Jump to main content.

Collaborative IPM Education and Outreach in Underserved Row House Communities in Philadelphia

Principal Investigator:

Elmore Hunter, PEPP Program Manager
The Pennsylvania State University
Philadelphia Cooperative Extension
4601 Market Street, 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA  19139
215-471-2203
215-471-2243
erh1@psu.edu

Authorized University Official:

Robert Killoren, Assoc VP for Research
Office of Sponsored Programs
110 Technology Center
University Park, PA  16802
814-863-0681
814-865-2988
osp@psu.edu

Executive Summary

In the United States, pesticide misuse by the largely uninformed general public continues unabated. Studies show people generally have a poor understanding of pest identity, effective approaches to pest management, proper use and disposal of pesticide products and alternatives to pesticides. In urban environments, indoor pests and pesticide use present compounded and significant health threats to residents, especially children and the elderly. In particular, row house neighborhoods, with buildings standing shoulder to shoulder, present residents with a unique and difficult set of pest management problems. The physical continuity of these homes encourages movement of pests such as cockroaches, mold, mice and rats as well as pest allergens which serve as asthma triggers. Desperate measures taken by residents may include overuse, misuse or wrongful use of unregistered or illegal pesticides that can both cause and exacerbate health problems and contribute to the pollution of our watersheds. Successful adoption of reduced risk pest management techniques requires buy-in by all residents, involvement of multiple partners to address the many barriers to individual implementation and a community-wide education and outreach effort to expand awareness and reach of the project.

The proposed row house IPM project addressing these issues is situated in Belmont, a low-income, primarily African-American community in West Philadelphia. Building upon our existing community IPM partnership, we will implement IPM in a targeted row house block to model both best management practices and steps needed to implement IPM at the community level. Changes in pest incidence, as well as resident and community awareness, knowledge and behavior about pests and pesticide use and IPM will be tracked. Expected outcomes are significant decline in pest levels, reduction of indiscriminate pesticide use and risk behaviors and increased awareness of IPM issues surrounding pest and pesticide management decisions.

Objectives

Objective 1: Implement IPM in a targeted row house neighborhood Philadelphia.

Row house environments in low-income neighborhoods represent both high pest and high pesticide use scenarios. Pests and dangerously poor indoor air quality disproportionately negatively impact urban minority communities' health and quality of life. Children and women in these communities are at the greatest risk because of their age and general health. One such community, the Belmont neighborhood of Philadelphia, multiple tactics and partners will be engaged to demonstrate that IPM is a less-toxic solution that is achievable and gives long-term pest suppression as well as reduced risk to inhabitants and the environment. The expected outcome is successful collective implementation of IPM where past pest problems were intractable on an individual basis, thus serving as a model for similar communities in urban areas across the country.

Objective 2: Build enduring strategic partnerships to engender long-term commitment to IPM implementation.

Successful implementation of IPM in low-income communities must involve many entities that can help, including community groups, schools, businesses and municipal and state agencies. Drawing upon our previous community networking in Philadelphia, we will build a partnership team specifically for this project. Expected outcomes include empowerment and increased capacity of partners and residents to collectively make positive change to community and environmental health via pest suppression and reduction of pesticide risks.

Objective 3: Measure impact of intervention on pest population levels, pesticide use, as well as knowledge, behavior and attitudes of residents and other community members.

Using surveys, monitoring and visitations, multiple aspects of the project will be quantified over the duration. Expected outcomes include significantly reduced pest infestations, increase in individual knowledge about pests and pest management tactics, decrease in risky behavior associated with pest management, increase in community awareness of IPM and improvement in quality of life of participating residents.

Objective 4: Create collaborative network for urban IPM education and outreach campaign.

Using the row house IPM project as concrete example of effective urban IPM implementation, we will enlist all partners' creativity and extended reach to educate the larger community on pests, pesticide issues and IPM. Project activities, testimonials and quantifiable results will be disseminated via community events, presentations, school fairs, video documentation, press releases, public service announcements and web links. In addition, project personnel will educate sales staff in neighborhood retail stores where pest management products are sold and provide IPM information and materials for dissemination on-site.

 

Justification

Objective 1: Implement IPM in a targeted row house neighborhood Philadelphia.

