Jump to main content.

Documentation of Pest Management Practices and Implementation of IPM on Oklahoma Public Schools

Project Coordinator

Patricia C. Bolin, Ph.D., Integrated Pest Management Coordinator
Oklahoma State University
127 NRC
Stillwater, OK 74078-3033
405-744-9420
405-744-6039 (fax)
bolinp@okstate.edu

Executive Summary

Exposure to both pests and pesticides in school children and staff is a national concern, with many states enacting mandatory or voluntary integrated pest management (IPM) programs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers child health protection as one of its highest priorities, and has been actively helping schools understand and implement IPM by distributing printed publications and awarding grants to start IPM programs that demonstrate success. The Southwest Technical Resource Center for School and Childcare IPM (SWTRC) is one such EPA-funded initiative, combining the resources and expertise from three states:   Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. Of these, only Texas has mandatory IPM in their schools. Oklahoma does not have either mandatory or an organized voluntary school IPM program.

The overall goals of this project are to reduce pests and reduce potential exposure of students, school employees, and parents to pests and pest management products, particularly pesticides, and to develop the foundation for voluntary school IPM programs in Oklahoma. We will accomplish this by working with school systems, pest management professionals, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry, and OSU research and extension personnel to define baseline information on pest problems and pest management practices in at least two different school systems. From this baseline information, a model school IPM program will be developed for use by Oklahoma schools.

Measurements taken will include baseline data on pests and pest management plus the current and future costs of IPM, to document changes in pest management procedures.

Objectives

. This project will utilize Pest Management Professionals (PMPs) that are under contract with public school systems to obtain past pest management records, document pest occurrence and problems, document pest management tools used, and record the cost of pest management. From these findings, combined with those of the Southwest Technical Resource Center and other school IPM programs across the nation, a template will be developed for use by both Oklahoma school systems and PMPs. The template will be tested in a limited number of targeted school systems, with ongoing data collection. At the completion of this two-year project, we anticipate launching a voluntary school IPM program statewide.

Objectives

  1. Document current pest problems and pest management practices in Oklahoma schools using the existing partnerships between school districts and Professional Pest Management (PMP) companies.
  2. Develop IPM implementation guidelines for Oklahoma schools.
  3. Initiate a voluntary IPM program with two Oklahoma school districts and their contracted PMPs, documenting over time the changes in pest complex, pesticide use, and initial and ongoing costs of IPM implementation.
  4. Work with the SWTRC, the Oklahoma Pest Control Association, the Oklahoma School Plant Management Association, and the Oklahoma Association of School Administration to initiate a statewide voluntary school IPM program.

Justification

Objective 1. Document current pest problems and pest management practices in Oklahoma schools using the existing partnerships between school districts and Professional Pest Management (PMP) companies.

Integrated pest management (IPM) is generally regarded as the most effective and safe form of pest control for sensitive environments, such as schools. However, ongoing school budget shortfalls coupled with lack of knowledge regarding the benefits of IPM have increased the challenge of fostering IPM adoption in Oklahoma school systems. Using the existing relationships between contracted PMPs and school administration, we will work to review present practices in pest management. The opportunity to document what has been done locally and then compare it to what can be done under IPM will provide ground level data that is relevant to surrounding school districts, and thus should more rapidly increase IPM program adoption. The findings from this initial (and ongoing) documentation will provide solid measurements on potential human exposure to pests and pesticides, and thus tailor an IPM program to the targeted school districts. In addition, we will have baseline data to use in the subsequent impact assessment.

Objective 2. Develop IPM implementation guidelines for Oklahoma schools.

School systems across the nation have documented a number of common pest problems, which can be primarily lumped into two categories:   organisms (insects, rodents, etc.) that can affect the buildings or persons inside the schools, and organisms that access the buildings but cause no direct negative effect to the buildings or persons inside. Many students, teachers, and school staff cannot recognize the difference between the two. In addition, school administrators and/or teachers have been frequently reported to "require" that PMPs make pesticide applications to address a perceived problem, thus increasing the potential human exposure to unnecessary pesticides. In addition, teachers often keep pesticides in their rooms, reporting that because it was bought over-the-counter, it was "safe" and could be used as needed. We assume that the schools in Oklahoma possess the same misconceptions. An IPM program, focused first on education and emphasizing exclusion and sanitation, can alleviate this misconception while decreasing the incidence of real pests. The SWTRC has extensive educational material and IPM implementation guidelines that can be easily modified for use in Oklahoma schools.

Objective 3. Initiate a voluntary IPM program with two Oklahoma school districts and their contracted PMPs, documenting over time the changes in pest complex, pesticide use, and initial and ongoing costs of IPM implementation.

