Provo City School District Case Study
Jeery L. Campbell, Ph.D.
Dixon Middle School Built 1931
Provo, Utah – Provo City School District
Clean Schools Initiative
Provo City School District Case Study
Jeery L. Campbell, Ph.D.
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 3
A special thank you goes to Provo City School District and Dixon Middle School for desiring
to make a dierence and being willing to take a chance for change. People of note are Mark
Wheeler, Joe Gledhill, Je Hawkins, Taylor Campbell, Principal Rosanna Ungermann and District
Superintendent Randall Merrill,
e Simon Institute provided funding for this research project and worked tirelessly to help Dixon
Middle School succeed. anks goes to John Walker, Ben Walker and Jill Edmunds for their foresight,
creativity and dedication to making a dierence in the cleaning industry,
Last, but not least, are the outstanding BYU Facility and Property Management research students.
eir enthusiasm and drive made this research easy. anks goes to Kimberly Mendez, Robert Hyer,
Eric Braziel, Robert Salmon, Garrett Strong, Benson Palmer and Cory Paxton.
And most importantly, thanks to my dear wife, Kathy, who is my all-time favorite friend. She
always plays a critical role as a great sounding board, and is an excellent editor of my work, http://
e information in this research report is intended to provide helpful information. e author,
students, and Brigham Young University do not directly or indirectly endorse any product, company
or process discussed in the research report. While best eorts have been used in preparing this
research, the author makes no representations or warranties of any kind and assumes no liabilities of
any kind with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and specically disclaims any
implied warranties. References are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute
endorsement of any websites or other sources. Readers should be aware that the websites listed
in the research may change. Every situation is dierent, thus the advice and strategies contained
herein may not be suitable for all circumstances. e author recommends seeking the services of
competent professionals before undertaking a similar program.
lċƫ lntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
ƫ /ċƫ lntroouctionƫtoƫthèƫRèsèarch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. History of Dixon Middle School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
llċƫ LiteratureƫReview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
ƫ /ċƫ DènnitionƫoíƫClèan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. Measuring Janitorial Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C. Typical Components of Janitorial Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
D. The Importance of a Cleaning Standard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
E. The Eects of Cleanliness on Indoor
ƫ ƫ /irƫanoƫEnvironmèntalƫOuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
ƫ Fċƫ LitèraturèƫRèvièwƫSummaryƫanoƫFinoingsč . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
lllċƫ MethodoIogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
ƫ /ċƫ Pro|èctƫTimèlinè. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
ƫ Pċƫ Pasèlinèƫ/uoit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
ƫ Cċƫ OnèġYèarƫPèríormancèƫ/uoit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
ƫ Dċƫ TwoġYèarƫ/uoit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
E. Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
lVċƫ Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
ƫ /ċƫ DixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫPasèlinèƫ/uoit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
ƫ Pċƫ Progrèssƫ/uoit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
ƫ Cċƫ YèarƫTwoƫlntèrvièwsƫatƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
D. Financial Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Vċƫ ConcIusionsƫandƫRecommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Cleaning costs represent 30 percent of building operations budgets, with the other 70 percent going
toward maintenance and energy costs. e United States spends more than $200 billion annually
on building operation costs. It’s interesting to note that over the life of a building, the cleaning costs
alone will nearly equal the original cost of construction. is startling statistic is oen overlooked as
evidenced by current cleaning practices. In most cases, schools are cleaned with the same processes
that were used 80 years ago. It would be hard to imagine teachers using the same curriculum
and methods that were used in the 1930s, yet that is close to what is
happening in cleaning schools today. is neglected industry is one
that would benet from improved practices and better management.
Cleaning is standardly measured by appearance with the overriding
objective being to spend as little as possible. However, cleaning is done
for more reasons than just appearance. Cleaning, or lack there of,
impacts indoor air quality and building health. It aects absenteeism
for students and faculty. Lack of cleanliness can become a distraction that clouds the learning
process, thus it has an impact on learning and student achievement scores. Cleaning has an eect on
the overall culture and “feeling” of a school. It plays an important role in extending the physical life
of a building and improving the value of its real estate assets. Furthermore, cleaning has a profound
impact on public perception.
Cleaning matters. But where is the research? Where are the proven best practices? is report
describes a case study in which these questions were asked, and improved process applications
were put in place. It provides a glimpse into the eects of standardized cleaning and shows that, yes,
proper cleaning can make a dierence.
Built in the middle of the Great Depression in Provo, Utah, Dixon Middle School opened its doors
on March 7,1931. Over the years Dixon has been remodeled numerous times so that today it is nearly
three times larger than its original structure. Dixon is well known for its tiled staircase, its large
collection of hand-painted art, and its tunneled basement that is oen referred to as the dungeon.
Provo City School District was facing numerous custodial challenges, including uncontrolled
cleaning costs, custodians not being held accountable for work, and schools not getting cleaned.
įƫCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 7
To address these challenges, the district decided to pilot an innovative cleaning system in one of its
schools. e administration of Dixon Middle School (considered the oldest and dirtiest school in
the district) volunteered to be the test school.
ManageMen, a cleaning consulting company,
was selected to pilot its (OS1) cleaning system
at Dixon. Some of (OSl)’s benets are: a
standard method of cleaning; better control of
costs; improved indoor environmental quality;
and improved health of building occupants .
e purpose of this study is to determine
whether a uniform standard of cleaning will
result in higher productivity of custodial personnel, a cleaner and healthier environment, and an
environment that is more conducive to the education of children.
8 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
e purpose of this literature review is to determine what has been
previously researched, studied and examined about cleaning. e general
topic of researching cleaning is both wide and deep. Because cleaning
is dened and interpreted so many dierent ways the researchers
sought to study the foundational basics of cleaning. ese included
how it is dened, how is it measured, what is contained in janitorial
contacts, determining if there a national standard, and reviewing what
the literature reveals about cleanings’ eect on indoor environmental
quality. ese areas are summarized in the following topics:
1. Denition of Clean
2. Measuring Janitorial Productivity
3. Typical Components of Janitorial Contracts
4. e Importance of a Cleaning Standard
5. e Eects of Cleanliness on Indoor Air and Environmental Quality
A. Definition of Clean
“Clean” is a exible word that is dened dierently as it is applied by specic groups to their unique
situations. e Webster Dictionary states the process of cleaning is “to rid of dirt, impurities, or
extraneous matter.”
is broad denition prompted researchers to review national cleaning
organizations to nd a more detailed denition. e American Cleaning Institute (formerly e
Soap and Detergent Association)
states yet another broad description, “cleaning is the mechanical
removal of dirt and soil from an object or area.” It is interesting to note that denitions were unavailable
from the cleaning industry’s top organizations, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the International Sanitary Supply Association (ISSA), the National Institute of Building
Sciences (NIBS), the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF), and the Cleaning
Management Institute (CMI).
In the book, “Protecting the Built Environment: Cleaning for Health,” author Dr. Michael Berry,
a university professor and consultant, writes, “cleaning is not only an activity, but is a process and
a special form of management.”