Pests such as mice, ants, cockroaches, rats, and pigeons, mosquitoes and weeds are common in urban buildings and vacant lots. The close proximity between row houses creates less than ideal living conditions for residents while welcoming and harboring pests. These pests are known to create serious health problems for the most vulnerable populations - children and the elderly - as cockroaches and rodent droppings are known allergens that can lead to asthma and other health problems. In addition, exposure to toxic pesticides due to misuse or wrongful use of unregistered or illegal pesticides can both cause and exacerbate these health problems and contribute to the pollution of our watersheds. Toxic pesticides have also been linked to nervous-system malfunction, developmental disorders and certain cancers (see Lit Cit section).

The general public has inadequate information and training for treating pests using pesticides and little knowledge of safer pest management methods. The bulk of their information comes from sales representatives at point-of-purchase. These problems are magnified in many urban areas where residents are poor, have fewer opportunities for education and may rely exclusively on repeated pesticide applications, either administered by themselves or extermination services. Further, residents do not know how to question service providers about pests or the techniques being used in their homes. Row house communities in the Belmont section of West Philadelphia are typical in these regards. Proper IPM implementation can decrease pest populations while reducing health risks and increasing quality of life of residents. Actually seeing a working example of IPM in the neighborhood will have maximal effect on awareness and understanding of these issues within the community.

Objective 2: Build enduring strategic partnerships to engender long-term commitment to IPM implementation.

Urban communities are complex socio-economic environments, as are the problems and solutions to be found there. Additionally, addressing barriers to successful IPM includes activities and entities outside of the individual homes or individual residents' resources. Only through teamwork, combined missions, coordination and increased capacity can we hope for long-term success. Our previous work in community organizing around IPM in Philadelphia revealed a wealth of community volunteer organizations, agencies, educational non-profits, health advocacy groups, businesses and individual activists interested in the issues of personal and environmental health raised by pests and pesticides. Partner enthusiasm and connections as well as contact with other projects across the country lead to the decision to approach the problem together, creating teams and beginning with an individual demonstration.   

Objective 3: Measure impact of intervention on pest population levels, pesticide use, as well as knowledge, behavior and attitudes of residents and other community members.

Measuring the impact of the project on the community is imperative to success of the overall education and outreach goals and reproducibility of the project. PA IPM will assess the project's impact by measuring changes in knowledge, attitude, and risk behaviors of residents and community-at-large, as well as changes in pest occurrence, pesticide use, and pest management costs. The project will have several types of evaluation associated with it, including pre-post tests, evaluations of materials developed during the project, and end of project assessments that will document changes in attitude and knowledge. All measures will be documented for other's future use.

Objective 4: Create collaborative network for urban IPM education and outreach campaign.

Traditional extension outreach materials have relied heavily on written documents distributed passively to an invisible audience. Clearly, this has limited effectiveness in reaching the general public. In order to more effectively raise awareness about the project and related issues, the community itself must be involved in constructing outreach elements. In addition, project partners already have a wealth of outreach tools, techniques and events in place. In collaboration with PA IPM tools of websites, video capabilities, publications, and The BugMobile!, we will combine our strengths to extend the IPM project information to the community and beyond more effectively.

Literature Review

Pesticide use statistics show that pesticides continue to be a first line of defense against pests for most segments of society in the United States, including those in urban and suburban environments (EPA1996-97; Kline, 1995). Attitudes towards insect pests in particular can be extreme, and lead to risky behaviors (M.L. Flint, 2003; Potter, 1998). Few people know about or understand IPM (Potter, 1995) and lack of use of protective devises, reading of labels and improper disposal collectively contribute to excess human exposure and non-point source contamination of surface waters. (M.L. Flint, 2003, Martin, 2003; NHGPU Survey, 1992). Due to lack of knowledge, residents fall prey to manipulative practices or information of some pest control operators and allow over-application of pesticides, often repeatedly to indoor and outdoor environments (GAO, 1990). From a water quality standpoint, uses of urban insecticides in particular have been implicated in national, regional and municipal water contamination, including in the proposed project area, the Belmont neighborhood of Philadelphia (USGS, 2004 and 1999a; Philadelphia Water Department, 2004, SAN, 2004). This contamination is directly related to storm water runoff from houses and city storm drains.

