JCS-PH FIT 21-22 - done 1/5/22

	A	J	K	N	O	P
1	Please note: Do NOT enter data in this FIT Tool. Instead make a copy by going to File => Make a Copy. Rename the copy by your school and year (e.g. JCS-MO FIT 21-22).
2	STATE OF CALIFORNIA				STATE ALLOCATION BOARD
3	FACILITY INSPECTION TOOL			OFFICE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
4	SCHOOL FACILITY CONDITIONS EVALUATION
5	(REV 05/09)					Page 1 of 6
6
7	GENERAL INFORMATION	USER INSTRUCTIONS
8
9	The Facility Inspection Tool (FIT) has been developed by the Office of Public School Construction to determine if a school facility is in “good repair” as defined by Education Code (EC) Section 17002(d)(1) and to rate the facility pursuant to EC Section 17002(d)(2). The tool is designed to identify areas of a school site that are in need of repair based upon a visual inspection of the site. In addition, the EC specifies the tool should not be used to require capital enhancements beyond the standards to which the facility was designed and constructed.	The FIT is comprised of three parts as follows:
10
11		Part I, Good Repair Standard outlines the school facility systems and components, as specified in EC Section 17002(d)(1), that should be considered in the inspection of a school facility to ensure it is maintained in a manner that assures it is clean, safe and functional. Each of the 15 sections in the Good Repair Standard provides a description of a minimum standard of good repair for various school facility categories. Each section also provides examples of clean, safe and functional conditions. The list of examples is not exhaustive. If an evaluator notes a condition that is not mentioned in the examples but constitutes a deficiency, the evaluator can note such deficiency in the applicable category as “other.”
12
13
14
15
16
17	Good repair is defined to mean that the facility is maintained in a manner that ensures that it is clean, safe, and functional. As part of the school accountability report card, school districts and county offices of education are required to make specified assessments of school conditions including the safety, cleanliness, and adequacy of school facilities and needed maintenance to ensure good repair. In addition, beginning with the 2005/2006 fiscal year, school districts and county offices of education must certify that a facility inspection system has been established to ensure that each of its facilities is maintained in good repair in order to participate in the School Facility Program and the Deferred Maintenance Program. This tool is intended to assist school districts and county offices of education in that determination.
18
19
20
21		Some of the conditions cited in the Good Repair Standard represent items that are critical to the health and safety of pupils and staff. Any deficiencies in these items require immediate attention and, if left unmitigated, could cause severe and immediate injury, illness or death of the occupants. They constitute extreme deficiencies and indicate that the particular building system evaluated failed to meet the standard of good repair at that school site. These critical conditions are identified with underlined text followed by an (X) on the Good Repair Standard. If the underlined statement is not true, then there is an extreme deficiency (to be marked as an “X” on the Evaluation Detail) resulting in a “poor” rating for the applicable category. It is important to note that the list of extreme deficiencies noted in the Good Repair Standard is not exhaustive. Any other deficiency not included in the criteria but meeting the definition above can be noted by the evaluator and generate a poor rating.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29	County superintendents are required to annually visit the schools in the county of his or her office as determined by EC Section 1240. Further, EC Section 1240(c)(2)(I), states the priority objective of the visits made shall be to determine the status of the condition of a facility that poses an emergency or urgent threat to the health or safety of pupils or staff as defined in district policy, or as defined by EC Section 17592.72(c) and the accuracy of data reported on the school accountability report card with the respect to the safety, cleanliness, and adequacy of school facilities, including good repair as required by EC Sections 17014, 17032.5, 17070.75, and 17089. This tool is also intended to assist county offices of education in performing these functions.
30
31
32
33
34		Part II, Evaluation Detail is a site inspection template to be used to evaluate the areas of a school on a category by category basis. The design of the inspection template allows for the determination of the scope of conditions across campus. In evaluating each area or space, the user should review each of the 15 categories identified in the Good Repair Standard and make a determination of whether a particular area is in good repair. Once the determination is made, it should be recorded on the Evaluation Detail, as follows:
35
36
37
38
39
40	The EC also allows individual entities to adopt a local evaluation instrument to be used in lieu of the FIT provided the local instrument meets the criteria specified in EC Section 17002(d) and as implemented in the FIT. Any evaluation instrument adopted by the local educational agency for purpose of determining whether a school facility is maintained in good repair may include any number of additional items but must minimally include the criteria and rating scheme contained in the FIT.
41		ü	No Deficiency - Good Repair: Insert a check mark if all statements in the Good Repair Standard are true, and there is no indication of a deficiency in the specific category.
42
43
44		D	Deficiency: Mark “D” if one or more statement(s) in the Good Repair Standard for the specific category is not true, or if there is other clear evidence of the need for repair.
