SOWK 632

SOWK 632

Students will select a chapter from the Siegel and Welsh (2017) textbook and write an advocacy brief (paper) related to the topic. For example, if you select chapter 8, you will write an advocacy brief related to juveniles and gangs. If you select chapter 10, you will write an advocacy brief related to juvenile drug use and delinquency. You will use the textbook and other reliable references, such as academic journal articles and government websites, to write this paper. The following link provides an example of an advocacy (issue) brief Dr. Gallagher wrote related to racial and ethnic disparities in drug court outcomes:

https://ndcrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Racial_and_Ethnic_Disparities_in_Treatment_Courts.pdf

Please address these five points in your advocacy brief.

Please describe the juvenile justice topic and highlight the problem that this advocacy brief addresses.
Please describe what has been done, historically and currently, to address the problem.
Please describe the barriers to addressing the problem.
Please describe best practices/evidence-based practices in addressing the problem.
Steps 1 through 4 helped you analyze the problem. Based on your analysis, please provide an advocacy statement where you clearly list and articulate at least 5 recommendations related to what social workers can do currently and in the future to address the problem.
The advocacy brief is to be typed using Times New Roman 12 font, double-spaced with 1 inch margins. The length of the paper is 7 pages, not including a cover page and reference page. The paper should have five headings: 1) Problem; 2) Efforts to Address the Problem; 3) Barriers; 4) Best Practices; and 5) Advocacy Statement. The paper needs to be submitted in a WORD document in Canvas by the due date, please.

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW  

SOWK 602 Assignment

SOWK 602 Assignment

Before April 4
FAMILY GENOGRAM/CULTURALGRAM & PAPER  EXPECTATIONS
•Three generational visual GENOGRAM
•Family interviews should include questions from the DSM 5 Cultural Formulation Interview as well as the Chavis reading.
The fundamental goal of drawing s genogram is to objectify the intergenerational system of family projections, identifications relationships, experiences and events which have been influential in constructing the self.
•Following aspects of culture should be included:
•Location/Migration/Travel
•Legal status
•Time in community
•Language spoken at home and in the community
•Health Beliefs
•Crisis events/impact
•Holidays and special events/ Family traditions/rituals
•Cultural and religious/spiritual practices
•Value about education and work
•Values about family –structure, power, myths, and rules
          Ethnicity/racial identity/consciousness
Paper
•Type written analysis as a self-awareness tool (8 pages).
•Assess of how your family system impacts your life and other systems in relations to your development.
•List and discuss the concept in family systems theory
•Analyze your family through a developmental framework ( Waites, Chavis, Boyd-Franklin) used in this class.
•APA format and reference page

SOWK 602 Assignment

SOWK 602 Assignment

Before March 25

This assignment will aid students in preparation for the final paper. Student will prepare a comparative and contrast analysis paper of Chavis (2004); Boyd-Franklin (2006); and Waites (2009). This paper will highlight the ways in which the concepts of the aforementioned scholars are similar and/or different. The essay will close with choosing one scholar to analyze your family. Provide a brief rational as to why you chose that scholar.  Lastly, students will also prepare an annotated bibliography of the three readings. 4 pages, APA format.

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW  

CTD Assignment-HCR577

CTD Assignment-HCR577

The CTD is not a group project.   The CTD assignment is an individual assignment.  Each student was asked to select a drug in Discussion Board 1 as discussed in Zoom yesterday, 29 Mar 2023,
The group assignments are the country assignment where you and your group develop a regulatory strategy for your assigned country.  The second group assignment is due in Module 5.
Let me know if you have any additional questions on the CTD and the Group assignments.
This topic is closed for comments.
CTD EXAMPLE
Here is an example of a completed CTD for you to refer to as you create your CTD.
SINGULAR IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE USED AS A DRUG FOR YOUR CTD ASSIGNMENT.