Initial concerns about children's' exposure to pesticides focused on dietary intake (NRDC, 1993) but recently environmental exposure of children and pregnant women has received more attention, citing troubling potential health impacts (Landrigan, et al. 1999; Meinert et al. 2000; Ma et al. 2002; Whyatt et al., 2002; Berkowitz et al., 2003). Children's' exposure to pesticides in indoor school and urban environments in particular reveals problematic practices and much room for improvement (Surgan, et al. 2002; Safer Pest Control Project, 2002). In addition, researchers are questioning the relevance of current pesticide toxicity data to long-term health outcomes. While some chemicals have extensive (vs. intensive) testing, many do not; cumulative effects of pesticide mixtures is lacking and many have not been assessed at all for emerging effects such as endocrine or reproductive effects (Munn and Gilliom, 2001; DeFur and Foersom, 2000).

Residents in low-income minority communities are disproportionately at risk. High levels of pests in these environments are known to contribute to poor indoor air quality and increased levels of asthma (NIEHS, 2003). Add to this repeated attempts to control pests with pesticides, and a vicious cycle ensues with no solution in sight. IPM has been shown to be an effective remediation in urban homes if undertaken at the community level, involving community members and other stakeholders as partners. Recent successful models include Michigan (Swain, L. 2001) New York City (Kinney et al., 2002; Campbell, 1999; Brenner, 2003; Kass and Outwater, 2002), and Cleveland (Greenberg, S. 2003). Protocols for combining IPM and asthma prevention have also been undertaken with some measure of success (Kinney et al. 2002; Greenberg, S. 2003; NIEHS, 2003). Least-toxic methods and materials and IPM protocols are well documented in the literature but lack application in many urban environments (Quarles, 2002; Mallis, 1997).

Approach and Outcomes

As mentioned in the Literature Review, there are a number of recent models for urban community IPM implementation, education and outreach. We will be making an in-depth study of these projects to mount our own for the row house initiative. Previous work by PA IPM in organizing the Philadelphia School & Community IPM Partnership (PSCIP, see http:// paipm.cas.psu.edu - Community IPM) has laid a strong foundation for the current project. We will organize key individuals from agencies, community-based organizations, non-profits, and private businesses to commit time, resources and creative energy to the project. Three teams will be constructed to address technical, resource network and health aspects of the project. Preliminary membership in these teams is listed in the Appendix.

Objective 1: Implement IPM in a targeted row house neighborhood Philadelphia.

For IPM outreach and education to be effective in specific communities, a concrete example under local conditions must exist. A local community team approach to IPM implementation in the Belmont neighborhood will serve this purpose. The Technical IPM Assessment & Implementation Team will focus on the pest management piece; the Community Involvement, Networking & Outreach Team will help find resources and connection to get the larger jobs done and the Community & Environmental Health Team will work on human and environmental health components, including behaviors associated with urban stormwater runoff contribution to pesticide non-point source pollution. Other steps in this process will include:

Objective 2: Build enduring strategic partnerships to engender long-term commitment to IPM implementation.

IPM implementation in low-income neighborhoods is a multifaceted undertaking with multiple barriers and challenges. Getting the right partners to the table can help assure positive results. We will team up strategically with key local groups, businesses and agencies having a vested and/or integral interest in improving pesticide and pest management practices in Philadelphia and work in teams as mentioned above. Members may be drawn from many different entities including PA Department of Health, Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia Vector Control, Grandparents As Parents, Beautifying the Block by Block, Community Asthma Prevention Program, Philadelphia Together Works, Philadelphia Cares, Healthy Homes/Homesafe Program, People's Emergency Center, Pest Free Maintenance, Western Pest Control, PA Pest Management Association, Pennsylvania Sea Grant and Delaware Valley Earthforce. Together with these and other partners, we will task out various aspects of the IPM row house project, conduct workshops and trainings of volunteers and collaborate in events to raise awareness of safer pest control through IPM in Belmont and other Philadelphia communities. Objective 3: Measure impact of intervention on pest population levels, pesticide use, as well as knowledge, behavior and attitudes of residents and other community members.

Pest Population Remediation :  

To be successful, an IPM protocol must substantially reduce pest populations on a long-term basis. The key pests we expect to monitor are German cockroaches and rodents (mice and/or rats). Many time-tested inspection, trapping and baiting protocols exist for these pests (Mallis, 1997; Corrigan, 1998) as well as recent adaptations that include the simultaneous measurement of related conditions such as asthma triggers and allergens (Kinney et al., 2002, NIEHS, 2003; EHW, Stu Greenberg, pers. com). Site assessments for pest and pest conditions will be made initially and documented both visually (video and photographs) as well as by standard pest management quantification methods. Changes over time will be recorded. Our larger IPM community partnership team in Philadelphia includes qualified pest management professionals who will act in both an advisory and implementation capacity. A small, minority- owned pest management business in Philadelphia (Pest Free Maintenance, Inc,) will serve as the on-site technical team leader. Rhonda Griffin and her husband Keith have been in the pest management business for over 10 years, covering many contracts in the greater Philadelphia area. For a full listing of the Technical Team Partners, see Appendix.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors

