Jump to main content.

Implementation of IPM in Public Schools in Florida – Developing a Successful Model for State-wide Adoption by Schools, State Lead Agencies, and the Pest Management Industry

Dr. Faith M. Oi
University of Florida
Entomology and Nematology Dept.
970 Natural Area Drive
Box 110620
Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
352-392-1901 x145
352-392-0190 (fax)
foi@ufl.edu

Purpose Statement

Implement verifiable IPM in pilot/expansion schools in Brevard to reduce the risk of pests and unnecessary pesticide use, resulting a program that will be sustainable and repeatable for schools throughout Florida.

Project Duration: 2 years

Funding Request
Budget Category Funding Requested Matching Non-Federal Funds Matching
Federal Funds
First Year Funding
$47,000
0
0
Second Year Funding
0
0
0
Total Funding
$47,000
0
0

Executive Summary

The long-term goal of the Florida School IPM program is to reduce the risk of pests and unnecessary pesticide use for 1 million children in 5 years. In order to accomplish this goal, our first objective is to develop verifiable IPM programs in select counties based on the Monroe model. The Monroe model has been effective in school districts of 25 or less, but has not been tested on school districts the size of Brevard, which contains 81 public schools. We propose to demonstrate that the Brevard model will result in verifiable IPM for all district schools. We predict that Brevard model will be sustainable because IPM tactics such as physical exclusion and sanitation have been incorporating into the existing duty matrix of maintenance personnel.

Our pilot program is complete with our best school reducing pesticide use by 65%. Another goal for the expansion in Brevard is to maintain about a 50% reduction in pests and pesticides, while saving the district in time and money for pest control. We predict this goal will be reached since the Monroe model has demonstrated 90% reduction in other programs in 7 states and 3 Indian Reservations in schools less compliant to IPM than Brevard. Cost analyses for the expansion phase proposed here will be critical since Brevard has overhauled their maintenance management to incorporate IPM tactics into their duty matrix.

The third objective of our program is to educate “change agents.” We predict the development of two clear niches in urban pest management: 1) the training and credentialing of pest managers employed by the school district (private and public employees); 2) development of county agent training programs to support certification and recertification efforts of professional pest managers who work in child care facilities and other sensitive areas. Finally, we predict incentive programs within the district will be created to encourage compliance as well as recognition from the University of Florida upon significant pest and pesticide reductions.

Objectives

  1. Demonstrate that verifiable School IPM can be expanded from pilot schools in middle to large school districts (containing 50 to 100 schools) to a district-wide program, including high schools with daycares, as a model for the State.
  2. Reduce pest and pesticide use by 50% or more, including cleaners that may be misused as pesticides. This objective will include finalizing an environmentally-friendly fire ant management plan.
  3. To educate change agents involved with the implementation of IPM (State Lead Agencies, Extension, PCOs, and Public Health) with regard to program initiation, implementation and evaluation of IPM in the public school environment.
  4. Recognize and reward schools and districts that practice verifiable IPM.

Rationale

Children’s Environmental Health Protection using an Innovative Approach - "The Monroe IPM Model" is successful in the school environment because cultural and mechanical strategies can be incorporated into the existing custodial and maintenance activities such as sanitation, energy conservation, building security and infrastructure maintenance. Thus, it is sustainable. Students, teachers and custodial staff share the responsibility for recognizing potential problem areas and for acting early to prevent infestations from developing.

This approach has been implemented for more than ten years in seven states and three Indian Reservations, but in school districts of 25 schools or less. Our pilot county, Brevard, contains 81 schools under the current pest control plan. Brevard contains at least 3.2 times more schools than any other pilot program thus far.

The Monroe IPM model has been modified to include management changes at the Brevard school district in order to accommodate the logistical challenges associated with a significantly larger school district. Effective Aug. 1, 2005, an “IPM department” headed by Earl Lewallen, was formed. The management change was initiated by the Director of Environmental Health and Safety (EHS), Richard E. Smith, and supported by the school board based, in large part, on the results of our pilot program.

The Brevard school district believes that the outcome of fully implementing the modified Monroe model will save their district money and allow them to reallocate resources, resulting in better-maintained schools. Brevard EHS staff keeps children’s safety at the forefront of their decisions. In previous projects, the Monroe model has demonstrated a 90% reduction in pesticide use, in pest numbers and in complaints, without significantly increasing staff workload or district expense.

Approach and Methods

We have completed the pilot program of assessing, training and implementing IPM for 3 schools in Brevard. We propose to proceed to the district “expansion phase” of the project. We also propose to invite other school districts to learn about this process by observing the Brevard expansion and preparing to develop their own pilot program. The objectives will be accomplished through:

Education
Demonstration
Measuring and Monitoring Risk Reduction

Conduct pest management audits in the expansion schools. The audits include regular assessments of the status of the school’s pest and pest management issues. There is an initial audit, a mid-term, then continuing reports on a regular basis to the principal and the IPM coordinator. The audits are conducted with the IPM coordinator and head custodian, with an “exit interview” with the principal. The initial audit includes information on “immediate action items” such as eliminating pest conducive conditions and fixing door thresholds for pest exclusion.

Sticky trap monitors will be set at 11 expansion schools and 3 to 5 non-IPM (control) schools, attempting to pair IPM and non-IPM elementary and middle schools or high schools physically located next to each other to minimize the effect of weather and location. Monitors will be checked monthly. Data collection will include number and species of pests for each trap and number of pesticide applications. Data will be analyzed using ANOVA for unbalanced design, comparing pest numbers and pesticide applications in IPM and non-IPM schools, blocking on school. If enough data points permit, we will attempt a repeated measures analysis of pest and pesticide application. We predict that there will be a significant decrease in pest numbers and pesticide applications. Traps will be set before IPM training begins to get a baseline on existing pest populations with the current pest control practice. Pesticide applications for one year pre- and post-training will be obtained. Maintenance to the building; such as fixing door sweeps, eliminating gaps where pests can enter and pest conducive conditions will be recorded.