He goes on to state that cleaning is “the science of controlling
contaminants,” and should be based soundly on scientic principles.
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 9
āƫ ClèaningċƫĨĂĀāĀĩċƫMèrriamġVèbstèrƫOnlinèƫDictionaryċƫRètrièvèoƫíromƫhttpčĥĥƫwwwċmèrriamġwèbstèrċcomĥoictionaryĥ
Ăƫ /ièlloČƫ/llisonƫEċČƫLarsonČƫElainèƫLČƫanoƫSèolakČƫRicharoċƫĨĂĀĀĈĩċƫ/gainstƫDisèasèčƫThèƫlmpactƫoíƫHygiènèƫanoƫClèanlinèssƫ
ăƫ PèrryČƫMichaèlƫ/ċƫĨāĊĊăĩċƫProtèctingƫthèƫPuiltƫEnvironmèntčƫClèaningƫíorƫHèalthČƫpċƫĂăċƫChapèlƫHillČƫNCčƫTricommƫĂāstƫPrèssċ
ąƫ PèrryČƫMichaèlƫ/ċƫĨāĊĊăĩċƫProtèctingƫthèƫPuiltƫEnvironmèntčƫClèaningƫíorƫHèalthČƫppċƫĈăġĈąċƫChapèlƫHillČƫNCčƫTricommƫĂāstƫ
In 2001 Berry specied that the cleaning process locates, identies, contains, removes, and properly
disposes of an, “unwanted substance from a surface or environment.”
is suggests that cleaning is
not only an important task, but also a process that should be carefully executed and, “coordinated
with other basic environmental management strategies: source control, activity management,
dilution, and design intervention.”
Another aspect of dening clean, is to determine why time and resources should be spent on
cleaning. Dr. Berry states the prime benets of cleaning are:
- It puts things in order and immediately improves quality of life.
- It restores an object/environment to a pleasing/satisfactory appearance.
- Cleaning improves the environmental condition quickly and visible.
- It controls the quality of the indoor environment.
- Control can reduce human frustration and anxiety.
- Cleaning protects human health.
e benets of a clean environment in a school setting have been documented in numerous
studies. Dr. Berry compared the educational performance of students and teachers at Charles
Young Elementary School in Washington, D.C., before and aer it was remodeled. His goal was to
determine if there was a correlation between the quality of the physical condition of the school and
educational performance. Aer the building was remodeled, a higher standard of maintenance and
cleanliness were implemented.
Using dierent environmental measures, Dr. Berry determined the eects temperature, climate,
lighting, safety hazards, teaching space, maintenance practices, bio-pollutants, furnishings, decor,
and dust has on learning. He found a strong correlation between the quality of the physical condition
of the school and quality of learning at Charles Young Elementary.
Dr. Berry has conducted other
studies within this same general topic of school cleaning and how it relates to student academic
achievement. In the study, “Educational Performance, Environmental Management, and Cleaning
Eectiveness in School Environments,” he concludes “that eective cleaning programs enhance
school and student positive self-image, and may promote overall higher academic attendance and
Dr. Berry came to this conclusion through several key indicators: absenteeism,
chronic schedule changes, disciplinary incidents, health accident reports, risk behaviors, academic
10 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
Ćƫ PèrryČƫMichaèlƫ/ċƫĨĂĀĀāĩċƫEoucationalƫPèríormancèČƫEnvironmèntalƫManagèmèntČƫanoƫClèaningƫEíèctivènèssƫinƫSchoolƫ
ćƫ PèrryČƫMichaèlƫ/ċƫĨĂĀĀāĩċƫEoucationalƫPèríormancèČƫEnvironmèntalƫManagèmèntČƫanoƫClèaningƫEíèctivènèssƫinƫSchoolƫ
Ĉƫ PèrryČƫMichaèlƫ/ċƫĨāĊĊăĩċƫProtèctingƫthèƫPuiltƫEnvironmèntčƫClèaningƫíorƫHèalthČƫpċĂąċƫChapèlƫHillČƫNCčƫTricommƫĂāstƫPrèssċ
ĉƫ PèrryČƫMichaèlƫ/ċƫĨĂĀĀāĩċƫEoucationalƫPèríormancèČƫEnvironmèntalƫManagèmèntČƫanoƫClèaningƫEíèctivènèssƫinƫSchoolƫ
Ċƫ PèrryČƫMichaèlƫ/ċƫĨĂĀĀāĩċƫEoucationalƫPèríormancèČƫEnvironmèntalƫManagèmèntČƫanoƫClèaningƫEíèctivènèssƫinƫSchoolƫ
and other performance gauges. Some key components that Dr. Berry states include cleaning for
health instead of solely for appearance (which has been the most popular reason in the past).
Taking into account Dr. Berry’s ndings, a proper denition of clean would include the process as
well as the benets: Cleaning is a process that locates, identies, contains, removes, and properly
disposes of an unwanted substance from a surface or environment, and contributes to the health
and well-being of those who occupy the environment.
Another challenge in determining the proper denition of clean comes from the fact that the
process of cleaning varies from industry, to sector, to even building type. If cleaning were to become
a standardized process, it would aid in designing cleaning processes that would be applicable in any
sector. Unfortunately, the research shows that little has been done in establishing such a standard.
Janitorial productivity has been and will continue to be measured in numerous ways. Organizations
usually establish some type of measurement device, but there is no industry-wide acceptable
method. Several websites were searched to determine methods for measuring productivity,
including e National Education Association of Health Information Network
, HealthyCleaning.
, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
and the Environmental Protection
. Many of these resources had excellent information on custodial safety, but none contained
information pertaining to cleanliness standards or measures of janitorial productivity.
In addition to website searches, personal interviews were conducted with industry experts. Most
had never heard of an industry-wide janitorial productivity standard. Brian Stewart,
a custodian
manager who has worked in healthcare facility management and similar facilities for over twenty
years, developed his own standards. Stewart measures productivity by: 1) Making checklists for each
area and its designated cleaning worker. Several times a week he reviews an area with the assigned
cleaner, reviewing each checkpoint. He then rates the performance of each task. If an employee
consistently underperforms, he or she is reprimanded and terminated if no improvement occurs.
2) Performing a white light test. Stewart writes on a surface with an invisible marker. Aer the
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 11
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
āĀƫ PèrryČƫMichaèlƫ/ċƫĨĂĀĀāĩċƫEoucationalƫPèríormancèČƫEnvironmèntalƫManagèmèntČƫanoƫClèaningƫEíèctivènèssƫinƫSchoolƫ
āāƫ NE/ƫHèalthƫlníormationƫNètworkċƫĨĂĀāĀĩċƫNE/ƫHèalthƫlníormationƫNètworkċƫRètrièvèoƫíromƫhttpčĥĥwwwċnèahinċorg
āĂƫ HèalthyƫClèaningċƫĨĂĀāĀĩċƫHèalthyƫClèaningƫġƫaƫguioèƫtoƫgrèènƫclèaningčƫnonƫtoxicƫproouctsƫíorƫhomèƫanoƫoícèċƫ
āăƫ OccupationalƫSaíètyƫanoƫHèalthƫ/oministrationċƫĨĂĀāĀĩċƫOccupationalƫSaíètyƫanoƫHèalthƫ/oministrationċƫRètrièvèoƫíromƫ
āąƫ UċSċƫEnvironmèntalƫProtèctionƫ/gèncyċƫĨĂĀāĀĩċƫUSƫEnvironmèntalƫProtèctionƫ/gèncyċƫRètrièvèo
āĆƫ StèwartČƫPċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫFèbruaryƫāĂĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċ
employees has cleaned the area, he checks the surface by running a white light over the surface. If
the date is still there he knows the area wasn’t cleaned properly.