For both residents and members of the surrounding neighborhood, knowledge,

attitudes and behaviors relating to pests, pest management strategies and pesticide use and disposal will be assessed by door-to-door interviews. Interviews of residents will be based on a similar protocol developed and successfully used in inner-city environments by the Michigan Department of Agriculture (Swain, 2001). We will train volunteers from the community itself to carry out the interviews, with assistance from our project partners. At the end of the project, the identical survey will be administered to residents and neighborhood members. In addition, at participatory community events, short pre and post contact questions will assess attitudes and any changes in immediate awareness due to outreach programming.

Objective 4: Create collaborative network for urban IPM education and outreach campaign

A partner team will be formed to focus on outreach strategies for the project. This "Community Involvement, Networking and Outreach Team" will brainstorm ideas for outreach and education. Expected emphases will include the dissemination of key concepts, activities underway and quantifiable results via video, press releases, public service announcements, community events, Web links and presentations. Specific new methods for local community involvement will be implemented as needed. In addition, PA IPM will compile and disseminate on-going reports of progress. Environmental education networks (Web based and hard-copy) will be informed of the project and its progress. (e.g. PA Center for Environmental Education; League of Women Voters, Water Resources Education Network; PA IPM Newsletter). To expand the coverage of our programs even further, we will also endeavor to reach the community by the local media through press releases and public service announcements. Other activities of this team will be to give talks and present displays about the project at appropriate venues (e.g. community meetings and events, conferences)

Impact Assessment

Project impact will be measured in participating row houses and the community at large as described in Approaches and Methods: Objective 3. Expected results are:

These efforts will resonate with the community by making the link between human and environmental health and safer pest control techniques. An additional important expected outcome will be strengthening of our community IPM partnership and capacity to sustain this and other multifaceted environmental and health issues facing urban populations.

Literature Cited

Aspelin, A. L. & A. H. Grube (1996-97); Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage, 1996 and 1997 Market Estimates", Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency

 

Berkowitz, G. S., J. Ohel, E. Deych, R. Lapinski, J. Godbold, Z. Lui, et al. (2003); "Exposure to Indoor Pesticides During Pregnancy in a Multiethnic Urban Cohort ", Environ Health Perspect 111:79-84

 

Brenner, B. L., S. Markowitz, M. Rivera, H. Romero, M. Weeks, E. Sanchez, E. Deych, A. Garg, J. Godbold, M. Wolff, P. Landrigan, & G. Berkowitz; (2003); "Integrated Pest Management in an Urban Community:   A Successful Partnership for Prevention", Environ Health Perspect 111 (13) 1649-53,

 

Cambell, M. E., J. J. Dwyer, F. Goettler, F. Ruf & M. Vittiglio (1999); "A Program to Reduce Pesticide Spraying in the Indoor Environment: Evaluation of the "Roach Coach" Project", Can J. Public Health 90 (4): 277-281

 

Corrigan, B. (1998); "Telltale Sings: Cockroach Monitoring in Commercial Accounts", Pest Control Technology, June issues, p. 18-22

 

deFur, P. L., & L. Foersom (2000); "Toxic Chemicals:   Can What We Don't Know Harm Us?", Environmental Research Section A 82, 113-133 available at http://www.idealibrary.com

 

Flint, M.L. (2003); "Residential Pesticide Use in California" Statewide IPM program CA DPR contract 01-0219C, March 2003 summary of surveys, 11p.

 

Greenberg, S. (2003); "Cockroach Allergen Reduction Using Precision-Targeted IPM and the Lead Dust Cleaning Protocol", Environmental Health Watch, Cooperative Agreement #OHLHH0069-99, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Control, 44p.

