Interactive IPM Assistance Program for Schools in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma

Janet A. Hurley, Extension Assistant & School IPM Program Coordinator
Texas Cooperative Extension - Southwest Technical Resource Center For IPM in Schools and Child Care Facilities
17360 Coit Road
Dallas, TX 75252
972-952-9213
972-952-9632 (fax)
ja-hurley@tamu.edu

Executive Summary

The Southwest Technical Resource Center for Integrated Pest Management in Schools (SWTRC) proposes expanding its interactive assistance program for school districts. Goals of this assistance program include helping districts wanting to implement integrated pest management (IPM) for insect, weed, indoor mold and plant disease problems, and reducing potential pesticide exposure among school-age children.

Interactive assistance includes the following components: phone contacts with school IPM coordinators, delivery of one- and two-day training programs, on-going distance communication via email, phone, and newsletter, and on-site visits. In addition, interactive assistance includes efforts to facilitate better communication among school district personnel via a website and regional meetings. The objective of this proposal is to evaluate the interactive assistance model as a cost-efficient means of training large number of school personnel in IPM principles and practice.

Referrals and introduction to the interactive assistance program will come via a toll-free telephone hotline, website, and referrals from the pesticide regulatory lead agencies, pest control operators and Departments of Education in Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. In Texas the Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB) is the lead regulatory agency charged with enforcing a law requiring public school districts to follow IPM practices in their pest control programs.

Anticipated risk reduction will occur via increased compliance with Texas state laws and reduction of pesticide use in schools in three states. These criteria will be measured by audits of pesticide use records in selected schools and by subjective "scorecard" ratings of schools before and after school maintenance personnel have gone through interactive IPM assistance.

Objectives

Establish a referral procedure whereby regulatory officials or pest control companies will refer school districts to the Southwest Technical Resource Center for assistance with their current IPM program.
Implement the interactive assistance model and in-service training with school districts from Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico.
Quantify the impact of the interactive assistance method by audits of pesticide use records in selected, participating schools.
Expand the Southwest Technical Resource Center's database to include IPM Coordinators from New Mexico and Oklahoma.

Justification

In Texas this objective has already been met. During a recent meeting, the Texas Structural Pest Control Board and the Southwest Technical Resource Center agreed to work together to assist schools who fail to comply with Texas IPM regulations and with districts who are not meeting pesticide reduction expectations. When areas of concern are identified during a routine school site visit by the SPCB, the inspector refers the district IPM coordinator to the SWTRC for assistance. The beginning stages have been established with New Mexico in conjunction with the New Mexico Pest Management Association (NMPMA). During the summer of 2002 the SWTRC will be conducting CEU training classes for the NMPMA, during these training sessions a referral service will be established and implemented. In Oklahoma the SWTRC with work with Dr. Jim Criswell and Dr. Pat Bolin to establish a way to infiltrate the Oklahoma school districts, utilizing the Oklahoma Department of Education.
Interactive assistance will include initial phone contacts with school IPM coordinator or maintenance personnel. School districts will then be assessed their individual needs and then be offered a one- or two-day training program, distance communication via email, phone, and/or newsletter, and site visits as needed or requested. In addition, interactive assistance includes facilitating better communication among school districts via a website and regional meetings. For districts with a more fully developed IPM program, an in-service training model will be developed utilizing the ABC's of IPM video series.
School districts will be rated using a subjective Ascorecard© that will be completed by regulatory inspectors, pest control operators or SWTRC staff. A comparison of the school district's pesticide use before and after interactive assistance will be made. In addition, districts' implementations of IPM will be studied to see if additional education resulted in significant improvements.
The SWTRC's current database contains primarily Texas school IPM Coordinators. The goal of this proposal is to seek out school district IPM contacts in New Mexico and Oklahoma for inclusion in our database and email list. This database will allow faster communication with IPM coordinators region wide and will enable the SWTRC to deliver quarterly electronic newsletters, IPM updates and changes in state and federal legislation affecting school pest control programs and other important environmental issues.

Literature Review

Integrated pest management, IPM, is generally regarded as the most effective and safe form of pest control for sensitive environments, such as schools (GAO 1999). Because of its emphasis on Atreatment only when necessary and its integration of chemical and non-chemical control tactics, IPM is frequently promoted as an effective means of reducing pesticide use. However, this method of pest treatment is not effective without training (Harrington 2001). Training opportunities vary from state to state and district to district. In Texas, where the school IPM law has been in effect for seven years, training for IPM coordinators will vary. Some districts have had an IPM program since 1995, while others are just starting. Understanding the different levels of training needed is just one area the SWTRC can help these districts. In areas like New Mexico where the school IPM initiative is voluntary, most training programs must be directed at pest management professionals (i.e., pest control companies). This type of training will be more intensive, since most pest control professionals receive annual training in the form of 1 hour CEU courses. Area extension offices often offer this type of training, Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma are no exception. The IPM Institute recommends that school districts to contact their area extension office to learn more about IPM (Green 2002). The SWTRC has three state extension offices to offer this type of training and has utilized this type of training in the past.