Stewart says a major hindrance to productivity is lack of funding. Oen, when budget cuts occur,
cleaning is an area seen as inessential. us, many janitorial departments are understaed and
underfunded. Stewart says this leads to not expecting janitors to clean and perform as well as they
could and should.
An article in Campus Facility Maintenance sheds light on how dicult it is to deal with budget
cuts. Author Michael Wilson states when budgets are cut, expectations are lowered. e article then
shared how this problem was addressed in a school with careful allocation of resources and careful
management. rough zone cleaning and implementing ideas from industry experts, the cleaners
were more ecient in their use of time and therefore became more productive.
Another way to increase productivity when experiencing decreased funding is to balance quality
and cost. is can be applied to areas, such as: determining whether individual or team cleaning is
more ecient; using the right equipment; ensuring proper training with assistance from standard
operating procedures (SOP); giving clear instructions; and lastly, inspecting then streamlining
cleaning processes.
A foundation for janitorial productivity was given in the text, Custodial Stang and Guidelines,

published by APPA: e Association of Higher Education Facilities Ocers. is book details factors
that inuence an employee’s productivity, such as instilling ownership. “Ownership is basically the
reliance upon each individual to perform to the best of their abilities on a routine basis, and having
the responsibility to recognize and complete all necessary tasks satisfactorily.” is point, although
dicult to quantify, has great impact. As a janitor takes pride in his or her work, and shares a sense
of ownership and responsibility with others in the company, his or her desire to perform increases.
Researchers identied other methods of measuring janitorial productivity, such as visual inspections,
frequency of cleaning, and detailing the cost-per-square-foot of area cleaned. John Walker of
discussed the challenges with this method. A cleanable square foot of a building
could mean a plethora of dierent things. Walker pointed out where discrepancies could occur by
asking, “Are the tops of the books on the shelves cleanable square feet? Are the inside and/or outside
of the windows in a room part of the cleanable square footage? Do you include all table surfaces
as well as the oor area?” ere are more examples of uncertainties that may be included in the
calculation. Walker points out that in order for cost-per-square-footto be an accurate measure of
12 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
āćƫ VilsonČƫMichaèlċƫĨĂĀĀąĩċƫPalancingƫ/ctċƫCampusƫFacilityƫMaintènancèċ
āĈƫ /PP/ČƫĨĂĀāĂĩƫ/PP/sƫFivèƫLèvèlsƫoíƫClèanċƫRètrièvèoƫíromƫhttpčĥĥwwwċlocalăĊtrainingċorgĥcoursèsĥsupportĥLEEDĥ
productivity, details of cleanable surface space must be outlined in each job specication, otherwise
the measure is useless.
ough federal organizations such as OSHA give laws and guidelines for safety in the workplace,
they shed no light on productivity. Taking into account the literature reviewed and expert opinions,
researchers were unable to nd a measure of productivity that eectively rated a building’s cleanliness.
Some resources have hinted at a privately used standard specic to one company or organization,
but there are no measures of janitorial productivity used across the industry.
Another area that could contribute to more eective cleaning is the standardization of janitorial
contracts. Janitorial contracts are used in every sector and facility. Whether a cleaning service is
outsourced or performed by in-house employees, janitorial contracts are used to outline cleaning
processes, frequencies and outcomes. Some achieve this result better than others. Five organizations
from dierent industry sectors were researched to determine the structure and content of janitorial
contracts. Some areas were similar while others were quite dierent. e main points of each are
outlined below.
(A janitorial training rm.) ManageMen is unique in that it is a cleaning consultation
company. It had various contracts on le to t the needs of a broad scope of facilities and janitorial
work required at each. All contracts had the following common elements:
- Cleaning company introduction and summary
- General conditions are detailed, including quality, personnel, training, rules, supervision,
billing, etc.
- Work speciĕcations citing speciĕc examples of how the building will be cleaned along with
the desired outcomes. Frequency of cleaning each area is outlined, i.e., daily, weekly, monthly,
yearly, etc.
International Facility Management Association (IFMA). (An association for facility professionals.)
IFMA is an association for facility management professionals with more than 20,500 members in
78 countries. e sample janitorial contract used was retrieved from the Kansas City Chapter of
is in-depth, nineteen page contract, contained the following:
- Bid speciĕcations and general cleaning requirements. ćese outline the contractor's
requirements, i.e., equipment and supplies, highly trained and procient sta, frequency of
cleaning, etc.
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 13
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
āĊƫ JanitorialƫContractČƫJillƫMèltonČƫManagèmènċƫRècèivèoƫĆċāĈċāĀċ
ĂĀƫ PioƫSpècincationsƫíorƫJanitorialƫSèrvicèČƫlFM/ČƫKansasƫCityċƫRètrièvèoƫMayƫāĈČƫĂĀāĀƫíromƫhttpčĥĥwwwċkciímaċcomĥoocum
- Supervisory requirements. ćis states a strong supervisory support group will be provided to
assure that high quality standards are maintained. Contractor must provide a site supervisor
as well as a quality control supervisor. Training is to take place at the contractor’s expense.
- Details of general cleaning requirements and employee expectations. It reiterates the contractor
is responsible for supplies as well as any damage caused by the chemicals or supplies.
- Services provided. ćis details the various areas to be cleaned and the cleaning frequency.
e main point that dierentiates this contract is it details what the contractor will and will not be
responsible for.
Novell. (A public corporation.) Novell has oces across the U.S. and Austria. Its janitorial contract
outlines the cleaning requirements and frequencies for elevators, bathrooms, oce areas, and all
other areas of the building. e opening statement of this contract is vague, as it reads, “It is the
intent of this Agreement that the Project be kept neat and clean at all times in accordance with the
standards of cleanliness found in other rst-class oce complexes in the Wasatch front area.”
It is
also interesting to note the verbs used in the contract describe a given task: clean, dust, vacuum, etc.,
but specify no specic result, leaving room for personal interpretation.
City of Redmond. WA. (A city government) Another contract examined was used by the City of
Redmond in Washington state. is detailed contract was found on the city website. e sections
included are:
- Explanation of awarded contract. Because it is a document written for public viewers, the
rst portion of the contract explains why the city awarded the cleaning contract to a certain
company. “Overall feedback on contractor performance has been positive during the past
several years with the City experiencing the least amount of quality issues with this service
provider than with any other contracted janitorial cleaning service provider the City has
- će next few sections outline the scope and completion of work, and policies for payment,
changes, disputes, and termination. National holidays are noted.