Economic Analysis

Pre-IPM data will be compiled, including the cost of the current pest control service (labor/materials), labor for maintenance, time of cafeteria and teaching staff and administrators dealing with pest issues before IPM. Time taken to do pest control will also be recorded. Estimates on energy use will be obtained. During the implementation phase we will collect similar data with the addition of the cost to repair structures. Cost data on pest management during the pilot program will be compared to cost data collected during the expansion phase to determine the impact of managerial changes on pest control.

Technology Transfer
Rewards

Background Information

The goal for our 2004 school IPM project was to implement verifiable IPM in Brevard County, starting with three pilot schools. With assistance from Marc Lame and Dawn Gouge (University of Arizona), we trained target groups: custodians, teachers, administrators, cafeteria staff and the pest control technician charged with maintaining the Brevard school district account. All of these cooperators learned the basic concepts of IPM and utilized them to manage pest problems within schools, primarily sanitation and de-cluttering. Sound structural maintenance also played an important role. Staff and students were instructed in how their actions could increase or decrease pest problems in the schools. With sound IPM practices, many pest problems were avoided. At the mid-point review, one school had a 65% reduction in pesticide applications and a second had 35%. A third school with a pest control technician not employing the IPM program had a 3% increase in pesticide use. Pest problems in the “IPM schools” either decreased or did not become worse according to occupants, even with hurricanes. Our current goal is to reduce the risk of unnecessary pesticide use for 1 million children within 5 years. Pilot Program Impacts include:

Our concern with children’s unnecessary exposure to pesticides was reaffirmed with the recent JAMA study indicating an overall rate of 6.5 per million acute pesticide-related illnesses for school-aged children, ages 6 to 17 years old (Alarcon et al. 2005). Even more alarming was the 16.2 cases per million for children 0 to 5 years old, which is 2.5 times greater risk than the older children. Children are not little adults and are still developing.

The authors noted that 69% of acute pesticide-related illnesses were associated with pesticides applied on school grounds. The most common active ingredient associated with illness was diazinon (n=63 cases, 23%) (Alarcon 2005). Diazinon was associated with lawn and ornamental care. Alarcon et al (2005) suggest that pesticides used outside could easily be tracked into school buildings, resulting in prolonged exposure. The transfer of pesticides applied in schools was documented by Williams et al. (2005). They sampled areas treated with propetamphos and nearby untreated, non-target areas. Propetamphos was recovered from all areas, although rates were significantly higher in target areas, indicating drift inside classrooms and cafeterias with spray applications.

Probably most disturbing of all was the finding of 287 chemicals recovered from the umbilical cord blood of newborn infants (Houlihan 2005). While the majority of the chemicals recovered were not pesticides, 7 of them were pesticides actively used in the U. S. and 14 were pesticides that were restricted or banned. Given these findings, and given following:

We conclude that the consequences of repeated exposure is uncertain and an unnecessary risk, given a workable IPM program. We have demonstrated that our IPM program will reduce the unnecessary risk of pests and pesticides to all members of the school community.

Resources

  1. Main collaborators will be the Brevard school district personnel who are part of an existing network, including IPM coordinator (Earl Lewallen), Director of EHS (Richard E. Smith), and all school personnel, particularly the administrators, cafeteria and maintenance staff. The managerial reorganization has enabled us to train four more IPM specialists within the district in addition to E. Lewallen and R. Smith.
  2. Florida IPM group, Director Norm Leppla; Assistant Director, Jennifer Gillette. They help us to secure internal support from the University of Florida for this program. Recently, we have joined together to keep the National School IPM website updated. In 2004 this site recorded 167,611 distinct visitors and 272,433 page views. In addition, numerous Word documents were developed for downloading into newsletters and other printed media. PowerPoint presentations are also available for download.
  3. School IPM Working Group which is a network that has been in existence for over 10 years. We meet twice a year. The group includes members from the Florida Dept. of Education, Dept. of Children and Families, Dept. of Health, county extension agents, a concerned parent with a chemically sensitive child; active school district personnel from 5 other counties who would like to also start pilot programs; representatives from Florida’s pest control industry.
  4. USDA-ARS Center for Medical and Veterinary Entomology research scientists in advisory capacity for fire ant management plan development, including novel sampling methods to determine threshold for treatment.
  5. Pest management industry representatives who are helping us to develop an environmentally-friendly plan for fire ant management in playgrounds and athletic turf, including product donation for our pilot schools. (Clay Scherer, DuPont, Global Product Development Manager for Professional Products; also former Florida School IPM Program Director.)

Measures and Outcomes

Outreach

Sustainability

Florida’s School IPM program started in 1996 with Richard E. Smith from Brevard as one of the original members. The University of Florida is supportive of the continuation of the program and allows significant resources to be input. For example, the website is now supported by the Florida IPM program. The current expansion in Brevard will be sustained because the exclusion pest management tactic has been incorporated into the regular maintenance routine of the IPM specialists and custodial staff. The IPM program we developed is not a stand-alone or add-on program. It’s just doing what they are doing now, just think pests.

Literature Cited

Timetable

October 1, 2005

December 31, 2005 – submit first quarterly report

January 31, 2006

March 31, 2006 – submit second quarterly report

April, 2006

May, 2006

June 30, 2006 – submit third quarterly report

August 30, 2006

September 1, 2006

September 30, 2006

Major Participants

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.