In our experience, the most successful IPM programs are found within school districts willing to devote significant time and money to training staff, teachers and administrators. These districts understand that pest management professionals are crucial to program implementation, and welcome their expertise and knowledge (Hedges 2000, Gooch 2000). Many districts, however, do not understand that IPM must be adopted by both school district personnel and the pest control company. Training can be helpful in getting this message to all districts. Additionally, educating the school district about their role in IPM is one of the most important parts of an IPM program (Child Proofing Our Communities Campaign 2001, McKenna 2001).

Approach and Methods

New models are needed for diffusion of IPM technologies to school maintenance professionals. Although pilot projects to train school personnel in IPM techniques have been implemented in several states (e.g., Indiana, New Mexico, Arizona), these projects have been expensive and have not yet achieved widespread impact on districts throughout the target states. A centralized resource center that provides regularly scheduled training opportunities and interactive distance- and on-site-assistance is another model that should be evaluated. We believe the interactive assistance model may provide a cost-efficient, alternative means of training large number of school personnel in IPM principles and practice nationally. This will become a critical national environmental issue should the School Environmental Protection Act, or similar federal legislation, pass Congress, as many believe it will.

Although school IPM has been required in Texas since 1995, many districts throughout the state are still not in compliance. The Texas Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB) estimates that 5% of school districts in Texas are non-compliant with Texas IPM laws, 15% have significant non-compliance issues, and the remaining 80% have IPM programs needing improvement (Murray Walton, Program Administrator, Texas SPCB, personal correspondence). This estimate may be optimistic. Between 1999 and 2001 the SPCB cited 61 school districts for violation of school IPM regulations. The number of school inspections has been stepped up this year to meet a goal of visiting 800 of the 1,040 school districts in Texas by September, 2002.

The Southwest Technical Resource Center (SWTRC) for IPM in Schools and Childcare Facilities is a Cooperative Extension-based program, one of two U.S. EPA-funded centers nationwide. The SWTRC was started in August 2001 and primarily serves the states of Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. The Center maintains a toll-free telephone hotline (877-747-6872) and an internet website (schoolipm.tamu.edu ). While every effort is being made to find alternative funding for the SWTRC, there is currently insufficient funding to sustain this regional center. This grant would be used to extend the program that was initially funded by the U.S. EPA to implement the resource center.

Since August 2001 the SWTRC has directly assisted 63 school districts with compliance issues or school pest control problems. Assistance efforts included 30 site and numerous phone visits. Of the 30 districts visited to date, 13 of these districts have major non-compliance issues with the Texas school IPM law. While our penetration into the 1,673 independent school districts within our region has been modest, demand for the Center's expertise is increasing as more districts learn about the services we offer. This proposal would allow the Center to expand and continue its interactive assistance program.

The SWTRC plans additional regional training and individual district personal consultation over the next year. In order to deliver information to school districts, the center coordinator will make site visits whenever practical. Experience over the past year indicates that group training efforts can be greatly enhanced when combined with site visits. Part of the benefit of site visits results from meeting with school district superintendents and other administrative staff who control maintenance department funding. For districts already in basic compliance with the Texas law, the center will offer additional, updated information on IPM practices and law interpretation.

For districts in New Mexico and Oklahoma individual consultation will be the primary contact method initially. We will provide in-service training based upon the ABC's of IPM video series. Many school districts report poor cooperation among staff, teachers and administrators with respect to pest control efforts. In-service training will ensure that these groups are aware of district IPM programs and the importance of community effort. The center would utilize the Department of Education and other professional organizations to train key personnel within each district or region. These key personnel would then take that knowledge back to their district or region an to train the staff.

An electronic newsletter will help disseminate information among program participants. The world wide web has become a vital source of information. With the ease of the internet and email a wide of variety of information can be shared across all three states with a click of a button.

Impact Assessment

We anticipate that the interactive assistance model will increase compliance with Texas school IPM law and associated regulations. As a consequence, we anticipate significant reductions in unnecessary pesticide applications, better trained personnel applying pesticides, improved pesticide record-keeping and reporting, fewer insect, weed and indoor mold problems, and higher level of professionalism among school staff working with pesticides. We believe this will result in reduced overall pesticide use in schools. The ultimate outcomes will include reduced exposure to pesticides among school children, improved indoor air quality, and better reputation for schools among parents concerned about pesticide issues.

If successful, the interactive assistance approach could serve as a model for helping schools nationally learn to assimilate IPM technologies into current pest control programs.

The Southwest Technical Resource Center will use a scorecard method to obtain subjective assessments from SPCB inspectors concerning improvements in school IPM programs. Score cards will evaluate several performance areas that fall under the current Texas law. In addition, Center staff will select at least ten schools who had previously maintained accurate pesticide use records to evaluate the impact of interactive assistance on their overall pesticide use. For districts in New Mexico and Oklahoma we will use the districts past pesticide application use records and compare them with their current use applications to see if any measurable reduction in pesticide application has been achieved. For all districts a simple survey of coordinators and administrators to see if they have noticed a change in attitude can be done via the phone or email.