 

Guerrero, P. F., J. K. Donohue, M. J. Reese, C. A. Ruchala, D. L. Eichhorn (1990); "Lawn Care Pesticides, Risks Remain Uncertain While Prohibited Safety Claims Continue", U.S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Toxic Substances, Environmental Oversight, Research and Development and Public Works, U.S. Senate, GAO/RCED-90-134

 

Kass, D. & T. Outwater (2002); "Demonstration of an Integrated Pest Management Program in New York City Public Housing", Report to the NYC Housing Authority, New York : New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

 

Kinney, P.L., M.E. Northridge, G.L. Chew, E. Gronning, E. Joseph, J.C. Correa, et al. (2002);   "On the Front Lines: An Environmental Asthma Intervention in New York City", Am J Public Health 92 (1): 24-25

 

Kline & Co., Passaic, NJ (1995); Consumer Markets for Pesticides and Fertilizer

 

Landrigan, P. J., L. Claudio, S. B. Markowitz, G. S. Berkowitz, B. L. Brenner, H. Romero, et al (1999); "Pesticides and Inner-City Children: Exposures, Risks and Prevention", Environ Health Perspect 107 (supplmt 3): 431-437,

 

Ma, X., P. Buffler, R. Gunier, G. Dahl, M. Smith, K. Reinier & P. Reynolds (2002); Critical Windows of Exposure to Household Pesticides and Risk of Childhood, Environ Health Perspect 110 (9): 955-960

 

Mallis, A. (1997) Handbook of Pest Control, 8 th Ed., Mallis Handbook & Technical Training Co.

 

Martin, J.D., C.G. Crawford and S.J. Larson (2003); "Pesticides in Streams: Summary Statistics; Preliminary Results from Cycle I of the (NAWQA) Program 1992-2001; Table 4: Pesticides in Streams at Urban Sites"

 

Meinert, R., J. Schuz, U. Kaletsch, P. Kaatsch & J. Michaelis (2000); American Journal Epidemiology 151 (7):639-646, Leukemia and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in Childhood and Exposure to Pesticides: Results of a Register-based Case-Control Study in Germany

 

Munn, M.D. and R. J. Gilliom (2001); Pesticide Toxicity Indexfor Freshwater Aquatic Organisms, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4077

 

National Home and Garden Pesticide Use Survey (1992); Pesticides and Fertilizers in the Urban Environment, House Document 14, Commonwealth of VA

 

National Research Council (1993); "Committee on Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children", National Academy Press. xv, 386 p.

 

Perera, F. P., S. M. Illman, P. L. Kinney, R. M. Whyatt, E.A. Kelvin, P. Shepard, et al. (2002); "The Challenge of Preventing Environmentally Related Disease in Young Children: Community-based Research in New York City", Environmental Health Perspectives 110:197-204

 

Philadelphia Water Department (2004); "2003 Drinking Water Quality Report" and Supplement "Source Water Assessment" available on line at http://www.phila.gov/water

 

Potter, M. F., & R. T. Bessin (1998); "People, Pests & Poisons: An Attitudinal Survey", Am. Ent. 44 (3): 142-47

 

Potter, M. F.,   & R. T. Bessin (1995); "The Changing Face of Termite Control", Pest Control Technology 27(2): 23, 26, 28, 30, 110

 

Quarles, W. (2002); "Least-Toxic Roach Baits: an IPM Success Story" in IPM Practitioner, XXIV, 2, 1-10

 

Safer Pest Control Project (2002); Pesticides in Schools: What are the Health Risks?, at http://www.spc.web.org/schneal.org

 

Schuylkill Action Network ( SAN ) at www.schuylkillactionnetwork.org

 

Surgan, M. H., T. Congdon, C. Primi, S. Lamster, J. Louis-Jacques (2002); " Pest Control in Public Housing, Schools and Parks:   Urban Children At Risk", Environmental Protection Bureau, Albany, State of New York, Attorney General, 72 p.

 

Swain, L, S. Bienvenida, E. Jenkins (2001); "Creating Sustainable Community-Based IPM Groups - The Michigan Model" at http://www.pested.msu.edu

 

Whyatt. R. M., D. E. Camann, P. L. Kinney, A. Reyes, J. Ramirez, J. Dietrich, et al. (2002); Residential Pesticide Use During Pregnancy Among a Cohort of Urban Minority Women, Environ Health Perspectives 110:507-514

 

USGS, (1999a); The Quality of Our Nation's waters - Nutrients and Pesticides: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225, 82 p. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/ circ/circ1225/

 

USGS, (2004); Water Quality in the Delaware River Basin: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Delaware, 1998-2001, Circular 1227

Timetable

Project partner meetings throughout (not listed separately).

