Jump to main content.

Strategic Implementation of IPM in Schools Utilizing a Statewide Coalition - Final Report

Disclaimer

This report was prepared by an EPA assistance agreement recipient and represents only the views of the author rather than EPA.

L. C. ‘Fudd’ Graham
Dept. of Entomology & Plant Pathology
Auburn University
301 Funchess Hall
Auburn, AL 36849-5413
334-844-2563
334-844-2530
fgraham@acesag.auburn.edu

Original statewide coalition collaborators:

Coalition collaborators (those actively promoting the IPM program) added during grant period:

Funds from this grant were used to improve an on-going IPM program in the Auburn City School System to meet qualifications for IPM Star certification, to expand the IPM programs recently initiated in the Alexander City School System and the Mobile and Geneva County School Systems and to initiate an IPM program in the Elmore County School System.

Objectives

  1. Implement “The Monroe IPM Model” in the rural public school community in Alabama by coordinating/implementing a successful model program in three schools in the Elmore County School system.
  2. Utilize and educate change agents involved with the implementation of IPM concerning program initiation, implementation and evaluation of IPM in the public school environment in the Auburn City School system, the three pilot schools in Mobile County, the Geneva County School System, and the Alexander City School System in order to expand these programs and ensure their continuation. In particular, more emphasis will be given to the professional pest managers and school business officials regarding the partnering necessary for successful implementation.
  3. Verify the progress that the school community is making in pest management using the IPM Star Certification program as a standard for “demand side” pest management and as standards for pest management professionals.

Approach and Methods

Auburn City School System

The Monroe IPM Model was implemented in the Auburn City School System in early 2000 with three pilot schools. At the time this program was initiated, all schools in Auburn were using IPM methods for pest management and participants were ready to serve as peers for new school systems. Richard Lumpkin of Lumpkin Pest Management, the pest management professional (PMP) contracted by Auburn City Schools, and Nancy Golson, elementary school principal, served as peers and ambassadors when new programs were initiated in the Elmore County and Alexander City School Systems. Dr. Golson met with administrators in the Alexander City and Elmore County School Systems at initial meetings to explain the Monroe IPM Model and implementation. Mr. Lumpkin was hired as a contractor to serve as on-site coordinator for the Elmore County School System, to work with local PMPs at the three Elmore County pilot schools and to train custodial and cafeteria staff.

During the period of this grant (October 2003 – September 2005), the Auburn City School System was preparing to meet requirements for IPM Star Certification. The school board and administration adopted IPM for pest control as board policy for the school system. Training sessions on IPM and sanitation for custodial and cafeteria staff were conducted during an in-service day during the school year. IPM strategies were expanded from interior pest management to include the entire exterior campus and athletic facilities.

Geneva County School System

We were invited to implement the Monroe IPM Model in the Geneva County School System by Joe Holmes, the maintenance supervisor/technology coordinator for the school system. He had obtained his license as a PMP several years before as a means to save money for the school system. He became aware of our program at the winter meeting of the Alabama Pest Control Association and began to implement IPM methods in his school system.

We did not set up pilot schools here since there were only nine schools in the system and all were currently using some IPM methods. Our team visited all of the schools in the system and made initial pest audits in all nine schools. No pesticide audits could be made due to lack of records. The system was scored using the IPM Standards for Schools developed by Tom Green of the IPM Institute of North America. Monitoring programs were established in all schools and pest logs were placed in the front office and kitchen of each school for all pest sightings by students and staff. Recommendations were made for changes in products used to control pests. Training sessions were conducted for custodial and cafeteria staff at the start of the school year.

Monthly visits were scheduled to the school system, but these had to be cancelled for over nine months. Two hurricanes produced wind damage to almost every roof in the school system. We were asked to wait until construction was complete to return. On our return visits, we were pleased to find that the program was still in place and in excellent shape. The kitchens in the system were some of the cleanest we had seen. New metal storage shelves had been purchased for one cafeteria. Mr. Holmes has a steam cleaner in each cafeteria in the system and these are used at each school break to clean grease build-up and hard to reach areas of each kitchen. There are very few places in these kitchens conducive to pests and monitor logs confirm the positive effects of keeping a food service area clean.

