Janitor Service

Janitor service is one of the principal duties for which the operation and maintenance department is responsible and is the subject of frequent complaint and dissatisfaction. If the best possible service is to be rendered and the highest efficiency maintained, sufficient personnel should be employed and a rigid system of supervision established. The number of janitors employed by the different landgrant colleges varies in accordance with the size of the plants. A total of 1,362 janitors was employed in 1928 by the 43 colleges filing reports, the highest number recorded in any single institution being 82 and the lowest being 5. Two of the colleges employed between 65 and 70 janitors.

The remaining 4 institutions employed between 60 and 65 janitors, 1 between 55 and 60, 2 between 50 and 55, 4 between 40 and 45, 3 between 35 and 40, 3 between 30 and 35, 1 between 25 and 30, 4 between 20 and 25, 7 between 15 and 20, 5 between 10 and 15, and 5 between 5 and 10. Five colleges report that students are used for janitor service on a part-time basis.

An example of the diverse organizations existing in the institutions is found in the identity of the official actually authorized to employ the janitors. In 28 institutions the superintendent of buildings and grounds is charged with this duty while a variety of officials hire the janitors in the remaining cases.

The janitors are employed by the head janitor in 5 institutions, the business manager in 7, the assistant supervising engineer in 1, the student help committee in 1, the storeroom foreman in 1, the directors in 1, and the college heads in 1. In some of the latter instances it is stated that the physical plants are not of sufficient size to warrant the employment of a superintendent of buildings and grounds.

The best business procedure seems to dictate that the officer to whom the janitors are responsible after employment would be the officer who employed them. Yet the returns show that such a practice is not entirely followed in many colleges.

The janitors are under the direct authority of the superintendent in 17 institutions, the head janitors or foremen in 18, the business manager in 1, the storeroom foreman in 1, the assistant supervising engineer in 1, faculty members in charge of the buildings in 1, college heads in 1, directors of divisions in 1, and in 2 cases the janitors are responsible to a number of different chiefs.

Thus the burden of supervising janitors has been placed upon members of the faculty and educational administrative officers in several of the institutions. Such an arrangement is inadvisable and can only have the effect of interfering with the academic work of these staff members.

Not only should regular inspections be made of each building on the campus as a check on the janitor work, but formal reports should be prepared and filed at regular intervals on their condition as to

cleanliness, heating, and ventilation. It is found that in all the institutions, with four exceptions, a definite plan of inspection of the buildings is in force.

At 17 colleges the buildings are inspected daily, at 2 semiweekly, at 9 weekly, at 3 monthly, at 2 constantly, at 2 very frequently, at 1 in the discretion of the superintendent, and at 4 no regular time is fixed. The inspections are made by the superintendent of buildings and grounds in 13 institutions, by the head janitor or foreman in 17, by the business manager in 4, by the night watchman in 1, by the supervising architect in 1, and by the commandant of cadets in 1. A system of formal reports on the condition of the buildings has been adopted by 21 institutions while in 23 others no reports are made. Such reports are prepared by the superintendent of buildings and grounds in 7 institutions, by the head janitor or foreman in 6, by a regularly employed inspector in 4, by the supervising architect in 1, by the university physician in 1, by the night watchman in 1, and by a faculty member in 1. The importance attached to the reports is signified by the authority with whom they are filed. In 4 cases they are submitted to the president, in 10 to the superintendent of buildings and grounds, in 2 to the business manager, in 1 to the treasurer, in 1 to the supervising architect, and in 1 to the commandant of cadets. The reports are prepared and filed daily at 6 institutions, weekly at 3, monthly at 1, semiannually at 1, 3 times annually at 1, annually at 1, and irregularly at 6.

The load imposed upon the individual janitor is a significant factor in determining his ability to perform the work imposed upon him and in evaluating the efficiency of the entire janitor service. On a basis of square feet of building space assigned each janitor, an effort was made to learn the standard load per janitor. Twentysix institutions did not furnish any data. The standard load per janitor in the 18 other institutions varied from as high as 87,120 square feet per janitor in the Oregon Agricultural College to as low as 10,000 square feet in the Michigan State College and the North Carolina State College. One institution fixed the load at 50,000 square feet.

