Implementing Integrated Pest Management in Schools

1. Implementing Integrated Pest Management in Schools Using the “Monroe IPM Model” for diffusion Marc Lame, University of Indiana Dawn H. Gouge, U of Arizona Faith Oi, University of Florida Fudd Graham, Auburn University Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

2. PREFACE: Where am I coming from? • As an former CE IPM Specialist – frustrated • As a current implementer of IPM - grateful • As an ex-enviro. Regulator - confused • As a taxpayer/parent – angry • As an entomologist - excited Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

3. DIFFUSION THEORY • “The process by which new ideas or practices (called innovations) are communicated to, and either adopted or rejected by, members of a social system over time.” (Rogers, 1983)

4. Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

5. THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN: diffuse IPM THE INNOVATION/DECISION PROCESS MODEL ADAPTED FROM ROGERS 1983 IMPLEMENTATION CONFIRMATION AWARENESS PERSUASION DECISION 1. Adoption 2. rejection

6. Thus, IPM must be defined as an INNOVATION to be adopted: • IPM is a cluster of technologies (cultural, mechanical, biological, genetic, and chemical) which is an integrated application (based on biological information) designed to allow humans to compete with other species (pests).

7. Positive Attributes • Relative Advantage – over traditional controls (costs and perceptions) • Compatability – within the adopters’ current system of operations • Trialability – inserted into current management system • Observability – apparent and meaningful results Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

8. Negative Attributes • Complexity - technology cluster - record keeping - monitoring (labor intensive) - education? Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

9. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION* • 1) What action is to be taken? • 2) Who is to take that action? • 3) Do they have the resources to take that action? Starling, 1993 – “Managing the Public Sector”

10. The School Community Wants: • A SAFE ENVIRONMENT!! Safe from: • pest organisms • arthropod vectored diseases • inappropriate chemical pesticide use Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

11. IPM support system for the school environment SAFE ENVIRONMENT a d m i n i s t r a t i o n c u s t o d i a l k i t c h e n m a i t e n e n c e PMPs staff teachers Education Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

12. A Shift to an IPMProgram SAFE ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT S c h e d u l e d T r e a t m e n t s C u l t u r a l C h e m i c a l E x c l u s i o n M e c h a n i c a l S a n i t a t i o n = = EDUCATION: monitoring, prevention, treatment (identification, biology, technology) Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

13. An IPM implementation Team • Program manager – entomologist? • Systems expert (farm manager, school business manager, etc.) – a peer “opinion leader” • Institutional Pest Management Specialist(s) – (university, gov, etc.) • Professional Pest Manager • Media “flack” ? • Community Activist??? Yes!!! Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

14. Ability to Compete - Confirm, Recognize and Reward • Professional credibility vs. theirs! • Communicate results – particularly to the decision makers • Invite media participation (over and over) • Recognize program participants with plaques, etc. • Recognize participants as invited speakers (statewide and out-of-state) Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

15. Demonstrating IPM to the School Community: the third leg of the stool COMPETING BY DEMONSTRATING SUCCESS Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

16. The IPM Innovation in Schools = People Management PMPs Internal Or External Policy Regs Stds. THE I P M Model Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

17. How the Model works • Follows the innovation decision process of diffusion • “pest management is people management” (Metcalf & Luckmann, 1975) • Demonstrates the positive attributes and mitigates the negative ones • Communication, communication, communication Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

18. Pest Prevention is Everyone’s Job Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

19. Prevention • Doing what you do now---just think pests!!! • Security = monitoring • Energy conservation = exclusion • Sanitation = nothing to eat • Clutter control = no place to live Food Water Shelter Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

20. IPM is the center of all operations Education Security Sanitation At least from my point of view IPM Communication Cooperation IAQ Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

21. Sanitation • Eliminate food, water and harborage for pests Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

22. Exclusion • Eliminate pest entry points Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

23. monitoring • Doing what you do now---just think pests!!! • Is there a problem? • How big is the problem? • Who needs to know? COMMUNICATION!!! • Who better to monitor than the inhabitants of the facility??? Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