Alexander City School System

One of the two PMPs servicing this system was using some IPM methods and requested that we implement the Monroe IPM Model in this system. After getting permission from the superintendent, an initial meeting was conducted with school system administrators and PMPs. After our presentation, the second PMP decided not to participate since he could not do ‘preventative’ treatments. The PMP that asked us to implement the Monroe IPM model submitted a bid and now has all five schools in the system under contract, using IPM methods.

Initial pest and pesticide audits were conducted at all five schools. Monitoring programs were established in all schools and pest logs were placed in the front office and cafeteria in each school for all pest sightings by students and staff. Recommendations were made for changes in products used to control pests. Training sessions were conducted for custodial and cafeteria staff at the start of the school year.

The on-site coordinator visited the school system monthly, if possible and most visits were timed to inspect the schools with the local PMP. Other visits were scheduled, as needed, to visit with school administrators, custodians and cafeteria personnel.

Elmore County School System

Initial contacts were made with the superintendent to get permission to implement the Monroe IPM Model in three pilot schools. A high school, an intermediate school and an elementary school were chosen for the pilots. An initial meeting was conducted with school system administrators and PMPs in the pilot schools. PMP contracts in Elmore County were not bid for an entire school. The child nutrition program hired a PMP for the cafeteria and the principal hired another PMP for the remainder of the school. In the case of our three pilot schools, these were different companies. One PMP serviced two cafeterias and another PMP serviced the third cafeteria. A third PMP serviced the elementary and middle schools and a fourth serviced the high school. Due to the number of PMPs, training time with each PMP is reduced.

Initial pest and pesticide audits were conducted at all three pilot schools. Monitoring programs were established and pest logs were placed in the front office and cafeteria of each pilot school for all pest sightings by students and staff. Recommendations were made for changes in products used to control pests. Training sessions were conducted for custodial and cafeteria staff at the start of the school year. The system was scored using the IPM Standards for Schools.

Mobile County School System

Initial contacts had been made with the Mobile County School System in late 2000. Three pilot schools were chosen and contacts were made with officials in the schools and within the administrative system. Trainings had been conducted at the pilot schools and school officials and maintenance personnel from these schools visited the Auburn City School System to learn from their successful IPM program.

By the time we received this grant, the original central office administrators in charge of maintenance had moved on to other systems. One of the original pilot schools was demolished and a new school was under construction. Another hindrance to the program was the hurricane seasons during 2004 and 2005. Like the Geneva County School System, the Mobile County School System had severe damage from these storms.

One recommendation that we made early in the program initiated in 2000 was adopted by the administration in 2003 and a single PMP was hired on a contract for pest management for the entire school system. Even though we were not able to get the school system active in the IPM program at that time, the school system did an adequate job with sanitation and maintenance. We were able to work with the PMP to train his technicians in IPM methods and the PMP began using IPM principles in the schools. Training sessions on pest clean out, monitoring, bait placement, communication, etc. were held at three schools for the PMPs. With this approach, we were able to keep a bare bones program in the schools. In addition, we worked with several interested principals on IPM practices in these schools.

We made several attempts during the grant period to get cooperation from the school system and were not successful in this goal until July 2005 when we implemented five new pilot schools. Initial inspections at these schools were made late 2005. We plan to expand the pilot program to five new schools in the system in the fall of 2006.

Financial Assistance

Mini-grants were made available to the school systems in the form of $5000 cash or by providing equipment and supplies to the school system. Grants were used to purchase door sweeps, make repairs, seal exterior holes, install mop & broom racks, purchase shelving and plastic storage containers, etc. Several child nutrition programs used the money as seed money to combine with other resources to purchase metal shelving for cafeteria storage for pilot and other schools in the system. All schools receiving monetary grants were required to submit a request for funding specifying use of the funds.

Impact Assessment

Pesticide Audits

Information on pesticide application was compiled on schools in the Elmore County School System and Alexander City School System. The PMP servicing the Alexander City School System was employing some IPM strategies in the schools prior to implementation of our program.