Many states have enacted mandatory IPM in their school districts, with varying levels of success. To some degree, this regulatory involvement provides the incentive to even the most recalcitrant school administrator. However, such legislation must be "one size fits all," and is thus a burden on some schools to comply. We believe that a voluntary program is a more appropriate pathway to IPM implementation, since it allows for greater flexibility in pest management yet still reduces pests, pesticide exposure, and pest management costs over the long run. The outcome of this objective will be to use the existing relationships (and presumed to thus have a level of trust) between contracted PMPs and school districts. The selection and focus of this project on two targeted schools will allow for refinement of our survey techniques and our IPM recommendations.

Objective 4. Work with the SWTRC, the Oklahoma Pest Control Association (OPCA), the Oklahoma School Plant Management Association (OSPMA), and the Oklahoma Association of School Administration (OASA) to initiate a statewide voluntary school IPM program.

As indicated in Objective 3, we believe that a voluntary program will be more effective for the school districts in Oklahoma than would a mandatory program. The organizations listed in this objective were chosen because of their expertise and their relationships with schools. Both qualities will allow for more rapid implementation in most Oklahoma school districts. OPCA represents the PMPs, and with the initial involvement of two of their members, association members will be more willing to ask questions and realize the project can be a sound business decision. OSPMA represents those that maintain school properties. These plant managers are key people in implementing physical changes in the school structures that can affect IPM polices. Finally, OASA members are in the position of requiring and/or strongly encouraging local implementation of IPM. While we include this objective in the proposal, we realize that this goal cannot be completed in the proposed time frame but will be an ongoing process for the next several years.

Literature Review

Greene and Breisch (2002) documented IPM practices in public buildings. Their work reported the reduction of liquid pesticide applications when IPM was implemented. They did not document the cost of such a program. Miller and Meek (2004) reported that IPM practices cost more that traditional pest control techniques in public housing projects but that IPM provided better cockroach management. The result from these and similar studies support the implementation of IPM.

Cink et al. (2003) compared various pest management regimens in Texas school districts. Their finding was that schools using sanitation, exclusion, and bait application with limited and prescriptive pesticide use provided the best management option compared to those that had limited (e.g., pesticides only) pest management options.

Brenner et al. (1998) used spatial analysis in precision targeting for IPM. They used trapping information to pinpoint concentrations of pests and target pest management to those areas of infestation as well as determining why the infestation existed.

The School Health Program at the Oklahoma Department of Health refers to one project outcome as "Address health education, risk reduction, prevention, and treatment."   Certainly risk reduction from pests and the tools associated in managing pests falls well within this goal. The EPA addresses its concern about school hazards in its Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Report, referring to the EPA's efforts for implementing voluntary outreach and partnership programs to "inform and educate" the need for reduced exposures to toxic materials. The EPA also cites their concern about asthma in school systems, citing the Center for Disease Control estimate that 12 million schools days were lost due to asthma.

Shour (2004) conducted a survey of Iowa schools and reported that 69% of the respondents thought the label on a pesticide product was "a general guideline" and only 14% of the districts had a written policy for pesticide use. He also reported that 72% of the schools utilized a pest control company for decision making and the PMPs made 90% of the indoor pesticide applications. From limited surveys in Oklahoma, 40% of businesses surveyed have contracts with schools.

Recent work by Shour (2004), Lame, and others have documented that IPM can be successfully implemented into schools systems. We will be utilizing existing programs as a basis for this project, with funds used to document the pests and pest management practices, to provide project oversight, and to develop and delivery educational programs. This project is designed to utilize existing relationships with schools, PMPs, and the SWTRC, and expand that into a statewide school IPM program for Oklahoma.

Approach and Outcomes

In Oklahoma, commercial PMPs are required to keep records of all pesticide applications. These records are available to ODAFF for inspection and use. The PMPs have consented to providing their records for the schools under study. In addition, we will keep track of the costs incurred by the schools under contract with their PMPs. This will allow the team to have a baseline of pest management practices (and costs) that have been contracted for use in the schools prior to the program's initiation. Records will be kept during and after the program ends for comparison use.

A survey will be constructed, relying on surveys developed by other states (see literature review), and distributed to the two target schools in the initial phase (completed within Year 1). This survey will focus on pests and pest management practices, plus current attitudes regarding school IPM. This survey will serve as a baseline for this project, and will be repeated at the conclusion of the project. The survey will allow for a tailor-made IPM program for the two schools. Finally, the survey will serve as a template for an expanded survey to be conducted in schools throughout the state.

Additional activities to promote school IPM will be presentations at the annual meetings of OPCA and OSPMA, plus one workshop in the second year open to any interested party (school administrators, school maintenance personnel, PMPs, school staff, and concerned parents). A newsletter will be developed and distributed on a quarterly basis to all Oklahoma school districts. This newsletter will be patterned after other states' newsletters, with features on pest-of-the-month, pest management techniques (emphasis on non-chemical), contact information, and in the second year, case studies from the initial two school districts. We will also highlight any Oklahoma school that receives the IPM Pride Award (given out annually by the SWTRC).