January 1, 2005 - March 2005

April 2005 - June 2005

With team members

July 2005 - September 2005

October 2005 - December 2005

January 1, 2006 - June 2006

July 2006 - December 2006

Major Participants

Elmore Hunter

PEPP Program Manager

4601 Market St. 2nd Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19139

Elmore Hunter will be serving as principle investigator of the project. He has been Program Manager for PEPP-Philadelphia since July 1997.  Mr. Hunter has been with Penn State University for 30 years.  Prior to joining PEPP, he was Director of Penn State's Cooperative Extension and 4-H Program in Philadelphia.  Mr. Hunter is a member of the Delaware Valley Fair Housing Authority, Vice-President of Cobbs Creek Community Environmental Education Center and a member of the Board of Trustees for Raising Horizons Quest Charter School.  Mr. Hunter received a Bachelor of Science Degree from the University of Maryland and a Master of Science Degree from Cheyney University of Pennsylvania.

 

Edwin G. Rajotte

Professor of Entomology

PA IPM Coordinator

Penn State University

501 ASI Building

University Park, PA 16802

Edwin Rajotte will be serving as co-principle investigator of the project. As Penn State's IPM Coordinator, he is responsible for establishing IPM program goals and activities for the College of Agricultural Sciences. In cooperation with the IPM Coordinator of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, representatives from various agricultural industries and government agencies, growers, extension agents, and College of Agricultural Sciences faculty, Dr. Rajotte provides leadership in the development and implementation of a statewide IPM program. This program involves public education, education of growers and representatives of the agricultural industry in Pennsylvania, development of educational materials, development of IPM certification requirements for crop advisors, and identification of IPM research priorities.

The role of Penn State's IPM Coordinator includes developing a working relationship with the National IPM Leader and leaders of other federal agencies with interest in IPM, organizing IPM information in the College of Agricultural Sciences and providing this information upon request to interested parties. The IPM Coordinator is the primary representative for the College of Agricultural Sciences on IPM issues.

 

Lyn Garling

Education Specialist

PA IPM Program

Penn State University

501 ASI Building

University Park, PA 16802

Lyn Garling will be serving as coordinator of the project. She has worked as an Education Specialist for the Pennsylvania Integrated Pest Management Program at Penn State University since 1992. Prior to that, she was at the University of California, Santa Cruz as the Coordinator of the Apprenticeship in Ecological Horticulture, a six-month residential course in organic farming and gardening. In both capacities, Ms. Garling has taught a variety of courses and subjects from basic soil science, plant biology, invertebrate zoology, entomology, ecology, and practical applications thereof. Recently in Pennsylvania, she has worked with the PA Dept of Education to help educate teachers in the IPM aspects of the new Environment and Ecology Standards.

Ms. Garling has given workshops to two Governors' Institutes, several Intermediate Units, collaborated with the State College Area School Districts to develop IPM curriculum and attended state and national organizations of teachers to disseminate information on IPM curriculum. Ms. Garling spearheads the PA IPM Program's intensive teacher training in IPM each summer and participates in collecting information for development a database for lesson plans that meet the new standards, available through the PA IPM Web site. She holds an M.S. in Entomology from University of Connecticut and a B.S. in Zoology from Colorado State University.

 

Teresina Bailey

Community IPM Outreach Coordinator

PA IPM Program

c/o Philadelphia County Cooperative Extension

4601 Market St.

2 nd Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19125

Teresina Bailey will be serving as the on-site coordinator for the project. As the Community IPM Outreach Coordinator, Bailey networks to generate new partnerships involving safer pest control through IPM, K-12 environmental education, and community outreach.

Ms. Bailey possesses a B.S. in Environmental Resource Management and an A.S. in Biotechnology from Penn State University. She is pursuing a Master's degree in Geography   at Penn State, which is pending completion of her thesis. Ms. Bailey completed a participatory case-study research in the subject of Nutrition and Urban Poverty within the Human and Environment Interactions area of specialty. Her previous work experience includes several earth-science research positions and she has been involved in several volunteer community projects.

Row House Project Partners

Technical IPM Assessment & Implementation Team

(Philadelphia-based unless otherwise specified)

Community Involvement, Networking & Outreach Team

Community & Environmental Health Team

PA IPM Members (in addition to Key Participants)

Project Budget

Funding Request
Budget Category Funding Requested Matching Non-Federal Funds Matching
Federal Funds
First Year Funding
$40,000
0
0
Second Year Funding
0
0
0
Total Funding
$40,000
0
0

Project Duration:   January 1, 2005 - December 31, 2006

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.