Unexpected results from the letter-grading health-inspection system

[Fat Guy]

Glenn Collins has a piece in the New York Times today discussing some of the surprise results of the city's recently adopted letter-grading system for restaurant health inspections.

The premise of the story is that the fancy restaurants are not doing as well as the greasy spoons. Corton, Daniel, Le Bernardin, Esca, Le Cirque... are all facing possible low grades, while 60% of restaurants on the whole, including plenty of little dives, are getting A grades.

"...owners of high-end establishments complain that the system does not take their size or complexity into account." That certainly would seem to be the case.

[Mjx]

The complexity of an environment is definitely going to make a difference, but the Department of Health does work with the businesses; my sister mentioned that she was recently discussing the subject with the owner of the coffee shop where she gets her numerous daily caffeine fixes, and she (the owner) said they worked like demons to get their A grade. More than one visit is involved, so apparently there's an opportunity to fix things, which makes sense, since the idea is to get the places reasonably sanitary, not to penalize them for not meeting the guidelines/warn the public of an unadjusted status quo.

Since there are still so many restaurants waiting to be graded, the percentage of A grades is certainly going to drop ('If there is an apparent preponderance of A’s, it is not because the city is trying to be generous, said Daniel Kass, a deputy health commissioner. “There are more A’s at this point,” he said, “because the A’s get issued immediately.”').

I'm a bit sceptical of the described recommendations form some of the A graded places, however, even though the rating is supposed to be for hygiene, nothing else (e.g. “Steaks have to be well done”; I've never heard of even carpaccio being an automatic violation, in and of itself). I think they're just pulling that stuff out of their air.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Mjx (log)

[ScoopKW]

"...owners of high-end establishments complain that the system does not take their size or complexity into account." That certainly would seem to be the case.

Then the owners of the more complex restaurants should travel to Las Vegas to see how it's done.

From what I'm told by restaurant managers who have worked many areas, LV has the toughest inspection system in the country. Getting an A grade here isn't all that hard, but there are hundreds of things inspectors are looking for. And 10 demerits means a B around here.

Most big places will hire a consultant (a former health inspector) to inspect them every few days for a set period of time. Eventually doing the things that make health inspectors happy* becomes second nature.

*The main reason a restaurant is closed around here is 1) no towels at the hand sink; and 2) no hot water present at the hand sink. In fact, most violations involve hand sinks. The other big one is the dishwasher -- lack of sanitizer, insufficient water temp. We all read the weekly health report looking for cross contamination and temperature abuse issues, though.

[LPShanet]

It's worth noting that the requirements vary a lot in in different cities, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. New York's health code is said to be more rife with arcane rules that really have little to do with actual sanitation, and some of which are not fixable. For example, the New York code includes specifications for distances between certain pieces of equipment (including sinks) that just can't be accomplished in many kitchens in the city. This means that some places are starting with points against them at the beginning of every inspection regardless of how clean they actually are, and have less margin for error. Needless to say it doesn't mean those places are any less clean that others. One of the problems is that most consumers aren't really aware of what the requirements are or how the inspections work, so they will often get the wrong impression based on the oversimplified letter grades.

[therippa]

Whenever I see anything about letter-grading restaurants I'm reminded of this...

http://failblog.org/2008/10/20/sneaky-restaurant-fail/

San Francisco doesn't letter grade, but gives out percentages. I'm really curious how low a restaurant can go before they get shut down by the city. The pho place we go to currently has a 52% (I try not to think about it).

[BadRabbit]

It's worth noting that the requirements vary a lot in in different cities, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. New York's health code is said to be more rife with arcane rules that really have little to do with actual sanitation, and some of which are not fixable. For example, the New York code includes specifications for distances between certain pieces of equipment (including sinks) that just can't be accomplished in many kitchens in the city. This means that some places are starting with points against them at the beginning of every inspection regardless of how clean they actually are, and have less margin for error.