- As required by OSHA, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are explained along with how
to implement them. It states MSDSs must be presented in every language spoken by the
- Safety issues, background checks and accountability are then discussed.
- će next section outlines the actual tasks to be completed along with the frequencies.
- će ĕnal sections are provisions and amendments to the agreement that have been made
since the rst edition was written.
14 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
Kansas Department of Administration (a state government)
is contract is used by the state of
Kansas. While overall content of this agreement is similar to the others referenced, there were a few
- All changes were placed at the beginning of the document. ćese were quite extensive, since
the original contract was written in 1993.
- A Quality Assurance Form was referenced, requiring the inspections to be completed to
ensure quality of work. It then details how the contract may be terminated. “e contractor’s
failure to maintain overall cleaning performance at or above the required standards during
any month of the probation may result in contract cancellation.”
In summary, the janitorial contracts explored from these ve industries show many similarities
in that most detail the tasks expected in each area along with the required frequency. Major
dierences occurred in the areas of clear expectations and accountability. Several stated rather
vague expectations, such as: “A supervisory support group will be provided to assure a that high
quality standards are maintained;” (IFMA) and “e project is to be kept neat and clean at all times
in accordance with the standards of cleanliness found in other rst-class oce complexes.” (Novell)
ese both refer to an unclear standard. e interpretation of each task is le up to the personal
discretion of a supervisor or cleaner in determining if an area is acceptably clean. However, two
contracts oered more exact measurement statements: ManageMen details how the building will
be cleaned along with the desired outcomes; and Kansas Department of Administration includes a
Quality Assurance Form with its contract, which species expected quality and frequent inspections.
It then states the consequences if outcomes are not met: “e contractor’s failure to maintain overall
cleaning performance at or above the required standards.... may result in contract cancellation.”
e contracts illustrate that cleaning standards are oen unclear and subjective. However, when
procedures and outcomes are clearly specied, cleaning results improve.
Standards set a level of safety and performance for most industries. erefore, a cleaning standard
that ensures the building’s air quality, safety and health of the people therein should exist. Research
shows that students in K-12 schools have improved capacity to learn when school environments are
clean. Because there is no cleaning standard for K-12 educational facilities, students are frequently
exposed to poor indoor environments and learning suers.
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 15
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
Ăąƫ /mèricanƫNationalƫStanoarosƫlnstitutèƫĨ/NSlĩċƫĨĂĀāĂĩċƫDènnitionƫoíƫaƫStanoaroċƫRètrièvèoƫíromƫhttpčĥĥwwwċansiċorgĥ
e American National Standards Institute (ANSI) denes a standard as, “a document, established
by consensus that provides rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results.”
It is
dicult to nd standards that pertain to the cleaning industry, especially for organizations that
serve K-12 public schools. Teachers oen take it upon themselves to ensure the cleanliness of their
classrooms. e National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) recognizes the link between school
cleanliness and learning. A survey conducted in 2010 showed that cleanliness in schools was so
insucient that 56 percent of teachers in public schools purchase their own cleaning supplies in
order to clean their classrooms (PTA, 2010)
Teachers are not the only ones aected by the lack of cleaning standards. e National Education
Association (NEA) found that school janitors also struggle. One janitor quoted in the study said,
“We [janitors] need better job guidelines. irty-eight percent of us have no job description at all.
For those of us who do have a job description, 32 percent feel it does not accurately describe the
amount of work we do. Sixty-two percent of us have no say about our job descriptions, and 64
percent oen or sometimes must perform work outside our job descriptions.”
In an attempt to remedy the situation, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), a teachers’ union,
held a convention in 2001 to develop a cleaning standard, unfortunately, to date, no standard has
been established.
e American School & University reports that the International Sanitary Supply
Association (ISSA) and the Cleaning Industry Research Institute (CIRI) have cleaning standards in
the planning stages. In June 2008, ISSA and CIRI convened with the goal to develop science-based
cleaning standards to determine cleanliness in institutions of learning.
While this is a step in the
right direction, no standard has yet been published.’
APPA, an organization that specializes in educational facilities, created a visual standard, called the
Five Levels of Clean.
ese levels are:
Level 1 – Orderly Spotlessness
Level 2 – Ordinary Tidiness
Level 3 – Casual Inattention
Level 4 – Moderate Dinginess
Level 5 – Unkempt Neglect
16 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
ĂĆƫ ParèntƫTèachèrƫ/ssociationċƫĨĂĀāĀĩċƫėCloroxƫClèanƫUpƫthèƫClassroomċĘƫPT/ƫEvèryƫChiloƫOnèƫVoicèċƫRètrièvèoƫíromƫ
Ăćƫ NationalƫEoucationƫ/ssociationċƫĨ/prilƫĂĀāĀĩċƫCustooialƫanoƫMaintènancèƫSèrvicèsċƫRètrièvèoƫíromƫhttpčĥĥwwwċnèaċorgĥ
ĂĈƫ /mèricanƫFèoèrationƫoíƫTèachèrsċƫĨĂĀĀāĩċƫPSRPƫoèpartmèntƫkicksƫoíƫnèwƫinitiativèsċƫRètrièvèoƫíromƫhttpčĥĥarchivèċaítċ
Ăĉƫ VilèyČƫFrankċƫĨĂĀāĀĩċƫlntègratèoƫClèaningƫanoƫMèasurèmèntƫinƫSchoolsƫĨlCMĩƫlƫMèasurèo
ĂĊƫ /PP/ċƫĨĂĀāĂĩċƫ/PP/sƫFivèƫLèvèlsƫoíƫClèanċƫRètrièvèoƫíromƫhttpčĥĥwwwċlocalăĊtrainingċorgĥ
While the levels do not address the physical eects of cleanliness, a study entitled, Cleanliness and
Learning in Higher Education, revealed that even the appearance of a room aects learning. Of
the 1,481 university students surveyed, 88 percent said that when a room is at a Level 3 – Casual
Inattention, it becomes a distraction to their studies. Eighty-four percent said they felt a room should
be at a Level 2 – Ordinary Tidiness or Level 1 – Orderly Spotlessness to create a good learning
Dr. Berry, an advocate for cleaning for health and not just appearance, performed a study in 2006,
where he analyzed the unseen elements of a room aer cleaning. He compared the results of a
scientically-based cleaning system (OS1) to a traditional system. Two academic buildings were
chosen for the study at the University of North Carolina. Four elements were measured aer
cleaning: dust removal, presence of fungal spores, restroom bacteria count, and indoor air quality.
Aer one month, the scientic method reduced dust two to ve times more eectively, fungal spores
were reduced from 15 percent to 3 percent, and bacteria in restrooms were reduced by 94 percent.
It’s interesting to note that the traditionally-cleaned restrooms had a higher pathogen count aer
cleaning than before. e health eects of the new method had a measurable improvement. Dr.