Module #1 CTC Assignments- HCR577

Module #1 CTC Assignments- HCR577

Module 1: Overview of Common Technical Document (CTD) Assignments
CTD Module Preparation
In this class, you are preparing a submission for the FDA. You know that the FDA requires the submission in the Common Technical Document (CTD) format.  This format is new to your company.  You want to ensure that management has time to review and approve each section to prevent delays due to the need to address feedback and comments.
You will use ADA formatting for your CTD.  Each Section must be completed with information received in class or by researching your assigned drug.Refer to the classroom materials and online guidelines and guidance for CTD formatting.
  • During Module 1/Week 1, you will identify the drug for this CTD drug in the discussion.
  • During Modules/Weeks 2,3,4 & 5, you will use your assigned drug to complete each of the Modules.
  • For Module 4 & 5, research types of studies that may be performed during clinical studies.  List at least 3-5 studies for these sections.
  • In Module 6, finally you will assemble the CTD into a single document.  Then, preparing for submission, you will prepare a 1 page cover letter to the health authority and add this to the CTD and submit to complete the assignment.

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW  

CTD in the Course Schedule

 

Week
Topics/Lessons/Course Outcomes
Activities
Assignments
Mod 1  Week 1
Global Regulatory Affairs Overview – regulatory authorities, regulations, stakeholder roles & responsibilities (Outcomes 1, 3 & 7)
Discussion (choose drug)
Mod 2 Week 2
Regulatory Framework, CTD – Module 2: Quality Summary (Outcomes 2, 3, 4, 5)
Discussion: Medical Product Development Process in US
Mod 3 Week 3
CTD – Module : Quality (Outcomes 2, 3, 4 & 5)
Discussion: Quality Control Tests
Mod 4 Week 4
CTD – Modules 4: Nonclinical/technical requirements & 5: Clinical Studies & Reports; Benefit-Risk Information (Outcomes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7)
Midterm
Mod 5 Week 5
CTD Submission Process – US & EU (Outcomes 4 & 5)
Discussion Board 4 – Risk/Benefit
Group PowerPoint & Summary
Mod 6 Week 6
Regulatory Overview: Asia, Canada & Emerging Countries (Outcomes 6 & 7)
Discussion Board 5 – Biosimilars
Combine CTD modules to prepare for submission with cover letter to the health authority
Mod 7 Week 7
Global Trends, Ethical and Cultural Concerns, and Issues (Outcomes 1, 3 & 6)
Paper – Current Trends and Issues in the conduct of global clinical trials
Course Reflection
Mod 7 Week 8
Final Exam (Outcomes 1 – 7)
Final

Discussion Post #1- HCR 577

Discussion Post #1- HCR 577

Due Mar 22 11:59pm
Available from Mar 16 until Mar 23
40 points possible
3 Replies, 3 Unread
3 Replies, 3 Unread
Discussion Topic: Module 1: Discussion Post Module 1: Discussion Post
Instructions
For your initial post to the discussion, please do the following:
Prepare a paragraph, 4 – 5 sentences introducing yourself to the class.  Please share your major at ASU, any industry experience, and a skill you would like to have.
Propose a drug that you would like to use for your CTD.  Each student must have a different drug. In this course you will be creating a Common Technical Document (CTD).
Describe the scope and mission of regulatory authorities based upon the article (cite 3 agencies), regulations (cite 3 examples), and the roles and responsibilities of pharmaceutical industry stakeholders (identify 3).  Initial post is due on Wednesday by 11:59 p.m.
Peer Responses
Respond to posts by two of your peers with additional ideas, questions, or thoughts. There is no length requirement, however responses should contribute substantially to the discussion. Make sure they are engaging by asking questions, challenging each other in a professional manner, and providing new information for others to review and think about. You are expected to communicate respectfully and practice good netiquette in all course interactions. Peer responses will be due on Sunday by 11:59 p.m.
Grading
Initial posts are worth up to a total of 20 points, and peer responses are worth up to an additional 20 points. See the grading rubric for a better understanding of how to get your best grade.  To access the rubric, click on the three vertical lines at the top of the page and select “show rubric.”
View the discussion rubric
Click on Reply to post to the discussion.
Module 1 Discussion Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInitial Post
20 ptsExcellent The post is comprehensive and fully answers the discussion prompt. Student used complete sentences, appropriate tone, and clear language.
10 ptsGoodThe post is comprehensive, but does not fully answer the discussion prompt. Student used complete sentences, appropriate tone, and mostly clear language.
0 ptsNeeds Significant Improvement The posting is not comprehensive and does not answer the discussion prompt. Student used Incomplete sentences, inappropriate tone, and/or unclear language.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReply Post
20 ptsExcellent Student posted at least 1 reply to another student that was relevant to the discussion.
10 ptsGoodStudent posted one reply to another student, but it was not relevant or did not significantly contribute to the discussion.
0 ptsNeeds Significant Improvement Student did not post a reply, or reply contained incomplete sentences, inappropriate tone, and/ or unclear language.