This is a problem other places as well. I spent most of my restaurant career in Alabama and there were all kinds of rules about where the dumpster could be in relation to the building. For most restaurants, this isn't really a choice. The dumpster has to be on their property and in a location where the collector can get to it which was often not in accordance with codes.

The points more often lost in kitchens where I worked were due to rules that everyone ignores like no drinks on the line. Lines are by their very nature hot places and the cooks need to stay hydrated. To follow the letter of the law, they would have to completely leave the kichen every time they wanted a drink because drinks were not even allowed in inactive storage or prep areas. It's an unreasonable thing to expect cooks to do in the midst of a Friday night rush so most everybody just decides to take the 2 pt hit. In one of my restaurants, the only places a cook could have a drink and still be compliant was out the back door or in the dining room.

Edited January 19, 2011 by BadRabbit (log)

[toolprincess]

NC works on a number and grade system (99-A). Most folks steer clear of anything with a B and a place with a C would never survive. However, the establishment can get points added by having an employee(s) who have completed the Health and Sanitation training course which enables some restaurants to get 100+.

[ambra]

It's worth noting that the requirements vary a lot in in different cities, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. New York's health code is said to be more rife with arcane rules that really have little to do with actual sanitation, and some of which are not fixable. For example, the New York code includes specifications for distances between certain pieces of equipment (including sinks) that just can't be accomplished in many kitchens in the city. This means that some places are starting with points against them at the beginning of every inspection regardless of how clean they actually are, and have less margin for error. Needless to say it doesn't mean those places are any less clean that others. One of the problems is that most consumers aren't really aware of what the requirements are or how the inspections work, so they will often get the wrong impression based on the oversimplified letter grades.

Hmmm. I took the Food safety class, and I really don't remember anything arcane or unfixable. Actually found the whole thing very fair. (And Scary.) I did take the class 10 years ago so maybe I just don't remember. In any case, the complete list of possible violations is online.

But I also found this in the food safety course.

How did the Health Department respond to comments from the restaurant industry and consumers when designing the grading initiative?

Hundreds of New Yorkers offered comments while the grading initiative was being developed. The general public was overwhelmingly supportive, but some restaurant operators opposed the grading system. Industry representatives stressed the need to ensure that grades would be assigned fairly, that restaurants would have opportunities to improve their grades, and that grades would reflect only those conditions relevant to food safety. The Health Department addressed these concerns by designing a program that gives restaurants an automatic second chance to improve their scores after an initial inspection, as well as an opportunity for outside review of the inspection results. The agency also updated the inspection violation list so that restaurants are graded only for violations that affect food safety. These changes are intended to make the system as fair as possible for restaurant operators while protecting restaurant customers.

You have to sign up for the course to read that, but this is the link

Edited January 20, 2011 by ambra (log)

[nakji]

One of the problems is that most consumers aren't really aware of what the requirements are or how the inspections work, so they will often get the wrong impression based on the oversimplified letter grades.

That's an interesting point. I wonder how many people think critically about these ratings? Shanghai uses a system of smiley faces - A smile if they're compliant, a straight line face if they're average, and an angry face if they're not. The only places I've ever seen with smileys are Starbucks and McD's, which makes me right away suspect the system.

[BadRabbit]

One of the problems is that most consumers aren't really aware of what the requirements are or how the inspections work, so they will often get the wrong impression based on the oversimplified letter grades.

That's an interesting point. I wonder how many people think critically about these ratings? Shanghai uses a system of smiley faces - A smile if they're compliant, a straight line face if they're average, and an angry face if they're not. The only places I've ever seen with smileys are Starbucks and McD's, which makes me right away suspect the system.

I think this is a problem even with numbered grades. Most people don't take the time to look and see what the infractions are. I would rather eat at a place with a bunch of small infractions and lower grade than at one with 1-2 big infractions that actually affect food safety (e.g. cooler or steam table temperatures).

Who really cares if a restaurant left the dumpster door open or didn't have a coat hook on the inside of a bathroom stall door when you could be worried about dangerous pathogens growing in food.

Edit: Clarified language

Edited January 20, 2011 by BadRabbit (log)