Berry concluded, “A scientically-based cleaning process provides an immediate improvement in
the indoor environmental quality of schools. rough an organized environmental management
program that emphasizes eective cleaning, exposure to a range of microorganisms, particles, and
other harmful substances are reduced.”
ough there is currently no national standard for cleaning, studies suggest that establishing
a cleaning standard that accounts for both appearance and health would benet all building
occupants. A cleaning standard would especially benet educational facilities: student focus and
learning would improve, and the health of all building occupants would increase.
Eċƫ TheƫEhectsƫofƫCIeanIinessƫonƫlndoorƫAir
ƫ andƫEnvironmentaIƫOuaIity
A research article from Indoor Air discusses the importance of cleaning. e researchers set out to
prove that indoor air pollution had an impact on the productivity of the occupants. ey found that
introducing pollutants into an existing building space yielded lower work performance and higher
rates of sickness. Control groups of six female subjects were assigned to work in clean environment,
and experimental groups had the addition of a 20-year-old carpet acting as a pollutant. e
experimental groups had signicantly higher levels of sickness and signicantly lower levels of work
performance compared to the control groups.
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 17
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
ăĀƫ CampbèllČƫJċČƫanoƫPiggèrČƫ/ċƫĨ/prilƫĂĀĀĉĩċƫClèanlinèssƫanoƫLèarningƫinƫHighèrƫEoucationČƫ/PP/Čƫ/lèxanoriaČƫV/ċ
ăāƫ VargockiČƫPawèlČƫFangèrČƫPċƫOlèČƫClausènČƫGèoČƫPaikČƫYongƫKċƫĒƫVyonČƫDavioƫPċƫĨāĊĊĊĩċƫPèrcèivèoƫ/irƫOualityČƫSickƫ
79 (9.3), 165-79.
Dr. Berry’s study at Charles Young Elementary School revealed that a clean environment contributes
to the health of the student, which “is the state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being.
A cleaning system should enhance the well-being of students, sta, and others.”
Another research study showed that the impact of building cleanliness on health compared twenty-
four schools with visible moisture and mold problems to eight non-damaged schools. e mold
and moisture had an adverse aect on building occupants, especially the contaminated schools
constructed of concrete or masonry-
Furthermore, the study called, “Do Indoor Pollutants and
ermal Conditions in Schools Inuence Student Performance?”showed that nitrogen dioxide
(a common indoor pollutant derived from combustion processes, such as unvented combustion
appliances, vented appliances with defective installations, tobacco smoke and welding
) reduced
school attendance, and that low ventilation adversely aects student performance.
It is dicult to measure every particle in the air because there are just too many. Many professionals
use surveys for collecting data to determine possible health risks associated with IAQ. Researchers
conclude there is not a singular method or tool to eectively measure all aspects of IAQ. Dr. Berry
uses a collection of tools and method to accurately measure IAQ by tediously measuring the amount
of dierent pollutants in the air and on building surfaces. is is impractical for everyday use.
ough there is a need to eciently measure IAQ, currently though, there is no current technical
1. ere is no standard denition of cleaning in general industry, and schools (k-12, both
public and private). Dr. Michael Berry presents the best case for a denition.
2. Cleaning Denition: Cleaning is a process that locates, identies, contains, removes, and
properly disposes of an unwanted substance from a surface or environment.
3. Cleaning benets are described and measured as:
- Cleaning: It puts things in order and immediately improves quality of life.
- Cleaning: It restores an object/environment to a pleasing/satisfactory appearance.
- Cleaning: Controls the quality of the indoor environment, quickly and visibly.
- Cleaning: Reduces human frustration, anxiety and distractions.
- Cleaning: Protects human health.
18 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
ăĂƫ PèrryČƫMichaèlƫ/ċƫĨĂĀĀĂĩċƫHèalthyƫSchoolƫEnvironmèntƫanoƫEnhancèoƫEoucationalƫPèríormancèčƫThèƫCasèƫoíƫCharlèsƫ
Young. pdf
ăăƫ MèklinČƫTČƫNèvalainènČƫ/ċČƫMoschanorèasČƫDċČƫHyvarinènČƫ/ċČƫHallaġ/hoČƫJċČƫKoivistoČƫJċČƫVahtèristoČƫMċČƫHusmanČƫTċƫĒƫ
ăąƫ EnvironmèntalƫProtèctionƫ/gèncyƫĨEP/ĩċƫĨĂĀāĂĩċƫ/nƫlntroouctionƫtoƫlnooorƫ/irƫOualityċƫRètrièvèoƫíromƫhttpčĥĥwwwċèpaċ
ăĆƫ MènoèllČƫMarkƫJċƫĒƫHèathČƫGarvinƫ/ċƫĨĂĀāĀĩċƫDoƫlnooorƫPollutantsƫanoƫThèrmalƫConoitionsƫinƫSchoolsƫlnnuèncèƫStuoèntƫ
ăćƫ PèrryČƫMichaèlƫ/ċƫĨāĊĊăĩċƫProtèctingƫthèƫPuiltƫEnvironmèntčƫClèaningƫíorƫHèalthČƫpċĂąċƫChapèlƫHillČƫNCčƫTricommƫĂāstƫPrèssċ
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
4. ere is no industry-wide acceptable method for measuring janitorial productivity and
eectiveness. e only common metrics most oen used is cost per square foot (CSPF). e
CPSF varies widely because there is no standard to measure against.
5. Cleaning contracts almost always have language that is unclear and subjective with vague
expectations and accountability.
6. Because of the lack of cleaning standards, there is a lack of job descriptions and training.
In cases where cleaning standards were clear and understood, cleaning outcomes improved
7. ere is clear evidence that the lack of cleanliness has adverse aects on building occupants.
is includes poorer work performance and higher rates of sickness. Unfortunately there is
new easy and cost eective measure of indoor environmental quality.
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 19
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
e research methodology was performed in stages.
ese stages were to perform a baseline audit of Dixon
Middle School as is a standard practice by the consultants
of the (0S1) process. ose preliminary ndings, pictures
and written narrative were used to establish a baseline for
the school. More than 1,242 audit items were reviewed.
e next stage was to perform a one-year performance
audit. e last stage was a two-year audit; unfortunately,
a complete audit was not possible because of funding cuts. Information was gathered, however,
through interviews and other data available. Further audits would be benecial in determining
longterm results.
January 27, 2010: Meeting District Superintendent
March 10, 2010 District Meeting, BYU Researchers attended
April 2, 2010: Baseline Audit of Dixon Middle School
July 6, 2010: Proposal to school district
July 2010: Formulate Scope of Research, Start Literature Review
August 5, 2010: Work loading of the school
August 12-13, 2010: Boot Camp training for janitors
August 24, 2010: start of 0S1
October 8, 2010, Communication Meeting with all teachers and sta
May 2011 – Findings, Report #1
May 2012 – Findings, Report #2
July 2012 – Gather and Analyze Research Findings
Fall 2012 – Write Final Report
e baseline audit provided important information as to evaluate and establish some key topics
about cleaning to be researched. e areas of the literature review were:
- Deĕning ¨Clean"
- Measuring Janitorial Productivity
20 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
- Typical Janitorial Contracts
- Importance of a Cleaning Standard
- Measuring Janitorial Productivity
A one-year performance audit was performed to determine if the steps taken at the Dixon Middle
School had improved the overall cleanliness of he school. Pictures were taken and the beginning and
year-one audit scores were compared and interpreted. Testimonies and other anecdotal observances
were captures.
ough a complete performance audit was not possible because of lack of funding, progress was
measured through interviews, nancial comparisons, and visual assessments.