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW   

SOWK 602: One Crazy Summer

SOWK 602: One Crazy Summer

“One Crazy Summer” (Garcia-Williams, 2010) is a short novel written with teens and young adults in mind.  This novel tells the story of three preteen sisters who travel from Brooklyn to Oakland in 1968, at the height of the Black Power Movement, to reunite with their mother, who has allegedly abandoned them. Throughout the story there is tension and symbolic representation around “nommo,” including the mother’s refusal to speak her youngest daughter’s “given” name, since this was not the name she gave to her daughter. Additional incidents around self-definition arise as there is a confrontation around the terms “colored girl” or “Black.” The book serves as a case study for understanding family in the context of environment and self in the context of family and community.
The Critical Race Assignment requires students to connect the course readings, book context, and research and historical documents.  You will utilize this context to
PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW  
1) Talk about your self-described racial identity, using Cross’ (1978) “Five Stages of African American Identity” and Boyd-Franklin’s (2003) Black Families in Therapy: Understanding the African American Experience.

2) Interview a member of your family or community to provide additional first-hand insight about the community climate of the Civil Rights and Black Power Movement.  What do they remember about the political climate at the national and/or local community level during this time period? How did the social policies, customs, or traditions impact their aspirations and interpretation of the family in the community?  In other words, what critical racial tenets impacted the functioning of families?

3) Examine gender roles and identity, as well as race and power dynamics. Discuss the social issues around employment, education, economics, politics, and the incidents of community unrest.

The paper is submitted in APA format with appropriate references.  The paper should be between 3 pages.

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW  

SOWK 602: Social Pioneer

SOWK 602: Social Pioneer

This discussion examines African American leadership as an empowerment tradition within the history of social welfare. Drawing on Carlton-LaNey’s work, students will explore how leadership, resistance, and community organizing by African Americans have shaped social work values, practice approaches, and advocacy efforts—particularly within marginalized and urban communities.

Post Instructions
After completing the reading, respond to all four (4) questions below in a single, cohesive post.

Your initial post should:

Demonstrate clear engagement with Carlton-LaNey’s text

Incorporate specific concepts, examples, or language from the reading

Reflect critical thinking and application to contemporary social work practice

Be written in a professional, scholarly tone

Discussion Questions
Leadership as an Empowerment Tradition
According to Carlton-LaNey, how has African American leadership historically functioned as an empowerment tradition within social welfare? What distinguishes this leadership tradition from dominant or Eurocentric models of leadership?

Challenging Dominant Narratives
Carlton-LaNey highlights the marginalization of African American leaders in traditional social welfare histories. Why is it important for social workers to critically examine whose leadership is recognized and whose is omitted? How does this omission shape contemporary practice, policy, or education?

Connections to Social Work Values and Ethics
How do the leadership traditions described by Carlton-LaNey align with core social work values such as social justice, dignity and worth of the person, self-determination, and advocacy? Provide at least one example from the reading.

Application to Contemporary Practice
Identify a current social work context (e.g., community organizing, child welfare, education, mental health, policy advocacy, urban practice).

How can African American leadership traditions inform empowerment-based practice in this context today?

What responsibilities do social workers have to recognize, support, and collaborate with community-based leaders?

After posting your initial response, you are required to respond to at least one (1) classmates.

Peer responses should:

Reference a specific point made by your classmate

Extend the discussion by connecting to Carlton-LaNey’s arguments or concepts

Ask a thoughtful question or offer an additional perspective

Maintain respect and professional tone

Responses that simply state agreement (e.g., “I agree”) without elaboration will not receive full credit.