Data were available for three Alexander City Schools from January 2002 until the program was implemented in March 2004. An average of 3954.7 grams of formulated material was applied to each school during this time period. These were interior and perimeter treatments. The applications contained pyrethroids in aerosol and dust formulations. No applications were made to the school yard for pests such as the imported fire ant. According to records from March 2006 through May 2006 in these same schools, an average of 632.6 grams of formulated material was applied per school as part of the normal pest management service. Part of our IPM program at this school includes management of fire ants on the school campus. The PMP did not include this service prior to implementing the IPM program. During the three month sample period in 2006, 1210.06 grams of fire ant bait were applied to the campuses for fire ant management. There was also a severe black widow infestation located under the outside bleachers. The PMP applied 3 gallons of 0.03% formulated pyrethroid spray to the area under the bleachers. Even with the addition of the fire ant management program and the one-time black widow treatment during this three month period, the total formulated material applied was still less than before the IPM program was initiated (3079.1 grams). Except for the black widow treatment, all materials applied were bait formulations.

In the Elmore County School System, service for the cafeteria and the remainder of the school were bid separately. Most schools were serviced by two PMPs, one for the cafeteria and one for the remainder of the school. Data were available for the three school buildings and one cafeteria for periods ranging from nine months to thirteen months prior to implementation of the IPM program. In the year before implementation, an average of 10506.8 grams of formulated material was applied to the cafeteria each month. Each pilot school was treated with an average of 7759.8 grams of formulated material per month. These monthly service calls included pyrethroids applied in aerosol formulation as a routine treatment. From February 2006 until May 2006, two cafeterias were not treated with insecticides and one received 391.6 grams of bifenthrin as a perimeter treatment. This is an average of 43.5 grams of formulated material per month for each cafeteria. Two schools were sampled during this period. Neither of the schools was treated with insecticide.

Pesticide application data were also collected from other cafeterias in the Elmore County School System from February 2006 until May 2006. The PMP servicing the pilot schools now services all cafeterias. An average of 2002.5 grams per month of formulated material was applied to the cafeterias not in the pilot IPM program, a reduction of over 8000 grams of formulated material since the program was initiated. This reduction indicates that a PMP implementing IPM methods can reduce pesticide use if a school is relatively well managed and clean. This also implies that implementation of an IPM program in pilot schools within a system can have an effect on other facilities in the system. The reduction in pesticide used seen in the pilot schools highlights the added benefits (two schools with no pesticide application) when the school works with the PMP.

IPM Standards for Schools

The Geneva County and Elmore County School Systems were scored using IPM standards before implementation of the Monroe IPM Model and again in 2006. Scoring was accomplished using the IPM Standards for Schools developed by Tom Green (http://www.ipminstitute.org/school.htm). The scoring system is a continuum with a 50% rating indicating an IPM achiever and above 75% indicating excellence in IPM. As expected, initial scores in each system were low with Elmore County scoring 15.4% and Geneva County scoring 21.7%. The entire Geneva County School System had a score of 50.7% in the 2006 audit. The model has not spread into other schools in Elmore County as was anticipated. The pilot schools in this system are maintaining IPM standards, scoring 44.2%.

Other Impacts

In the Alexander City School System, we encountered a problem that was not anticipated. In June of 2004, three months after initiating a monitoring program, a heavy infestation of brown recluse spiders was located in the high school and smaller infestations were discovered in the intermediate school and one elementary school. The spider infestation had gone unnoticed by the school system and PMPs servicing the school for several years, based on the population found in the buildings. The heaviest infestation was located in the boys’ athletic facility at the high school. Shoes were stored on the floor in a hall closet. Helmets and shoulder pads were stored on wooden shelves with infestations in the enclosed areas under the shelves. Uniforms were stored in piles on the floor. The athletic staff was told about the problem. Over $4000 was spent on new storage equipment from the athletic budget to correct the storage problem. This area of the school was treated, but the infestation was not confined to this area. Spiders were captured in monitors in most locations throughout the school. The principal worked with us to clean cluttered areas throughout the school. Teachers and students were notified of the problem. One science teacher was given a box of monitors to use in biology class. A class project was set up for students to learn about the spiders and to set up a monitoring program of their own, in addition to the IPM program. This allowed the class to use their knowledge of biology, math, mapping and other skills and to assist with trapping the spiders. A heavy monitoring program was established in all infested buildings.

