Pilot District Findings

The following observations are drawn from the waste assessment process in the six pilot school districts:

1. The six pilot districts have achieved substantial waste diversion.

All six pilot districts have achieved significant waste diversion as a matter of routine business practices and are to be commended for remarkable success in reducing waste in their respective organizations. The table below illustrates the waste diversion rate for each district as of the date of each assessment.

Table for Estimated Waste Diversion Rates for the Pilot Districts

District	Waste Generated (Pounds)	Waste Diverted (Pounds)	Estimated Diversion Rate (Percent)
Ravenswood	2,261,126	593,210	26
Santee	2,716,831	1,069,300	39
Visalia	7,842,159	2,210,000	28
Placer	2,392,832	1,033,500	43
Barstow	1,696,390	506,610	30
Long Beach	24,481,682	8,586,702	35

2. The districts appear to have the capacity in place, or available from their service provider, to divert at least 50 percent of their waste stream from disposal.

Notwithstanding the success of current waste reduction activities, the pilot school districts have the capacity to achieve a great deal more benefits from waste reduction with minimal effort and expense.

Recycling bin capacity is often under-utilized due to lack of district policy, operating procedures, training, and performance monitoring. Without exception, department heads or individual employees initiated waste reduction and recycling programs in the pilot districts. In two of the pilot districts, students initiated components of the recycling programs as part of class projects. These programs, however, are not supported by district policy or procedures and therefore are dependent on students and teachers, who come and go.

This ad hoc approach to waste management practices results in inconsistent utilization of recycling containers and contributes to contamination of recyclable materials. In all of the pilot school districts, communications to employees in the appropriate procedures or use of recycling facilities at the school campuses and administrative offices are neither clear nor adequately disseminated. In most cases the contract waste hauler has placed recycling bins in strategic locations, but school employees are inconsistent in using them due to a lack of communication and program supervision. The opportunity for school districts to reach their potential for full waste reduction program implementation lies with addressing and overcoming these issues.

Back to Top

3. The pilot school districts engage in waste prevention and recycling practices but performance varies from facility to facility.

All of the pilot school districts reported that various teachers, principles, students, or custodial staff had initiated recycling programs in the past, but most of these programs gradually diminished or disappeared when the sponsoring employees changed jobs or students matriculated.

In several pilot school districts, the waste assessment team observed consistent recycling practices at one school or facility, but virtually no recycling activity at other sites within the same district.

One of the pilot school districts has already, as a result of this project, reevaluated one component of its waste management system, specifically its school-site recycling program. By using the same service provider throughout the district, they were able to resolve previous issues related to the program’s service level, participation, and contamination. This is just one example of how school districts, even those with strong existing programs, can make changes to increase their ability to divert waste and conserve resources.

4. Management personnel interviewed in the pilot school districts are generally unaware of the State and local resources available to them for implementing waste prevention and recycling programs.

With one exception, the district management personnel interviewed were only vaguely, if at all, familiar with the types and location of local and regional waste processing facilities available. They were also generally unaware of the technical and information resources available from the municipalities in which they operate, the CIWMB’s Office of Local Assistance, or local, regional, and State agencies that can provide support and resources.

Without exception, the pilot school districts rely heavily on the contract waste hauler for advice on and implementation of waste reduction programs.

5. Environmentally preferable purchasing is not practiced in the pilot school districts.

Only one of the pilot districts consistently purchases recycled-content paper and a select number of other environmentally preferable products. In this case, the purchasing officer was unaware of the recycled content of the products until the project team brought it to her attention.

The pilot school district participates in a purchasing cooperative with over 80 other districts in the region. Upon inquiry of the cooperative, it was learned that it purchases certain recycled and other environmentally preferable products as a matter of its own policy. As a result, postconsumer recycled-content paper products and other environmentally preferable products are shipped to member districts as "default" products.

In the other five pilot school districts, paper and other supplies are purchased directly from suppliers or through smaller cooperatives without a request or preference for postconsumer recycled or other environmentally preferable products. These cooperatives supply little, if any, postconsumer recycled or other environmentally preferable products.

Back to Top

6. The majority of landscape waste is diverted in all the pilot school districts.

Interviews with pilot school district grounds managers disclosed a keen awareness of the cost implications of landscape waste disposal. Every pilot district reported the practice of diverting landscape waste on site, through community drop-off or local diversion facilities.

Tree and shrub trimmings are chipped, used on site, or taken to community recycling facilities. Even in the urban school districts, most of the green waste is being diverted for use on school campuses or sent to community green waste or transformation facilities for energy production.

The exception to the above practice is grass clippings from football and soccer fields. During the season of play, the athletic fields are vacuumed, and clippings not convenient for transport to recycling areas are sent to a disposal site. For the rest of the year, clippings are left in place on the athletic fields.

The pilot district grounds managers also report sparse use of fertilizer and herbicides on school grounds. Fertilizers are used only on sports playing fields in preparation for the playing season. Herbicides are used sparingly if at all for regulatory and student safety reasons.

7. Food service operations generate the largest volume of waste destined for disposal in the pilot school districts.

There are two components to the food service waste stream-food waste and serving debris.