45
46
47		X	Extreme Deficiency: Indicate “X” if the area has a deficiency that is considered an “Extreme Deficiency” in the Good Repair Standard or there is a condition that qualifies as an extreme deficiency but is not noted in the Good Repair Standard.
48
49
50
51		NA	Not Applicable: If the Good Repair Standard category (building system or component) does not exist in the area evaluated, mark “NA”.
52		NA
53
54	STATE OF CALIFORNIA				STATE ALLOCATION BOARD
55	FACILITY INSPECTION TOOL			OFFICE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
56	SCHOOL FACILITY CONDITIONS EVALUATION
57	(REV 05/09)					Page 2 of 6
58
59	Below are suggested methods for evaluating various systems and areas:	Part III includes the Category Totals and Ranking, the Overall Rating, and a section for Comments and Rating Explanation.
60
61	• Gas and Sewer are major building systems that may span the entire school campus but may not be evident as applicable building systems in each classroom or common areas. However, because a deficiency in either of these systems could become evident and present a health and safety threat anywhere on campus, the user should not mark “NA” and should instead include an evaluation of these systems in each building space.
62		Once the inspector completes the site inspection, he or she must total the number of areas evaluated. The inspector must also count all of the spaces deemed in good repair, deficient, extremely deficient, or not applicable under each of the 15 sections. Next, the evaluator must determine the condition of each section by taking the ratio of the number of areas deemed in good repair to the number of areas being evaluated (after subtracting non-applicable spaces from the total number of areas evaluated). If any of the 15 sections received a rating of extreme deficiency, the ratio (i.e., the percentage of good repair) for that section and the category the section is in should default to zero. The total percent per category (A through H) is determined by the total of all percentages of systems in good repair divided by the number of sections in that category. For example, to determine the total percent for the Structural category, add the percentages for the Structural Damage and Roof sections and divide the result by two.
63
64
65
66
67	• Roofs can be easily evaluated for stand alone areas, such as portable classrooms. For permanent buildings containing several areas to be evaluated, roofs should be considered as parts of individual areas in order to accurately account for a scope of any roofing deficiency. For example, a 10 classroom building contains damaged gutters on one side of the building, spanning across five classrooms. Therefore, an evaluator should mark five classrooms as deficient in the roof category and the other five classrooms as in good repair, assuming there are no other visible deficiencies related to roofing.
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75	• Overall Cleanliness is intended to be used to evaluate the cleanliness of each space. For example, a user should note a deficiency due to dirty surfaces in Overall Cleanliness, rather than Interior Surfaces. At the same time, the user should note such deficiency only in Overall Cleanliness in order to avoid accounting for such deficiency twice, i.e. in two sections.	Next, the overall school site score is determined by computing the average percentage rating of the eight categories (i.e., the total of all percentages divided by eight). Finally, the rater should determine the overall School Rating by applying the Percentage Range in the table provided in Part III to the average percentage calculated and taking into consideration the Rating Description provided in the same table.
76
77
78
79
80	• The tool is designed to evaluate stand-alone restrooms as separate areas. However, restrooms contained within other spaces, such as a kindergarten classroom or a library, can be evaluated as part of that area under Restrooms. If the area evaluated does not contain a restroom, Restrooms should be marked “NA.”	*Although the FIT is designed to evaluate each school site within a reasonable range of facility conditions, it is possible that an evaluator may identify critical facility conditions that result in an Overall School Rating that does not reflect the urgency and severity of those deficiencies and/or does not match the rating’s Description in Part III. In such instances, the evaluator may reduce the resulting school score by one or more grade categories and describe the reasons for the reduction in the space provided for Comments and Rating Explanation.
81
82
83
84	• Drinking fountains can exist within individual classrooms or areas, right outside of classrooms or restrooms or other areas, or as stand alone fixtures on playgrounds and sports fields. If a drinking fountain or a set of fountains is located inside a building or immediately outside the area being evaluated, it should be included in the evaluation of that area under Drinking Fountains. If a fountain is located on the school grounds, it should be evaluated as part of that outside space. If there is no drinking fountain in the area evaluated, Drinking Fountains should be marked “NA.”
85
86
87
88		When completing Part III of the FIT, the instructor should note the date and time of the inspection as well as weather conditions and any other pertinent inspection information in the specific areas provided and utilize the Comments and Rating Explanation Section if needed.
89
90
91	• Playgrounds/School Grounds, should be evaluated as separate areas by dividing a campus into sections with defined borders. In this case, several sections of the good repair criteria would not apply to the evaluation, as they do not exist outside of physical building areas, such as Structural Damage and Fire Safety, for example.
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100