Eċƫ Futureƫresearch
Future research can include continuing to return to Dixon Middle School for a more longitudinal
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 21
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
On April 2, 2010, the ManageMen team conducted
a baseline audit for Dixon Middle School. is
audit served to provide a reference point from
which the progress of the pilot could be based. e
audit list consisted of more than 1,242 items that
review specic janitorial positions, supervision,
management, purchasing, and training. Dixon
received an initial score of 6 percent. e breakdown
is as follows:
- 4 out of 39 for the light duty job function: Nitrile gloves, Brute apron caddy for the barrel,
liners on rolls, and a closet/pantry was set up.
- 0 out of 33 for the vacuum job function.
- 6 out of 30 for the restroom cleaning function: Green Seal Certiĕed paper towels, toilet tissue.
Liners are on rolls. Wet oor/caution signs are available and in use. Nitrile gloves are provided
to the workers by the district.
- 2 out of 30 for the utility specialist job function.
- će portion of the audit that covered supervision, management, and purchasing contained
850 checkpoints and the scores were:
* 9 percent purchasing
* 8 percent management
* 9 percent senior management
Of the 218 checkpoints for Custodial Trainer and the Training Department, only 3 percent were
awarded in the audit. In addition, the auditors also noted that there was an estimated $550,000 of
potential OSHA nes due to chemicals violations. ese nes were accumulated from violations for
secondary labels on chemicals, chemicals that are not mixed correctly, MSDS not readily available,
and the required safety equipment not available.
Other issues identied:
- ćere was no procedure for blood borne pathogen/bodily Ęuid clean-up.
- Bodily Ęuid clean-up kits were not found during the audit.
- ćere was no pandemic plan prepared.
- ćere were no eyewash/ĕrst aid stations found
- ćere was no current ergonomic standard for workplace safety for custodial workers
22 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
- ćere was no standard for chemical tracking storage, mixing, or handling.
- ćere were too many chemicals and tools at each station that were not organized, clean, and
- Max/min quantities were not considered for inventory.
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 23
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
ere was no school district-wide standardization process, no best practices, and no benchmarks. A
look at the custodial job descriptions for Dixon (dated January 15, 2010) gave insight into employee
expectations. e descriptions included the names of each worker along with the room numbers
they were responsible for. Guidelines were minimal:
- ¨Vacuum all south door mats and elevator."
- ¨Clean door windows going into courtyard daily."
24 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
- ¨All stairs and railings daily"
- ¨Gym drinking fountains daily"
Hand-written at the top of the one-page job descriptions for ve employees was a note stating,
“Make sure you are all doing ur [sic] windows everyday.”
Several items noted during the walk-through included:
- Several security cameras turned to view the wall
- Broken and ĕlthy cleaning tools
- Unmarked cleaning bottles
- Space with piping was being used to store old cleaning equipment
- 6 gallons of bleach in one closet
- Restroom cart that was ĕlthy and contained a can of pepper spray
- Drinks stored near chemicals
- Discoloration and rust on pipes from improper chemicals
- Dirty mops were the same color as the grout in the restrooms
- A ¨countdown to retirement" calendar in the head custodian's oďce
Additional insight into employee performance at Dixon Middle School was noted. ere is no
career career track for janitors; most positions are lled for one year at a time or less. us, there
is no motivation to improve because there is no promotion or demotion from janitorial positions.
ere are also no prerequisites (certications, verication of knowledge, licenses, or competency
requirements) for a janitorial position. Other areas noted include:
- Products, processes, performance, tools, etc., have no standardization throughout the district.
Each school operates independently of each other without cross-communication. Hoarding
was prevalent.
- ćere was no chain of command or evidence of accountability for the janitors. će head
custodian was unaware of who he reported to. Raises were based on length of employment in
the school district instead of performance.
- Janitors spent their time responding to the teachers that complained the most instead of
focusing on the general cleanliness of the campus.
- Janitors received no training or instruction and were given no guidelines on purchasing or
using chemicals other than what they were taught by vendors.
Je Hawkins, head custodian at Dixon, had worked at a nearby elementary school for ten years prior
to working at Dixon so he was familiar with district procedures. He described the monthly training
meetings as being directed by various vendors who tried to sell products to the head custodians.
Nothing was standardized throughout the district and each building was treated separately from the
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 25
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
rest. Hawkins said most head custodians had to learn through experience, and that felt like an island
due to the individualized processes and challenges of each building.
ese statements and the audit performed above can be summarized into three main problems: l)
ere was no cleaning standard or clear expectation in place in the school district. ere was no set
health and safety procedures to regulate cleaning procedures and purchasing of chemicals. 2) ere
was no accountability or follow-through to ensure a safe and clean learning environment. Without
accountability, janitors were le to themselves to determine what needed to be done. 3) ere was
no training provided for the janitorial sta. e sta was hired “as is” and no additional training or
incentives were given.
In May of 2011, ManageMen conducted a one-
year progress audit at Dixon. Just one year aer
implementing (OS1), Dixon went from an overall
score of 6 percent to 80 percent attainment of
the 1,249 audit checkpoints.
When a building
reaches 80 percent or higher on its audit, the
Simon Institute awards the Green Cleaning
Award. is award represents a thorough
understanding of the (OS1) philosophy and
implementation of the program. Dixon Middle
School is currently the only K-12 school that is
(OS1) certied.
A personal account of the positive eect (OS1) has had on Dixon students and employees comes
from a Dixon teacher who had frequently been absent due to health problems.
I have been recently diagnosed with severe migraine headaches and my neurologist
has been trying to help me discover and eliminate things that may trigger them. She
told me to try eliminating household cleaners with heavy chemical smells from my
home as they may be one of the possible triggers. I have been cleaning with “natural”
cleaners in my house for a few weeks now. I am also taking medication and trying
to eliminate a few other things, but I have not had a migraine or blackout incident
since I switched cleaning routines. I have also had less allergy trouble.
26 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
ăĉƫ HawkinsČƫJċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJunèƫĂĉĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
ăĊƫ ManagèMènċƫĨĂĀāāĩċƫManagèmènƫprogrèssƫauoitċƫSaltƫLakèƫCityčƫManagèMènċ
ąĀƫ HawkinsČƫJċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJunèƫĂĉĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
I don’t know if the lack of exposure to heavy chemical cleaners at home and at school
are the only reason I feel better but I have noticed thatwhen I go into other schools
and businesses and smell the chemicals from cleaners that I sometimes get the
nauseous/lightheaded feeling I was getting before (when) I was having my migraine/
blackout incidents. I can’t stand to walk down the cleaner aisle at the store anymore
because it just gags me.