In April 2004, the Auburn City School System began the IPM Star Certification process. The school system was the ninth school district in the United States to be certified as an IPM Star School System. The Auburn City School System has been a valuable resource and partner as we attempt to expand our program.

Lee-Scott Academy, a local private school, is also using our model. Richard Lumpkin, the PMP for Auburn City Schools, implemented the program in this school in 2000. One child was highly allergic to fire ants which presented a hazard since there was a heavy infestation in the school yard. The IPM program here, as in the Auburn City Schools, includes fire ant management for safety of the students.

Bruce Alverson, one of our coalition members, has implemented a similar program for the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. The IPM program at these facilities across the state has resulted in reduced pests and over a 90% reduction of fire ants on campuses, providing a safer environment for the patients.

Things We Learned

If the upper administration is not sold on an IPM program in a school system, expansion is all but impossible. Three pilot schools can be set up on an IPM program easily. Most principals and teachers readily accept the program and work to make changes in the school that promote IPM strategies: exterior problems are fixed, storage areas are cleaned, clutter is removed, cardboard is removed, etc. But, without the support of the administration our team is too small to take on individual schools one at a time. We must have the support of an active administration for the IPM program to progress throughout a school system.

An IPM advocate in the school system is a definite plus for program implementation. In the Auburn City and Geneva County School Systems, one person in the system supported IPM and created an environment that made for a smooth transition from the pilot stage to implementing IPM in the entire system. We found an advocate like this in the Elmore County School System, but she was lost in a tragic accident. We have not found another person to replace her and expansion into the rest of the system has not occurred.

Another problem that hinders expansion is PMP selection. Some school systems have more than one PMP servicing schools in the system. In some school systems, we have two PMPs servicing one school, one for the cafeteria and one for the rest of the building. Most of our PMPs are not familiar with the inspection and monitoring techniques we recommend in the Monroe IPM Model. Therefore, these technicians must be trained in IPM methods. The difficult part of this training is shifting the perception of the technician. In our system, he must be an inspector and educator. The technician usually wants to ‘get the job done’ and leave. With IPM, the most important portion of the service is communication with the school staff. In the Mobile County School System, a single PMP has the contract for all of the 115 schools in the system. Having one PMP in the system with a few technicians is the reason we were able to maintain an IPM presence in the schools system until we were able to obtain administrative support from the superintendent and get cooperation in the schools. Having multiple PMPs in the system is one of several reasons we have not been able to expand in the Elmore County School System. There are PMPs servicing some schools in Elmore County that we have not had the opportunity to meet.

Both the PMP and the school system need protection when an IPM program is implemented. We recommend that the school system set up a three year roll-over contract to reward a PMP doing a good job. Implementing an IPM program takes time in the initial months to correct pest problems in the school system and to get cooperation from the school system staff. The PMP should be able to make this investment (time is money) and not have to worry about losing a contract once he is making a profit. The PMP needs assurance that he will not loose money implementing a program. The school system needs to be assured that verifiable IPM is implemented. The school system should use IPM specifications in the contract when bidding pest management services. We recommend a modified version of the contract developed by Phil Koehler (http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/pesp/regional_grants/1997/r4b-1997-final.htm). The PMP should also attend any IPM trainings held for school personnel.

Expansion: As a direct result of this grant, our IPM program has grown. Administrators in the Shelby County School System heard about our program and invited us to set up an IPM program in their school system. Three pilot schools were set up in December 2004. We will expand into five more schools this fall. Our program in Mobile County had stalled until our last meeting with the superintendent in July 2005. We had very little cooperation from the school system until then, but we were able to get excellent cooperation at this meeting. Apparently, the superintendent had talked with the superintendents from Auburn and Shelby County. Their reports of success in their systems were the impetus we needed to get the Mobile IPM program moving forward. We were invited to speak on school IPM at the Alabama School Plant Management Association in May 2005. The Sylacauga City School System contacted their Regional Extension Agent about fire ant management earlier this summer. The agent explained that we include fire ant management as a portion of our school IPM program. We began a fire ant management program June 2006 and will audit the schools to begin implementation of the Monroe IPM model in August.