24. Monitoring • The only way to justify pesticide application • Allows for proper diagnosis Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

25. control • Doing what you do now---just think pests!!! • Repair what is broken • Remove the source of the problem • Communicate with the responsible person • Professional improvement Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

26. Pest Vulnerable Areas • Kitchen, pantry and cafeteria • Dumpsters • Teachers lounge • Custodial closets • Special Ed/classroom/nursery • Bathrooms • External grounds What do these areas have? Food / water / shelter! Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

27. Self Applied Pesticides are Inappropriate! Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

28. Pesticides in classrooms/childcare Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

29. STAR Certification Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

30. National and Statewide Recognition Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

31. Minimum Implementation Standards • The school administration is aware of what their pest management program is. • Those responsible for the cultural (sanitation) and mechanical (exclusion) components of IPM have been trained to incorporate them into existing job responsibilities . • Those responsible for the chemical pesticide component of IPM are certified PCOs (with instructions to treat as needed and based on monitoring) Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

32. Helpful Guidelines • No scheduled pesticide sprays • Inspect and monitor • Restrict the pesticides allowed • Inform parents • Designate an IPM specialist • Train staff and teachers • Only certified applicators should apply chemicals • Communicate, Communicate, …. ! Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

33. THE PEST PRESS We, as a team provide a monthly newsletter entitled the “Pest Press”. It is assembled and edited by our partner at the University of Arizona. It features articles including pest news and other features. It also includes in each issue a profile of each pilot school and their Head Custodian and staff. This newsletter is distributed to all pilot schools for all to read gaining your school some richly deserved publicity. Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

34. Agree Scout Contact Verbal commitment Cooperate Sweeten the pot Obtain an MOU Assessment Train the trainers Train school staff adopters Monitor Introduce Newsletters Mid-term Evaluation Mid-term Adjustment Meet Handholding Integrate the PCO Final Evaluation District Expansion Reward Area-wide Expansion Report Steps for The Monroe IPM Model – where are we in UT? Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

35. WHY DO WE MEASURE IMPACTS?: • Program management – • QA/QC • CONFIRMATION to the adopting community • GPRA – gov performance reporting act • Politics – study so you won’t be able to implement?$*? Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

36. Traditional measures: • Reduction of pesticide risk - toxicity – AI & LD • Reduction of pest risk • Cost Benefit Analysis • Adoption of IPM Laws and Policies Problems of science, perception and verification Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

37. Measuring impacts of the implementation of IPM • Diffusion as a management tool - % members of a community adopting an innovation over time • Causes of pesticide use (behavior) • Pesticide use – (precaution and PM efficiency) • Certification (deeds versus words) • Transferability – horizontal (geographical implementation) and vertical (topical) Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

38. What the Monroe IPM Model Measured Originally - • Pesticide applications pre and post • Pest perception….attitudes Later we added DIFFUSION Fact is – this was NOT a study but an IMPLEMENTATION! Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

39. What we measured • Diffusion • IPM STds – training, Pest Press, pest sighting logs, monitoring stations, no preventive treatments • Membership in statewide coalitions • Causes of pesticide use – pest perception and complaints • Pesticide use – annual # applications/pilot school • Transferability – increasing the rate of diffusion • Awareness • Risk mitigation (+attributes and negative attributes) Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

40. Spanning 10 Years, 7 States and 5 EPA Regions: • 71% Reduction in Pesticide Applications • 78% Reduction in Pest Complaints to School Administrations Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

41. Indiana – 10 years Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

42. Alabama – 5 years Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

43. Arizona 5 years Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

44. Florida – 1 year Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

45. …and another measurement someone should be accountable for: State cooperative extension participation • 38% of land grant institutions have IPM in Schools programs …loosing ground? • 38% have informational programs (e.g. – websites, manuals, fact sheets, etc.) • 26% have interactive programs (training sessions, CEUs) • 14% have diffusion programs (information, interaction AND demonstrations with recognition programs) (Percentages based on 50 states) Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

46. Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

47. Questions and Comments Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University