Of the remainder there are 2 that estimated the standard load per janitor from 30,000 to 35,000 square feet, 3 from 25,000 to 30,000 square feet, 6 from 20,000 to 25,000 square feet, and 4 from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet. The reports disclose that the janitors are charged with other duties than cleaning the buildings in 15 institutions. In six cases the janitors are responsible for handling the campus mail and for other messenger service. Four institutions require them to handle freight shipments including the unpacking of supplies and equipment while the janitors deliver office supplies to staff members at 1 college, move furniture at 2. lock the buildings at 2, and act as firemen at 2. Regulation of heat and ventilation in the buildings is a part of the duties of the janitors in 15 institutions.

Campus and Grounds

The exterior appearance of the modern college, the architectural design and arrangements of the buildings, the beauty of the campus and grounds are factors in the creation of an atmosphere of learning and scholarship. This phase of physical plant development has been regarded as of such importance that 32 of the land-grant institutions, according to the reports received, have outlined a compre

hensive plant of campus improvement covering their future building and campus needs. In 12 cases the plan has the approval, tacit and otherwise, of the State legislative and executive officials. There are also 11 institutions that have retained the services of a professional landscape architect for the development of a system of campus landscaping, while in 13 others the actual work of caring for the campus and grounds is under the immediate supervision of either professional engineers or staff members of the departments of landscape architecture or horticulture.

The number of persons employed by the campus and grounds division varied in the different institutions. Among the largest universities is one that employs a total of 126 persons and another where the number amounts to 30.

In the remaining institutions the personnel ranged from 15 to 20 persons in 4 cases, from 10 to 15 in 8, from 5 to 10 in 20, and fewer than 5 in 13. As already indicated, the division is under professional supervision in 13 instances, a civil or maintenance engineer being in charge at 2 institutions, a resident architect at 1, a regularly employed landscape gardener at 1, and the head of the landscape gardening or horticultural departments of the institutions at 9. The superintendent of the physical plant is in direct control in 15 other institutions and the campus foremen in 23. A conception of the final authority over the work may be formed from the reports indicating to whom the head of the grounds division is responsible. In 13 institutions the division head is responsible to the president, in 11 to the chief business office, in 13 to the superintendent of the physical plant, and in 3 to the head of the department of horticulture or landscape gardening.

For the purpose of obtaining information on the amount of work imposed upon the individual employee in the campus and grounds division, data were collected. That there is wide variance in the loads is indicated by the reports. In a number of cases institutions with larger campuses employed a smaller number of persons to care for them than the institutions with less extensive campuses. The reports showed that in one college with a campus of 800 acres the number of persons employed in its division of campus and grounds amounted to 10, the load being 80 acres per person. The area of the campus of a second institution consisted of 404 acres with 19 persons employed, while a third had a campus of 250 acres with a force of 6 employees. In each of these cases, the load is 40 acres per person, an unusually high burden. The load in the other institutions ranged from as high as 35 acres per employee to as low as 1 acre per employee.

There are 3 with loads of from 30 to 35 acres per person, 3 from 25 to 30 acres, 2 from 20 to 25 acres, 8 from 15 to 20 acres, 4 from 10 to 15 acres, 8 from 5 to 10 acres, and 4 where the load was less than 5 acres per employee.

Every institution should maintain a police and watchman force for the protection of its properties from fire, theft, and trespassing; for the policing of the grounds and buildings; and for the regulation

of automobile traffic where the necessity arises. In general the best arrangement is to include the force as a part of the campus and grounds division, although it is found in a number of cases that a separate organization has been created.