General Discussion Board Rubric
1. Engagement with Assigned Readings (4 points)
4 points: Clearly demonstrates engagement with assigned readings or materials; accurately integrates key concepts, language, or examples.

3 points: Demonstrates engagement with readings, though integration may be limited or surface-level.

2 points: Minimal reference to readings; limited evidence of preparation.

1–0 points: Little to no evidence that readings were completed or used.

2. Understanding of Course Concepts (4 points)
4 points: Demonstrates clear, accurate understanding of key course concepts and themes.

3 points: Demonstrates general understanding with minor inaccuracies or gaps.

2 points: Partial or unclear understanding of concepts.

1–0 points: Demonstrates limited or inaccurate understanding.

3. Critical Thinking and Reflection (4 points)
4 points: Provides thoughtful analysis, reflection, and synthesis; moves beyond summary or description.

3 points: Some analysis is present, though reflection may lack depth.

2 points: Primarily descriptive with limited critical thinking.

1–0 points: Little to no analysis or reflection.

4. Application to Social Work Practice (4 p…
[18:08, 04/03/2026] Topscholarshelp.com: Overview

In this module will discuss African American Pioneers of social work with Black Families.

The learning outcomes for this module are:

1. Students will be able to identify 3 areas of concern for African American Social Welfare Pioneers.

2. Students will be to identify 3 values of African American Social Welfare Pioneers.

3. Students will be able to identify 6 contributions of African American Social Welfare Pioneers to the African American Community.

To-Do List

In order to successfully complete Module 3, please do the following:

Read: African American pioneers’ response to need by Carlton La Ney 21 – 35
Read: Garcia – Williams pgs. 75 – 116
Watch: Talk on DCN: A’Lelia Bundles
Assignment: Social pioneer paper

Recommended Reading:

Carlton-LaNey, I.B. (2001). African American Leadership: An Empowerment Tradition in Social Welfare History. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW

HCR 593: Module 6: Overview

HCR 593: Module 6: Overview

Overview

In this module, you will be reflecting on your progress in developing your applied project by focusing on a project update.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this module, students will be able to:

  1. Provide a clear depiction of the progress being made based on the proposal and timeline.
  2. Examine research and research writing barriers you have encountered versus your expectation upon initiating this journey.
  3. To Do
  4. Do review all feedback on your background (and introduction) submission and apply corrections and improvements that are in track changes (for DRAFT submission or resubmission if required – Instructors will guide you).
  5. Submit Discussion Board posts that focus on research barriers you have encountered thus far in your research with the applied project.
    1. Discussion Board Primary post due Wednesday, 11:59 PM.
    2. Discussion Board three (3) peer posts are due Saturday, 11:59 PM.
  6. Submit a Progress Report by Sunday, 11:59 PM
  7. Looking forward: Prepare to submit the First Draft of the Applied Project in Module 7, 
    1. This submission must include corrections and improvements from the Module 5 submission (clearly evident – track changes and comment bubbles are the best strategies).
    2. This submission must be formatted using the provided template.
    3. The Methods chapter must be completed in this draft as well.
Module 6: Discussion Board 3 – Barriers
Assignment
Mar 7 by 11:59pm
Discussion Board 3: 
A well-designed study will clearly identify an exposure/risk and an outcome in an objective, quantifiable manner to answer a defined hypothesis/research question.
  • What barriers or challenges have you encountered?
  • How did you handle them?
  • Did you need to change/revise your project design?
Responses Due by:
Initial Response: Wednesday 11:59 PM (20 pts)
Peer Responses (at least 3): Saturday 11:59PM (30 pts)
Gentle reminder that DBs are not accepted late.

