Performing Department
(N/A)
Non Technical Summary
Food producers of all sizes must produce food products of suitable quality for safe consumption under conditions that prevent product and ingredient contamination. Small processors face critical capacity challenges with workforce, food safety training, and regulatory compliance understanding. To address this need, Virginia Tech, in partnership with University of Arkansas, University of Georgia, and North Carolina State University, propose a multi-state Collaborative Education and Training Project to develop, deliver, and evaluate a hybrid training for small processor education aimed at effectively addressing both regional similarities in training needs and state-specific regulatory compliance concerns. This hybrid training program will provide small processors with virtual, asynchronous regulatory overview modules addressing state-specific regulatory and inspection requirements relevant to small processors, in-person modules addressing methods for producing safe food, factors that impact microbial growth, developing a food safety system for a small operation, and strategies for working with buyers, and an interactive activity designed to show training participants how to evaluate a model food product for factors to control to minimize risk and records to keep to support compliance. The project team has developed a plan for evaluation informed by three overlapping approaches that evaluate the engagement, experience, confidence, and efficacy of the training content. Evaluation data from the state-specific regulatory modules will be used to inform additional resource needs for each state, disseminated through fact sheets, and shared at local meetings.
Animal Health Component
0%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
(N/A)
Applied
(N/A)
Developmental
(N/A)
Goals / Objectives
Virginia Tech, in partnership with University of Arkansas, University of Georgia, and North Carolina State University, propose a multistate Collaborative Education and Training Project to develop, deliver, and evaluate a hybrid training for small processor education aimed at effectively addressing both regional similarities in training needs and state-specific regulatory compliance concerns.
Project Methods
When designing the virtual, asynchronous modules, institutional teams will refine proposed learning objectives and develop scripts for each state presentation. These scripts will supplement the accessible captions provided for each module.In Phase I, participating institutions will develop learning objectives that reflect the regulatory framework within their own states. While federal regulatory requirements are the same for each state, the way each state manages small, cottage, home, and commercial kitchen-based businesses differs. Disputes about inspections of these businesses, addressed through varying legislation across the southeast region (such as SB 248 in Arkansas and the most recent proposed legislation HB1802 in Virginia), have resulted or aim to result in state-specific restrictions for selling food in intra- and interstate commerce. Appropriate lengths for these modules will be determined by each participating institution based on what is needed to adequately address content to meet module learning objectives. Participating institutions will work together to develop scripts and captions for the regulatory overview using either institutional video editing software or advanced captioning software programs (e.g., Descript). To the extent possible, technical content for these modules will be leveraged through existing training and outreach materials developed by participating institutions, state regulatory bodies, and Cooperative Extension offices. Fact sheets or checklists will be developed to support stakeholder success in navigating state and federal regulations for their business.Each institution will develop video content to deliver educational material related to understanding state-specific regulations and pathways for selling food when exempt from the PC Rule. Videos will be shared with the project team and advisory committee members for that state to review and provide recommendations for improvement. Once all modifications have been made, the project team will prepare videos for dissemination.To reduce the cognitive load on training participants, regulatory overviews will be made available to them through avenues consistent with existing training platforms or learning management systems used by participating institutions for stakeholder education (e.g., YouTube channels, Canvas). Training participants will receive access to the regulatory overview modules after registering for the course. They will be instructed to view the regulatory overview prior to attending the in-person workshop.Training participants will be required to take a pre-test to evaluate their current understanding of state-specific regulations regarding the production and sale of products by small, home, and commercial kitchen-based businesses prior to viewing the regulatory overview module. Pre-test questions will be directly linked to learning objectives for each module; therefore, four different pre-tests will be developed and evaluated. Once development of the state-specific regulatory overview modules is underway at each institution, VT will lead the design and development of content for modules 2-5 and the hands-on activity materials. Co-PIs will support this objective's activities by supplying input, reviewing materials, providing modifications, and identifying specific food products of relevance to inform the development of the hands-on activity materials.When designing the in-person workshop, institutional teams will work together to develop learning objectives, modules, and the hands-on activity. Module content will be directly linked to the agreed upon learning objectives. Content will be focused on fostering understanding of basic/introductory food safety concepts and practices, in addition to addressing topics related to the PC Rule to support PCQI readiness. Examples will emphasize the scale, concerns, and needs of small processors. In-person workshop modules will be developed in collaboration with all participating institutions. The group will work independently to develop and review module content, with quarterly meetings (approximately three meetings) occurring in Phase I to ensure materials are developed on time.Modules 2-5, in addition to the hands-on activity, will be disseminated to training participants at the in-person workshop. Once the advisory committee has approved course content in each of the five modules and hands-on activity, the project team will begin to deliver the training. It is anticipated that each state will deliver one training per year in years 2 and 3, but the Co-PIs will aid in-person delivery in other states as needed. Once registering for the course, participants will receive access to the course page on which directions and preliminary communication about the in-person workshop will occur. It will be communicated to the training participants at least three times of the course's hybrid design, procedures for completing material prior to attending the in-person workshop, and what to expect at the inperson training. At least one in-person training will occur in the state of each participating institution per year in years 2 and 3. After the training (virtual, asynchronous state-specific regulatory overview video and in-person workshop), attendees will receive certificatesto show participation.Participants will take pre- and post-tests before and after in-person training delivery, respectively.Data will be used to assess knowledge gain after in-person implementation. The project team has developed an approach to collecting and analyzing data to evaluate the engagement, experience, confidence and efficacy of the training content, in addition to the hybrid approach as a way to enhance stakeholder education, to support both goals of this proposal and the Southern Center needs for their independent evaluation assessment.Our evaluation and reporting plan is informed by three overlapping approaches: (1) systems evaluation, (2) formative evaluation related to the approach, delivery methods, and training of the participants, and (3) summative evaluation to interpret participant efficacy around implementing what they learned. Since the ability to randomly select the population is removed due to the specificity of the topic and stakeholders, the non-equivalent group design will aid in the pre- and post-aspects of the evaluation, gauging change over time and what the participants reported they learned and implemented back in their operations. The anticipated target of 160 participants (20 participants/training) will be a large enough sample for a statistically relevant analysis and the knowledge gain related to safe processing practices, intent to train, and user experience with the training modules during the project timeline will be the focus. The formative evaluation process will ensure that the approach, delivery methods, and training outlined in the proposal are being carried out to design, deliver, and then evaluate objectives 1, 2, and 3. The summative evaluation will occur concurrently to assess participants' efficacy around implementing what they learned and their perceived ability to change their practices to enter new markets. While the project will not allow for long-term follow up of the participants and if they did enter new markets or expanded their markets after implementing what they learned, some medium-term follow up may be possible from years 1 and 2.Evaluation materials will be designed to integrate with the virtual, asynchronous and in person training to be included as part of the programming offered. While there may be slight changes between the three types of training, the goal will be to adapt to the types of delivery method. Evaluation materials will be co-designed with the project team and piloted as part of the project to ensure access, readability, and making sure materials assess a change in knowledge and skills and change in efficacy.