Personnel

Project Coordinator

Co-Coordinator

Cooperators

Impact Assessment

Measurements to be taken include the pesticide use and pest occurrence records for the previous two years from the PMP companies working with the schools. These records will be compared to that which will be recorded during the program. This will provide baseline information and possible change of practices as the program expands.

Other information to be obtained will include the implementation of mechanical and other management practices that are utilized to address pest situations, obtained by visual observations by the project personnel. These can include addition of weather stripping to the bottom of doors, caulking around exterior pipe penetrations, and similar practices. Although these actions are not required for ODAFF recordkeeping, these practices do impact pest management strategies employed by the school and PMP.

The time and cost (labor) for each PMP inspection of each school will be recorded and the time for the PMP to implement a pest management practice will also be recorded. Pest populations will be monitored to document what is found in Oklahoma schools, and then ongoing monitoring will reveal pest population abundance and species shifts during the seasons and throughout the project.

Dr. Kathleen Kelsey, Program Evaluation Specialist, will implement a goals-based formative and summative evaluation to document the context, inputs, processes, and products of the project from a sociological perspective. The evaluation will document indicators of program success such as an increased understanding of IPM by the school staff; a decrease in pest abundance in the school as compared to pre-project records; changes in the use of pest management tools in the schools, with a shift from reliance on pesticides to non-chemical methods of pest management; and documenting the cost of pest management in the schools including pesticides, exclusion, mechanical, and monitoring. The evaluation findings will be shared with the project team for program improvement and organizational learning purposes.

The future outcome of this project (Objective 4) is to implement a voluntary school IPM program across the state, which will be initiated at the end of the two-year proposed project.

Literature Cited

Brenner, R.J., D.A. Focks, R.T. Arbogast, D.K. Weaver, and D. Shuman. 1998. Practical use of spatial analysis in precision targeting for integrated pest management. Am. Entomol. 44: 79-101.

Cink, James, John McPherson, Murray Walton and Lita Kiplin. 2003. School IPM In Action. PCT. December 2003.

EPA. 2003. Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Report. EPA-190-R-03-022.

Center for Disease Control & Prevention. 2002. Surveillance for Asthma - United States, 1980-1999. Morbidly and Mortality Weekly Report, Surveillance Summaries. March 29, 2002.

Greene, Albert and Nancy L. Breisch. 2002. Measuring integrated pest management programs for public buildings. J. Econ. Entomol. 94: 1-13.

http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/shcc/index.html. Oklahoma Department of Health

http://schoolipm.tamu.edu. Southwest Technical Resource Center

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ipm. EPA IPM in Schools

Miller, D.M. and. F. Meek. 2004. Cost and Efficacy Comparison of Integrated Pest Management Strategies with Monthly Spray Insecticide Applications for German Cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) Control in Public Housing. J. Econ. Entomol. 97: 559-569.

Shour, Mark. 2004. 2004 Midwest school integrated pest management conference. March 23-24, 2004. Ames, IA.

Timetable

Activity

Initiation Date

Assemble initial meeting with PMPs to describe project in detail, to identify two school districts with whom they have contracts, and to discuss past pest management records

Oct. 30, 2004

Meet with targeted school officials and PMPs to discuss project and plan

Nov. 2004

Distribute IPM evaluation tool to school staff and administrators

Dec. 2004

Assemble and refine IPM implementation guidelines, and work with schools and contracted PMPs to begin the monitoring, sanitation, and exclusion techniques.

Jan. 2005

Present initial findings at the Southwest Branch of the Entomological Society of America meeting

Feb. 2005

Evaluate project status with PMPs, schools, ODAFF, and SWTRC. Refine IPM strategies as needed, based on previous findings.

Apr. 2005

Present project to the annual OSPMA convention

Sept. 2005

Present project to the annual OPCA meeting

Sept. 2005

Distribute pest management / IPM survey to all school districts in the state

Oct. 2005

Evaluate status of project

Oct. 2005

Begin statewide newsletter distribution

Oct. 2005

Present findings at the national Entomological Society of America meeting

Nov. 2005

Evaluate status of project

Feb. 2006

Evaluate final status of project

Jun. 2006

Submit final report to EPA and to interested associations, schools, and other parties

Sep. 2006

Major Participants

Project Coordinator

Co-Coordinator

Cooperators

Project Budget

Funding Request
Budget Category Funding Requested Matching Non-Federal Funds Matching
Federal Funds
First Year Funding
$19,843
0
0
Second Year Funding
$19,842
0
0
Total Funding
$39,685
0
0

Project Duration: October 30, 2004 to September 30, 2006

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.