendors Become Dissatisfied Agencies Become Secular in Their Regulating Philosophies R R Shifting the Burden Shifting the Burden B Collaboration Among Stakeholders We can challenge regulations Our way is the best to regulate special events

  9. Program Goal • Health Problem The risk of foodborne and waterborne illnesses has increased since 1990 as the numbers of events and event patrons have increased. • Outcome Objective Reduce the risk of foodborne and waterborne illnesses associated with special events • To develop a guideline for environmental health regulation of special events that may be used as a model among jurisdictions.

  10. Process • Drafted First Copy of Guidelines • Utilized Various Regulations • Specific Aspects of Health with General Language • Sent for Comment to Key Stakeholders in Nevada and California • Regulators • Event Promoters • Food Vendors • Industries that Serve Special Events

  11. Process • Revisions Made and Redistributed • Process Objectives • Establish a Task Force • Have a Working Guideline in Place

  12. Results • Better Communication Among Regulators • Increasing Interest and Involvement • A Working Guideline • Second Revision in Progress • Some Work Remaining to Have Document Redistributed and Referenced

  13. Relevant National Goals • Revitalize Environmental Public Health Services • More effective environmental health services workforce • Improved communication • Strategic partnerships • Establish Healthy Communities • Ensure Healthy Travel and Recreation

  14. Conclusions • Communication Breaks Barriers • Regulators and Stakeholders Collaborate for a Common Goal • Dispels Notions and Abolishes Autonomous Egocentricities • Inter-jurisdictional Efforts Improve Regulation • Shared Knowledge • The basis of comprehension “Together we get there better”

  15. Acknowledgements • Dwayne Roadcap; BS, REHS Program Manager; Virginia Department of Health • Jeanne Rucker; BS, REHS Supervisor; Washoe County District Health Department Environmental Health Services Division • Robbin Rose; MS, REHS Supervisor; Washoe County District Health Department Environmental Health Services Division • Joseph Malinowski; BS, REHS Consumer Protection Coordimnator; Boulder County Public Health • Ron Marsden; BS, LEHS Program Manager; Utah Department of Health

More Related