HCR 593- Listeria FSIS Directive

HCR 593- Listeria FSIS Directive

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service is announcing several new steps to strengthen the agency’s oversight of meat, poultry and egg processing facilities it regulates.
Over the past several months, Listeria monocytogenes has been linked to foodborne illness outbreaks and large-scale recalls of ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, causing FSIS to review its processes. While the agency’s review continues, FSIS is announcing a number of improvements and initiatives that can be implemented quickly. The agency will share more information about additional actions that may be needed after further review and stakeholder engagement.
“As a science-based regulatory agency, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service is constantly looking at ways we can and should evolve our processes to protect the public, maintain confidence in America’s food supply, and prevent foodborne illness,” said Dr. Emilio Esteban, USDA under secretary for food safety. “These steps are common sense improvements to our work that will strengthen our food safety net as we continue improving the agency’s work to align with the best available science and practices.”
The changes FSIS is announcing fall into three categories: enhancing FSIS’ science-based approach to mitigate foodborne pathogens, with a key focus on Listeria monocytogenes; improving training and tools for FSIS’ inspection workforce; and evolving FSIS oversight of regulated facilities, with an emphasis on data review and state inspection agreements
FSIS will initiate the following changes in the next 30 days:
Enhancing FSIS’ regulatory, sampling approach to Listeria
  • Effective January 2025, FSIS will add broader Listeria species testing to all samples of ready-to-eat product, environmental and food contact surfacesFSIS laboratories currently test these samples for Listeria monocytogenes, which is the specific type of Listeria species that causes illness. However, adding additional species testing to the agency’s regulatory framework will help provide more information about the effectiveness of a facility’s sanitation program and can signal to FSIS if follow up is needed (for example, a Food Safety Assessment, intensified sampling or enforcement actions).
  • FSIS will leverage the expertise of its National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. NACMCF is a federal advisory committee that provides scientific advice and recommendations to USDA and other government agencies on microbiological and public health issues. In December, FSIS will begin recruitment for new committee members, who will be given the specific charge of reviewing the agency’s regulatory approach to Listeria monocytogenes. Expertise in Listeria will be sought for membership. The committee’s input will be used to guide more long-term policy changes.
Equipping FSIS inspectors with updated training, tools
  • FSIS will update its instructions and training for food safety inspectors to better equip the workforce to recognize and highlight systemic problems in a standardized way. Agency inspectors will receive updated instructions and training, and FSIS field supervisors will routinely review these instructions with inspectors to ensure full understanding and appropriate application. Inspectors will also receive supplemental Listeria monocytogenes control training designed to help strengthen inspectors’ understanding of the regulatory requirements in FSIS’ Listeria Rule and how to verify establishments have designed and implemented food safety systems that comply with those requirements.
  • FSIS will conduct Food Safety Assessments (in-depth food safety reviews) at ready-to-eat meat and poultry facilities. In FY 2025, FSIS is prioritizing completion of Food Safety Assessments at ready-to-eat meat and poultry facilities that rely exclusively on sanitation measures to control for Listeria. These reviews will provide information about the plants individually and collectively and could inform future policy or process changes to target this microorganism.
  • FSIS field supervisors will conduct in-person follow-up visits when systemic issues are identified during a Food Safety Assessment. Follow-up visits by FSIS field supervisors will bolster oversight from more senior inspection staff to ensure a facility fully addresses issues identified during a Food Safety Assessment and could inform enforcement action by FSIS. Field supervisors will work with inspectors to ensure the facility stays in compliance.
Tightening oversight of regulated establishments, including those under state inspection models
  • FSIS inspectors will verify specific Listeria monocytogenes-related risk factors at ready-to-eat facilities weekly. These risk factors include changes in physical plant modifications, such as new construction; indicators of sanitation problems, such as condensation, roof leaks, damaged equipment or cracked floors; and Listeria species or Listeria monocytogenes positive test results from company testing. FSIS district offices, agency field supervisors and inspectors will review, analyze and consider the weekly data from each facility to determine if there are systemic issues that warrant further action, such as a Food Safety Assessment, intensified sampling or enforcement steps.
  • FSIS will clarify state and federal requirements for consistent oversight of Talmadge-Aiken programs through updated cooperative agreements and instructions. Through updated cooperative agreements with each participating state, FSIS will set specific requirements, including clear expectations for oversight, enforcing federal food safety laws, comprehensive federal training for Talmadge-Aiken inspectors and enhanced regular coordination with FSIS. FSIS will also designate field and headquarters positions assigned to Talmadge-Aiken oversight; will clarify training requirements and criteria to start, maintain and terminate state inspection coverage of an establishment.
  • FSIS will revise establishment-review alert triggers. One significant criterion used to guide a district office’s decision to conduct a Public Health Risk Evaluation, which typically precedes a Food Safety Assessment, is a monthly list of facilities with higher rates of noncompliance related to public health that is generated using an algorithm. Using additional data from the new weekly verification of Listeria monocytogenes-related risk factors, FSIS intends to update its algorithm and triggers to better identify high-risk facilities.
These actions are intended to strengthen FSIS’ inspection and oversight by enhancing its ability to proactively identify and respond to the types of systemic problems that could lead to outbreaks. Listeria monocytogenes is a pathogen of particular concern because it can be especially harmful to people with compromised immune systems, like elderly individuals and pregnant women, and it can contaminate foods that are not cooked before consumption.
FSIS is continuing to identify other steps that would improve control of Listeria monocytogenes, dependent on funding availability. As requested in the FY 2025 President’s Budget, FSIS finds additional resources are necessary for the agency to continue to meet its mission to keep meat, poultry and egg products safe and wholesome.
As the USDA’s public health regulatory agency, FSIS is responsible for ensuring the safety of meat, poultry and egg products and thereby reducing foodborne illness linked to FSIS-regulated products.
Source: USDA’s FSIS
Share This Story
Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!
Recommended Content
JOIN TODAY
to unlock your recommendations.