The first component of the food waste stream is unused food, food scraps from food preparation, and waste food that has been served but not eaten. The waste assessments revealed very little food scrap kitchen waste from food preparation areas. Most often food scraps are put down a garbage disposal leaving virtually no waste (12). Food preparation does generate modest amounts of unused food that is not served to students. Many of the districts participating in the pilot have local charity food distributors utilize this leftover food in community nutrition programs.

There are generally two types of food serving methods in school cafeterias (13). The first is the traditional "serve" method in which all students are served the same meal. Only one of the pilot districts utilizes this method of food service. The other five pilot districts utilize the "offer" method of food service, wherein students are offered a variety of foods from which to select. The offer method of food service is generally accepted as reducing food waste, since students have a choice of food and will select only those food items they intend to eat. However, the offer method may have the potential of creating more food service debris, since food is served in individual disposable containers rather than on a single disposable or reusable tray (14).

However, all six pilot district food service directors reported that approximately 20 percent of the food purchased and/or served is not consumed and must be disposed or contributed to charity (15).

Food preparation generates large quantities of cardboard, pallets, and food containers (e.g., steel cans, plastics) received from the food warehouse and opened in the kitchens. In addition, polystyrene food trays, milk cartons, plastic pouches, beverage containers, and utensil debris are generated in the cafeteria and disposed. With one exception, all the elementary school districts used plastic beverage pouches rather than cartons. The middle schools and high schools varied in their use of pouches and cartons.

In all but one pilot school district, polystyrene food serving trays are used in the cafeterias. There appears to be limited opportunity for recycling these trays. However, there are several alternatives to polystyrene trays as well as opportunities for recycling and composting serving trays.

A recent analysis conducted by a consultant for the Ravenswood City Elementary School District (16) revealed that while reusable trays may be a preferred method of serving food from a waste reduction perspective, the low cost of the polystyrene trays and the high initial cost of purchasing dishwashers coupled with increased labor, energy and water costs make converting to reusable trays problematic.

However, the Santee Elementary School District has re-instituted reusable trays and claims the initial capital and ongoing operational and maintenance costs are modest (17). This conclusion may or may not be valid in other school or institutional settings depending on the variability in equipment selection, energy, water supply, and wastewater disposal costs. Therefore, each application must be analyzed based on local factors.

When reuse, recycling, or composting options are not feasible, the most effective method to dispose of serving trays is to stack or nest the used trays before depositing them in the dumpster. This procedure conserves space in the dumpster and significantly reduces the cost of disposal, which is generally based on volume.

Back to Top

8. The vast majority of redemption value aluminum cans and plastic beverage containers are recycled in the pilot school districts.

If these materials are not collected and redeemed by organized student groups or teachers, they are collected and redeemed by janitorial staff.

9. Pilot school districts derive little revenue from recycling programs.

During the early part of the last decade many school districts that initiated recycling programs obtained some revenue from the sale of recyclable materials. The market in recyclable materials has changed over time so that an expectation of any revenue from recycling programs is presently unrealistic. Consequently, there is a shift in the incentive to implement waste reduction programs from a revenue-based incentive to one of disposal cost avoidance.

In all but one of the pilot school districts, the contract waste hauler provides recycling bins at no additional charge; the recycling costs are incorporated into the disposal service fees. Therefore, the more recyclable material a district removes from the trash bins and deposits in recycling bins, the lower the cost of disposal service. This is a more subtle measure of the return on the investment in recycling, but nonetheless an important contribution to the bottom line of school districts.

10. The pilot school districts do not designate staff to implement or coordinate waste prevention and recycling programs.

None of the pilot school districts employs personnel for the sole purpose of managing the solid waste management system of the district. To the extent waste reduction practices are in place, they are instituted and managed by management and supervisory personnel as part of their overall responsibilities.

The project team interviews with pilot school district officials and staff disclosed that they do not readily see a positive return on investment that would justify a full-time or even a part-time position dedicated to managing the solid waste cost component of the district’s business. Moreover, the pilot school districts report they have other higher priority unfunded needs related to the educational mission of schools.

11. The success of waste reduction programs in school districts is frequently hindered by a decentralized decision making process.

It is apparent from the pilot experience that there is a delineation of decision-making responsibilities between the district superintendent, chief business official, and the principals of the school campuses. To varying degrees, principals are delegated discretion to manage district educational and business objectives at their school sites. For example, it is typical among the pilot school districts that on-site custodial services personnel report directly to the school site principal rather than the chief custodian, who supervises the night cleaning crews at all sites. Principals and school site personnel are frequently given considerable latitude in the purchasing of school supplies and classroom materials. Food service purchasing is a separate function from district central purchasing. Likewise, warehousing of food and food service supplies is a separate facility from the general supplies warehouse.

The fractionated and discretionary authority at different school district facilities hinders many recycling programs. Initiation, communication, monitoring, and performance evaluation are fragmented and inconsistent among the various facilities. Recycling programs thought to be performing routinely many times are not performing well or consistently due to poor or inconsistent communications and monitoring of performance.

Back to Top

Table of Contents | Next Section

Last updated: September 18, 2008

School District Waste Reduction http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Schools/WasteReduce/
Contact: k12edu@ciwmb.ca.gov (916) 341-6199