So anyway, I just want to thankyoufor being willing to pilot this new cleaning
program at Dixon and for using safer cleaning products. I appreciate what an
awesome job you do keeping our school clean and safe. It does make a dierence.
In 2011, Dixon Middle School received the “Best New Program Award” in the K-12 category of the
“2011 Green Cleaning Award for Schools & Universities” that is sponsored by American School &
University magazine, e Green Cleaning Network, and Healthy Schools Campaign.
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 27
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
When (0S1) was implemented at Dixon, custodians and teachers resisted the changed. Custodians
were being asked to clean in a more complete and thorough way. Teachers were asked to take
home the cleaning products they had brought from home. Some teachers were not happy because
they were accustomed to using the custodial sta to perform specic tasks for them and were no
longer allowed this service. Aer about six months everyone started to understand what was being
accomplished and accepted the change. To accommodate the teachers’ specic needs, they were
provided with a disinfectant and an all-purpose cleaner that were hospital grade and green seal. e
school was also now being thoroughly cleaned, 100 percent of the time. It took time for the teachers
to adjust to and appreciate that their classrooms would be cleaned and all their trash removed every
day. While these changes seem obvious, they were not the previous standard.
28 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
ąāƫ HawkinsČƫJċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJunèƫĂĉĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
One of the most drastic changes was in the head
custodian’s oce. Previously it was in cluttered
disarray; chemicals and tools were scattered
throughout the oce. It is now the organized
cleaning headquarters at Dixon and serves as a
model for the teachers, sta, and students. e
oce houses nearly all chemicals that are needed
to clean the school. Inventory is minimal and
there is emphasis on eciency. To ensure safety, a
single locked cabinet holds the chemicals and other
supplies that are used on a daily basis. ere is also
a storage area that is behind a locked metal fence
in the oce that holds all cleaning equipment for
the entire school. Nothing enters or leaves that area
without the head custodian’s approval.
Storage space is conserved by using concentrated
chemicals, many of which come in pre-portioned
packaging. Furthermore, there are only three chemicals used on a daily basis, and each day the
head custodian distributes the exact amount of chemicals needed to each janitor. e janitors are
well trained in how to use each chemical. Aer the chemical is used, the packaging is rinsed out
and returned to the head custodian’s oce where he counts and monitors the exact amount of
chemical used in the school each day, week, month, and year. Dixon janitors clean 130,000 square
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 29
feet, consuming only about $4.45 worth of
chemicals each day. ere was no record of
chemical usage prior to (OS1) at Dixon.
One of the most impressive byproducts of
(OS1) is the domino eect it has caused
throughout the school. As the building
began to “feel” cleaner, the principal
requested that the halls be painted so they
would better reect the cleanliness of the
school. Teachers were then asked to become
more organized and tidy: “If the custodial
sta can become more organized and get
rid of their junk, so can you.” Some teachers even became embarrassed of their own oces and tried
to keep the custodians out because it was so unorganized. However, the custodians helped those
teachers become more organized so they now contribute to the overall cleanliness of the school.
is domino eect is a result of the “Clean Building Syndrome.” As a building becomes cleaner,
the inhabitants of the building, whether consciously or subconsciously, begin to help maintain the
cleanliness of the building. An example of this deals with grati in the school. Dixon, like many
middle schools, struggled with grati. Since the implementation of (OS1) the amount of grati at
Dixon has decreased until it has virtually been eliminated. e clean domino eect also aected the
students. Janitors have noted the students’ excitement over the positive changes happening at the
school. Even middle schoolers appreciate a clean working environment.
e most dicult aspect of assessing the success of (OS1) at Dixon is its nancial impact. Prior to
implementing (OS1), there were no clear records kept of where Dixon’s janitorial budget went. To
further complicate things, Provo School District’s facilities director who oversaw the (OS1) pilot
is no longer employed there. Mark Wheeler, the current facilities director, stated from what he
has seen, the previous head custodian at Dixon was able to spend money for janitorial supplies
from several dierent budgets, making it dicult to track exactly how much money was used for
custodial expenses. Numerous attempts were made throughout the years to develop metrics and
30 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
ąĂƫ HawkinsČƫJċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJunèƫĂĉĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
ąăƫ HawkinsČƫJċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJunèƫĂĉĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
ąąƫ HawkinsČƫJċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJunèƫĂĉĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolè
School pilot.
analyses, but nothing ever came to fruition.
is lack of previous nancial information leaves no
true before and aer comparison for Dixon. Wheeler explained another nancial challenge of the
district is that each of the twenty schools is operated dierently.
ere is no consistency in how
things are measured from one school to the next.
Researchers tried to locate an appropriate benchmark that could be used as a comparison for Dixon.
While American School & University released reports for three years in a row (2007
, 2008
, and
) that attempted to set benchmarks for operations and maintenance costs for colleges and
schools, none of the reports contained separate custodial and maintenance costs. Without this
separation, the data provided cannot be used to compare with (0S1). Another study released in
2009 by IFMA provided a detailed analysis of costs. While custodial costs and maintenance costs
were separated in this study, K-12 schools and Higher Education were not dierentiated.
Education and K-12 schools operate dierently, thus using this study as a benchmark would also
lack reliability.
Since there has been little research conducted in the eld of janitorial work, it is dicult to nd a
consistent set of metrics among organizations. With this in mind, research was conducted to nd
one simple metric that should be available in most organization. is metric would be custodial cost
per square foot. IFMA’s study came closest to providing this metric, while the American School &
University study was unable to be used due to its inclusion of maintenance budgets in its calculations.
IFMA’s study provides three costs per square feet based on dierent categories that could be used:
- Institutional - Education - $1.36
- Facility Operated - 3 days per week - $1.38
- Age - More than 30 years - $1.30
Information about Dixon Middle School was equally dicult to identify. Funding for the project was
spread throughout numerous budgets. No eort was made to separate remodeling costs that were
necessary due to years of neglect and outdated codes in the building, and the costs to implement

Wheeler said he is currently working with other schools in the district to ensure these
costs are tracked specically in the future.
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 31
ąĆƫ VhèèlèrČƫMċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJulyƫĆĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
ąćƫ VhèèlèrČƫMċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJulyƫĆĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
ąĈƫ /gronČƫJċƫĨĂĀĀĈĩċƫăćthƫannualƫmaintènancèƫĒƫopèrationsƫcostƫstuoyċƫ/mèricanƫSchoolƫĒƫUnivèrsityċ
ąĉƫ /gronČƫJċƫĨĂĀĀĉĩċƫăĈthƫannualƫmaintènancèƫĒƫopèrationsƫcostƫstuoyċƫ/mèricanƫSchoolƫĒƫUnivèrsityċ
ąĊƫ /gronČƫJċƫĨĂĀĀĊĩċƫăĉthƫannualƫmaintènancèƫĒƫopèrationsƫcostƫstuoyċƫ/mèricanƫSchoolƫĒƫUnivèrsityċ
ĆĀƫ lntèrnationalƫFacilityƫManagèmèntƫ/ssociationċƫĨĂĀĀĊĩċƫRèsèarchƫrèportƫņăĂƫopèrationsƫanoƫmaintènancèƫbènchmarksċƫ
Houtson, TX.