The Southwest Technical Resource Center will utilize the e-mail IPM Coordinator database to collect risk reduction and IPM program implementation information and then post this information on the schoolipm.tamu.edu web site and in the quarterly newsletter.

Literature Cited

Child Proofing Our Communities Campaign. 2001. Poisoned Schools: Invisible Threats, Visible Actions. A Report of the Child Proofing Out Communities: Poisoned School Campaign. Falls Church, VA.

GAO. 1999. Pesticides: Use, affects and alternatives to pesticides in schools. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.

Gooch, H. 2000. Erase the myths about pesticides in schools. Pest Control Vol. 68, Issue 3: 49.

Green, T. Ed. 2002. IPM Standards for Schools: A Program for Reducing Pest and Pesticide Risks in Schools and Other Sensitive Environments. The IPM Institute of North America, Inc. Version 2.2

Harrington, G. 2001. IPM in schools not a problem if done correctly. Pest Control Vol. 69, Issue 3: 59

Hedges, S. 2000. The role of pesticides in IPM. Pest Control Technology Online July 2000

McKenna, L. 2001. Don't miss the bus. Pest Control Technology Online July 2001

Timetable

Months 1-12. Accept referrals from the Texas SPCB, Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA), Texas Association of School Boards (TASB), and Department of Education Service Center contacts. We have already established a working relationship with these groups via attendance at trade shows and personal contacts. Referrals are increasing as a result.
September 2002 to May 2003. Conduct IPM coordinator training opportunities in Dallas, Houston, Austin, and other locations. One- and two-day training options are available through the Center. Day One training provides an introduction to state regulations and roles of the IPM Coordinator. Day One training is required of all new IPM Coordinators. Day Two training covers more advanced topics and is appropriate for new, as well as experienced IPM coordinators. Trainers include the major participants on this proposal and invited guest speakers. Reviews of prior training have been overwhelmingly favorable. Training in New Mexico and Oklahoma will be conducted in conjunction with pest control operators and school organizations.
July 2002, begin delivery of a Quarterly electronic newsletter. Newsletters will include tips and ideas for more effective pest management practice, evaluations of new technology, Q&A between school personnel and Center staff, updates from the SPCB, and highlighted successful school IPM programs.
Months 1 to 6. Interview SPCB inspectors responsible for referring school districts to the SWTRC. Interviews will consist of filling out a scorecard where the inspector is asked to score (1 to 5) the district in various aspects of their IPM program.
Months 6-12. Conduct follow-up interviews with SPCB inspectors who have revisited districts that have gone through the interactive assistance process. Follow-up scores will be compared to prior scores to determine the impact of assistance on school compliance with IPM regulations.

Major Participants

Janet A. Hurley, Extension Assistant & Program Coordinator
Southwest Technical Resource Center for IPM in Schools and Child Care Facilities
Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M University System
Project coordinator, will provide interactive assistance for school districts in need and conduct part of the formalized training.

Michael E. Merchant, Associate Professor and Extension Urban Entomologist
Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M University System
Project Advisor and will be part of the training team.

Don Renchie, Assistant Professor and Pesticide Applicator Training Coordinator
Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M University System
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Safety
Project Advisor and will be part of the training team.

Jim T. Criswell, Associate Professor and Extension Pesticide Coordinator
Oklahoma State University Extension
Project Advisor and will help Southwest Technical Resource Center develop key state contacts.

Patricia Bolin, Assistant Extension Specialist and Interim IPM Coordinator
Oklahoma State University Extension
Project Advisor and will help Southwest Technical Resource Center develop key state contacts.

Lonnie Mathews, Certification and Training Specialist
New Mexico Cooperative Extension
Project Advisor and will help Southwest Technical Resource Center develop key state cont

Project Budget

Project Period: July 2002 - December 2003

Budget Category	Grant Funding	Other Funding	Total Funding
Personnel	18,798.00		18,798.00
Fringe Benefits	5,163.72		5,163.72
Travel	4,200.00		4,200.00
Equipment
Supplies	2,000.00		2,000.00
Contractual
Other (indirect costs)	7,842.05		7,842.05
Total	38,003.77		38,003.77

Budget Narrative

Personnel The SWTRC has one full-time employee whose sole purpose is to educate schools about IPM. This salary is to continue Ms. Hurley's employment for additional six months, while other funding options are investigated.

Fringe Benefits Texas Cooperative Extension requires 15.5% for fringe and additional $375 a month for medical benefits.

Travel The SWTRC covers Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico which is a wide area to cover. The success of the program will require the program coordinator to travel to throughout the region with frequent overnight accommodations.

Supplies For school districts to succeed a great deal of handout material will be developed and delivered. These funds will help defray some of the costs of coping. These funds will also cover expenses like postage, printer cartridges and other office incidentals.

Indirect Costs Texas Cooperative Extension requires that 26% of a given grant budget be devoted to in-direct costs to help defray some of the overhead costs associated with a given program.