Already have an account? Sign In
    • Effective January 2025, FSIS will add broader Listeria species testing to all samples of ready-to-eat product, environmental and food contact surfacesFSIS laboratories currently test these samples for Listeria monocytogenes, which is the specific type of Listeria species that causes illness. However, adding additional species testing to the agency’s regulatory framework will help provide more information about the effectiveness of a facility’s sanitation program and can signal to FSIS if follow up is needed (for example, a Food Safety Assessment, intensified sampling, or enforcement actions).
       
    • FSIS will leverage the expertise of its National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF). NACMCF is a federal advisory committee that provides scientific advice and recommendations to USDA and other government agencies on microbiological and public health issues. In December, FSIS will begin recruitment for new committee members, who will be given the specific charge of reviewing the agency’s regulatory approach to Listeria monocytogenes. Expertise in Listeria will be sought for membership. The committee’s input will be used to guide more long-term policy changes.
    • FSIS will update its instructions and training for food safety inspectors to better equip the workforce to recognize and highlight systemic problems in a standardized way. Agency inspectors will receive updated instructions and training, and FSIS field supervisors will routinely review these instructions with inspectors to ensure full understanding and appropriate application. Inspectors will also receive supplemental Listeria monocytogenes control training designed to help strengthen inspectors’ understanding of the regulatory requirements in FSIS’ Listeria Rule and how to verify establishments have designed and implemented food safety systems that comply with those requirements.
       
    • FSIS will conduct Food Safety Assessments (in-depth food safety reviews) at ready-to-eat meat and poultry facilities. In FY 2025, FSIS is prioritizing completion of Food Safety Assessments at ready-to-eat meat and poultry facilities that rely exclusively on sanitation measures to control for Listeria. These reviews will provide information about the plants individually and collectively and could inform future policy or process changes to target this microorganism.
       
    • FSIS field supervisors will conduct in-person, follow-up visits when systemic issues are identified during a Food Safety Assessment. Follow-up visits by FSIS field supervisors will bolster oversight from more senior inspection staff to ensure a facility fully addresses issues identified during a Food Safety Assessment and could inform enforcement action by FSIS. Field supervisors will work with inspectors to ensure the facility stays in compliance.
    • FSIS inspectors will verify specific Listeria monocytogenes-related risk factors at ready-to-eat facilities weekly. These risk factors include changes in physical plant modifications, such as new construction; indicators of sanitation problems, such as condensation, roof leaks, damaged equipment, or cracked floors; and Listeria species or Listeria monocytogenes positive test results from company testing. FSIS district offices, agency field supervisors and inspectors will review, analyze and consider the weekly data from each facility to determine if there are systemic issues that warrant further action, such as a Food Safety Assessment, intensified sampling, or enforcement steps.
       