Ćāƫ lntèrnationalƫFacilityƫManagèmèntƫ/ssociationċƫĨĂĀĀĊĩċƫRèsèarchƫrèportƫņăĂƫopèrationsƫanoƫmaintènancèƫbènchmarksċƫ
Houston, TX.
ĆĂƫ HawkinsČƫJċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJunèƫĂĉĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
Ćăƫ VhèèlèrČƫMċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJulyƫĆĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
Walker from ManageMen pointed out additional challenges. Dixon is unique in that it is the rst
K-12 school to fully implement (0S1); there were no schools to pattern. In addition, ManageMen
never recommends starting with the oldest, dirtiest, most run-down building in an organization
to pilot (0S1), but that’s what Dixon was. Even with these challenges and lack of nancial records,
Walker feels the implementation of (0S1) at Dixon was remarkably successful.
Financial projections also show the program is a success. Hawkins’ records show the average
monthly chemical cost to clean Dixon is $80.29, making the chemical cost per cleanable square-
foot $0.00076.
When adding in labor and other costs, Wheeler and Hawkins estimate the total
cleaning costs per square-foot to be $0.77.
Although there may be additional unknown costs,

it is unlikely they will substantially alter this estimate. IFMA’s projected costs per square-foot for
cleaning educational facilities is $1.36.
Dixon is far below this mark. While the nancial analysis of
Dixon Middle School is inconclusive, other cases have indicated a nancial benet for organizations
that implement (0S1)
In between the rst and second years of the pilot program, the Provo City School District and Dixon
Middle School went through some transitions with their leadership. It was during this transition that
funding was unable to be obtained for an additional audit that was to be conducted by ManageMen.
32 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
Age – More than
50 years – $1.50
Institutional –
Education – $1.36
Facility Operated
5 days per week – $1.38
Ćąƫ ValkèrČƫJċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJulyƫĆĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
ĆĆƫ HawkinsČƫJċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJulyƫĆĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
Ććƫ VhèèlèrČƫMċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJulyƫĆĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
ĆĈƫ VhèèlèrČƫMċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJulyƫĆĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
Ćĉƫ lntèrnationalƫFacilityƫManagèmèntƫ/ssociationċƫĨĂĀĀĊĩċƫRèsèarchƫrèportƫņăĂƫOpèrationsƫanoƫMaintènancèƫPènchmarksċƫ
Houston. TX.
ĆĊƫ CampbèllČƫJċƫLċƫĨĂĀāāĩċƫCuttingƫcostsƫanoƫimprovingƫoutcomèsƫíorƫ|anitorialƫsèrvicèsċ
An interview with Je Hawkins, Head Custodian of Dixon Middle School, and an inspection of the
school took place for a qualitative analysis of the pilot program. e awards and recognitions that
Dixon Middle School has received due to their success of implementing the (0S1) program were
also reviewed.
Hawkins, Dixon head custodian, explained that while Dixon was in bad shape due to the age of
the building and years of neglect and abuse, that from what he has seen and what ManageMen has
found through their years of research, the success of Dixon is more the standard than an exception.

e complete turnaround of Dixon was made possible due to the support of the school and district
administration, as well as the hard work and complete determination of the custodial sta.
Aer working with ManageMen and implementing the pilot program at Dixon, Hawkins shared
how this had changed his own life. “I had been doing (custodial management) for about 12 to 13
years, and it was the rst time that someone had approached me and said, ‘You are important, the
job that you do is important. e people that work with you are important and we need to recognize
them for that and give them the training, the tools, and the equipment that show that your job is
really a profession.’”
What was found at Dixon Middle School is not abnormal. Research has shown there are many
schools that, due to a lack of cleaning standards, best practices, or benchmarks, are inconsistent
with their cleaning. School cleaners are also feeling false condence in their use of green chemicals
and products.
Empowering the custodial sta by showing them respect, and giving them proper training and
equipment, has led Dixon’s extreme transformation, which has included:
- će removal of dozens of dangerous chemicals.
- A cleaning system that focuses on health and safety above appearance.
- će renovation of custodial closets to meet today's standards.
- će domino eČect of cleanliness and organization that spread throughout the school.
- će ability to eČectively measure and document ĕnances and progress in the custodial
- Establishing the custodial department as a professional part of the school.
- Improved health of occupants by improving the Indoor Air Quality (IAQ).
CLEAN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE Provo City School District Case Study
įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèoƫ 33
ćĀƫ HawkinsČƫJċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJunèƫĂĉĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
ćāƫ HawkinsČƫJċƫĨĂĀāĂČƫJunèƫĂĉĩċƫlntèrvièwƫbyƫEċƫPċƫPrazièlƫĪPèrsonalƫlntèrvièwīċƫDixonƫMioolèƫSchoolƫpilotċ
e purpose of this study was to determine whether a uniform standard of cleaning will result in
higher productivity of custodial personnel, a cleaner and healthier environment, and an environment
that is more conducive to the education of children.
e conclusion is that the adoption, acceptance and practice of the uniform cleaning standard,
Operating System 1 (OS1), did result in higher custodial productivity, a cleaner and healthier
environment, and thus an environment that is more conducive to the education of children.
ere are several important lessons that can be learned from this case study that are recommended
to those who are seeking to improve school cleanliness and the overall environment of schools.
1. Establishing a clear denition of cleaning is essential. It is recommended that the following
statements be accepted.
a. Cleaning denition:
- Cleaning is a process that locates, identies, contains, removes, and properly disposes of
an unwanted substance from a surface or environment.
b. Cleaning benets:
- Cleaning puts things in order and immediately improves quality of life.
- Cleaning restores an object/environment to a pleasing/satisfactory appearance.
- Cleaning controls the quality of the indoor environment, quickly and visibly.
- Cleaning reduces human frustration, anxiety and distractions.
- Cleaning protects human health.
2. e establishment of clearly understood and measurable standards. National cleaning,
facility and education associations, states, school districts, etc. must establish a common
vocabulary with clearly identied standards, training competencies, measures and outcomes
that focus on healthy environments that improve quality of life and human performance.
3. More research is needed in similar areas to better understand how cleaning can create healthy
environments that improve quality of life and human performance. Perform other case study
research of other schools who are employing the same or similar new processes.
4. Improved janitorial job descriptions, training, certications and rewards are needed
to develop an emerging new professional that is more that just a cleaner, but an indoor
environmental cleaning specialist.
5. Find and share similar case studies that can inspire other schools to make a dierence
through improved cleaning.
34 įCopyrightƫĂĀāĂƫManagèMènČƫlncċƮđƮ/llƫRightsƫRèsèrvèo
ćĂƫ PèrryČƫMichaèlƫ/ċƫĨāĊĊăĩċƫProtèctingƫthèƫPuiltƫEnvironmèntčƫClèaningƫíorƫHèalthČƫpċĂąċƫChapèlƫHillČƫNCčƫTricommƫĂāstƫPrèssċ

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.