We have established a coalition for training participants in our program. We held our first training for school personnel at Auburn High School in October of this year. Child nutrition directors, kitchen managers, maintenance supervisors and others attended the training. We recruited a new member to the coalition, David Han, a turf specialist who will help with our exterior IPM program. We have a second coalition training scheduled for July 18 in Auburn and July 20 in Mobile on Turf IPM. Gretchen Pettis, from the University of Georgia, will also be working with us at this training. Another coalition training session will be held in the fall for the child nutrition directors and kitchen managers. Training materials for an IPM certification category have been developed for Alabama. If we can get this category established, it would provide a source of PMPs knowledgeable in IPM practices to recommend to the schools.

When we received this grant, the Auburn City School System was the only school doing verifiable IPM, using inspection and monitoring before applying any treatments in the school. We had three pilots in the Mobile School System. The Geneva County School System and the Alexander City School System were using some IPM methods in their pest management programs. Our current participation is listed in the table on the following page. We now affect the safety and health of over 26,000 students directly and over 110,000 indirectly. Shelby County will expand their program this fall and a new program will be implemented in Sylacauga in August.

EPA Region 4 IPM grant update - Alabama
School System
Pilot Schools (#)
 School Name
Students (#)
Total Schools (#)
Total Students (#)
Auburn City
10
 All
4,695
10
4,695
Geneva County
10
 All
2,730
9
2,730
Alexander City
5
 All
3,550
5
3,550
Lee-Scott Academy
1
657
1
657
Shelby County
3
 Chelsea Elementary
574
36
22,697
Calera Elementary
547
Pelham High
1,112
Elmore County
3
 Wetumpka High
976
15
10,685
Wetumpka Jr. High
583
Wetumpka Intermediate
836
Wetumpka Elementary
949
Mobile County
10
 Cora Castlen Elem.
463
115
65,037
Nan Gray Davis Elem.
756
Mary W. Burroughs Elem.
411
Katherine H. Hankins Middle
1,341
Theodore High
1,717
Dixon Elementary
781
E. R. Dickson Elementary
869
Alma Bryant High School
1,509
St. Elmo Elementary
548
John Will Elementary
524
Totals
41
26,131
191
110,051

Initial pest audit and follow audit up photos

Vacuuming and cleaning a German cockroach infestation in a kitchen.
Cleaning behind kitchen equipment

We work with the local PMP during an initial audit to cleaning up a German cockroach infestation with a vacuum before applying bait and setting up a monitoring program.
brown recluse spider on sticky trap
athletic department shoe storage rack

A brown recluse spider detected in school by monitors.

 Storage of athletic shoes found in areas where brown recluse numbers were very high. The athletic department bought new metal and plastic storage for all uniforms as a result of our finding a brown recluse infestation that had been in the school for several years and had gone undetected.
storage area piled high with cardboard boxes of books
book storage area neatly organized by adding shelving

This is a storage area harboring brown recluse spiders before (left) and after (right) initial pest audits.  The brown recluse population was not found during audits, but was discovered by our monitoring program several months after the initial audits.  This discovery highlights the advantages of setting up a pest monitoring program in a school system.
outdoor storage area overgrown with grass and cluttered with debris
outdoor storage area after cleaning and cutting grass

This area around the vocational agriculture greenhouse was a source of a mouse and rat infestation in the high school. A rat burrow was found under the overturned boat in the left photo. Livestock were being fed in a pasture adjacent to this area. The rodent problem was significantly reduced by cleaning this area and keeping the adjacent pasture mown
inspecting under kitchen equipment
documenting inspection results

During the initial audit, the group looks for conditions conducive to pests in out of the way areas that most school employees neglect. These are documented in a report given to the school.

inspecting fit of exterior door
school personnel discussing inspection results

After we finish inspecting a school, we talk with school personnel to discuss our findings and to talk about situations that need immediate attention. A more formal report is provided later.

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.