The reports indicate that 39 of the 44 colleges submitting returns maintain a force of policemen and watchmen. In all the cases, a night service has been established while only 23 maintain a day service. The number of police and watchmen on duty at night in the individual institutions varies from 1 to 10, and for the daytime service from 1 to 6. The night watchmen have police powers and three institutions report that they are regularly constituted officers of the law being responsible directly to the sheriff of the county, the city chief of police, or the local police magistrate. That the organization is operated separately from the physical plant division in several instances is revealed by the returns showing the official to whom the police and watchmen are directly responsible.

In 4 colleges the president has supervision over them, in 7 the chief business officer, in 20 the superintendent of buildings and grounds, in 2 the supervising engineer or architect, in 2 the head janitor, and in 1 the military commandant. There is divided authority in 1 institution, the treasurer being in charge of the force detailed for night service and the superintendent of buildings and grounds of the force performing day service.

Equipment for the protection of the physical plants against fire has been provided by all the land-grant institutions. In addition to fire extinguishers, hose, and water connections located in the buildings, 30 of the institutions depend upon the cities in which they are located or upon nearby communities for fire protection. A system of water plugs and hydrants is located on their campuses. The remaining 13 institutions without municipal protection have organized institutional fire departments with the necessary equipment and personnel, both voluntary and employed. The official in charge is the superintendent of buildings and grounds in 7 institutions, the fire chief in 2, the engineer in 2, the chairman of the fire protection committee in 1, and the commandant of cadets in 1. The equipment includes different types of fire apparatus, such as water towers, hook and ladder wagons, hose reels, chemical engines and steamers, which in nearly every case are motor driven. One institution maintains as many as eight fire trucks, while in the remaining 12 the number varies from one to four.

Upkeep and Repair Division

To avoid rapid deterioration of the buildings owned by the institutions and consequent heavy depreciation in property valuations, a sufficiently large force of workers should be constantly employed to keep all the structures on the campus in a state of repair.

An examination of the reports shows that 41 out of the 43 landgrant colleges reporting operate an upkeep and repair division for this purpose, while 2 colleges have no permanent staff for the upkeep of their plants. The divisions in a number of the institutions are very large, every type of mechanic and craftsman being employed. One of the institutions has a permanent force of 105 workers and another 76, while the personnel of 2 others numbers from 40 to 55. The size of the upkeep and repair division varies from 45 to 1 in the remaining cases.

There are 2 institutions employing from 30 to 35 craftsmen, 4 from 25 to 30, 2 from 20 to 25, 3 from 15 to 20, 6 from 10 to 15, 11 from 5 to 10, and 8 fewer than 5. The types of tradesmen making up the division include carpenters, painters, plumbers, steamfitters, timers, electricians, blacksmiths, masons, and concrete workers.

For the efficient operation of the division, it should be in charge of a competent supervisory officer responsible to a superior administrative authority. In 22 of the land-grant colleges the upkeep and repair organization is under the direct supervision of the superintendent of buildings and grounds.

In 7 a repair foreman or supervisor has charge, in 3 the chief business officer, in 2 the resident architect or engineer, in 1 the head of the division of agricultural engineering, and in 1 the assistant superintendent.

There is one institution reporting that no one is in charge of the division, while another has broken up the organization into small units each in charge of an academic department head. The latter arrangement is decidedly disadvantageous, making it impossible for the division to work as a whole and imposing noneducational duties on members of the educational staff.

The officer in charge of the upkeep and repair division is responsible to the president in 14 institutions, to the chief business officer in 12, to the superintendent of buildings and grounds in 7, and to the resident or supervising architect in 2. In the case of 10 institutions information concerning the final authority over the organization was not furnished.

The work assigned to the division varies in the different institutions. The organization confines itself to ordinary repairs and remodeling at 22, while in 21 its work includes the erection of new buildings and other types of major construction. In one case all new buildings are constructed by the division, in another new buildings costing less than $40,000, in a third less than $15,000. The division constructs all small buildings in eight institutions. Major construction jobs are also performed by the organization in connection with service connections, such as water, sewerage, heat, and electricity, in new buildings after they have been completed by outside contract. There are nine institutions where the division is responsible for this type of work. The installation of equipment in new buildings up to a cost of $25,000 is done by the division at one insti