    • FSIS will clarify state and Federal requirements for consistent oversight of Talmadge-Aiken (TA) programs through updated cooperative agreements and instructions. Through updated cooperative agreements with each participating state, FSIS will set specific requirements, including clear expectations for oversight, enforcing federal food safety laws, comprehensive federal training for TA inspectors, and enhanced regular coordination with FSIS. FSIS will also designate field and headquarters positions assigned to TA oversight; will clarify training requirements and criteria to start, maintain and terminate state inspection coverage of an establishment.
       
    • FSIS will revise establishment-review alert triggers. One significant criterion used to guide a district office’s decision to conduct a Public Health Risk Evaluation (PHRE), which typically precedes a Food Safety Assessment, is a monthly list of facilities with higher rates of noncompliance related to public health that is generated using an algorithm. Using additional data from the new weekly verification of Listeria monocytogenes-related risk factors, FSIS intends to update its algorithm and triggers to better identify high-risk facilities.
  • JJS Adult Pekin duck
    Despite continued economic pressures, the poultry…
    FSIS Announces Stronger Measures to Protect the Public from Listeria monocytogenes
    Woman looking at food labeling in refrigerated section in grocery store
    Edited February 2025
    WASHINGTON, December 17, 2024 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) today announced several new steps to strengthen the agency’s oversight of food processing facilities it regulates (meat, poultry and egg products) and ensure safe food. These steps reflect the agency’s continual effort to protect public health through science-based regulation, strong enforcement, and advancement of its prevention-first approach to eliminating foodborne illness.
    Over the past several months, Listeria monocytogenes has been linked to foodborne illness outbreaks and large-scale recalls of ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, causing the agency to review its processes closely. While the agency’s review continues, FSIS is announcing a number of improvements and initiatives that can be implemented quickly. The agency will share more information about additional actions that may be needed after further review and stakeholder engagement.
    The changes FSIS is announcing today fall into three categories: enhancing its science-based approach to mitigate foodborne pathogens, with a key focus on Listeria monocytogenes; improving training and tools for its inspection workforce; and evolving its oversight of regulated facilities, with an emphasis on data review and state inspection agreements.
    FSIS will initiate the following changes in the next 30 days:
    Enhancing FSIS’ Regulatory and Sampling Approach to Listeria
    Equipping FSIS Inspectors with Updated Training and Tools to Recognize and Respond to Systemic Food Safety Issues
    Tightening Oversight of Regulated Establishments, Including Those Under State Inspection Models
    These actions are intended to strengthen FSIS’ inspection and oversight by enhancing its ability to proactively identify and respond to the types of systemic problems that could lead to outbreaks. Listeria monocytogenes is a pathogen of particular concern because it can be especially harmful to people with compromised immune systems, like the elderly and pregnant women, and it can contaminate foods that are not cooked before consumption.
    FSIS is continuing to identify other steps that would improve control of Listeria monocytogenes, dependent on funding availability. As requested in the FY 2025 President’s Budget, additional resources are necessary for the agency to continue to meet its mission to keep meat, poultry, and egg products safe and wholesome.
    Notably, through its Salmonella framework, USDA has proposed a comprehensive effort to reduce Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products, which have remained stubbornly high despite consistent reductions of Salmonella in these foods.
    FSIS has also issued new guidance to provide more transparency around animal raising claims like “no antibiotics ever” and “pasture-raised.” In March 2024, USDA finalized a regulation that only permits the voluntary “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” claim to be applied to those FSIS-regulated meat and poultry products that are derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the United States, which better aligns with consumer understanding of what the label means.
    As USDA’s public health regulatory agency, FSIS is responsible for ensuring the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products, and thereby reducing foodborne illness linked to FSIS-regulated products. More information about FSIS’ work to keep consumers safe can be found in the agency’s 2023-2026 Strategic Plan. Learn more at www.fsis.usda.gov.
    Last Updated: Dec 17, 2024