Transcript Webinar SIPM June 3 - IPM Institute of North America

IPM IN S CHOOLS
N ATIONAL S CHOOL IPM S TEERING C OMMITTEE
H ISTORY
1992-2011: More than 50 studies, surveys report
unmanaged pest problems, improper pesticide use.
•
School IPM 2015, Green and Gouge 2009.
Inadequate legislative mandates in most states.
•
In nearly half of 14,000 school districts in the US, anyone may
apply a pesticide without any training or license.
Low public awareness, appreciation.
•
Less than 19% of households have heard of IPM (1989, 1995,
2006)
Asthma is the number one cause of school absences
•
Asthma causes more than 12.8 million missed school days per
year, affecting 6% of children nationally and up to 28% in urban
centers, National Institute of Health 2002, American Lung
Association 2005.
S CHOOL IPM 2015
• SCHOOL IPM 2015: A Strategic Plan for IPM in Schools in the US was
developed to leverage funding support, then evolved into a guide to facilitate
full implementation of verifiable high-level IPM in all public K-12 schools by
2015.
• IPM reduced pest complaints and pesticide use by 70 to 90% with no
increase in long-term cost (Gouge et al., 2006).
• Start up funds from USDA, and EPA have been used to engage communities,
identify priority issues, create IPM awareness, train staff, facilitate the
implementation of IPM and evaluate impacts.
•
We know how to do IPM in schools! We need:
o Improved coordination across US
o Expanded network of implementers and support
M ETRICS
SINCE
2006
Number students and staff impacted by demonstrations:
611,499
Number impacted by coalitions:
1,510,359
Average pesticide use reduction: 69%
Over 75 meetings & workshops
More than 25 publications
Average pest complaint reduction: 31%
Funding leveraged: USD $3,301,763
Demonstration schools use proven approaches, such as assessments, workshops, targeted
newsletters and pest monitoring to successfully demonstrate IPM in their region and state.
Self-expanding coalitions use professionals already trained and working in demonstration
schools to recruit and mentor professionals from other school systems in their states.
S UCCESSFUL M ODELS
Examples from Washington State
Demonstration projects:
•
•
Vancouver, Bellevue, South Kitsap and North Thurston School Districts
IPM STAR Certification
Coalition:
The Urban Pesticide Education Strategy Team (UPEST), formerly known as
the Urban Pesticide Initiative, was formed in 1991 by EPA Region 10, state
agencies and Washington State University Extension to jointly address
urban pesticide issues.
•
UPEST serves 1 million K-12 students in Washington.
L EGISLATION BY EPA R EGION
State
Year law adopted
or updated
Restricted
Spray Zone
Interior Outdoor
PreIPM Law
Posting Posting Notification or Rule
Region 1
(v) = Voluntary (1) = Schools must keep list
Connecticut-2005/2007
X
X
Maine-2003/2005/2007
X
X
X
X
Massachusetts-2000
X
X
X
X
New Hampshire
X
X
Rhode Island-2001
X
X
Vermont-2000
X
Region 2
New Jersey-2002
X
X
X
X
New York-2001
X
X
Region 3
Delaware
Maryland-1999
X
X
X
X
Pennsylvania-2002
X
X
X
Virginia
X(v)
X(v)
X(v)
West Virginia-1996
X
X
Region 4
Alabama
X
Florida-2009
X
Georgia
X
X
Kentucky-2002
X
X
Mississippi
North Carolina-2004
X
X
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region 5
Illinois-2004/2008
X
X
Indiana
X
X(v)
Michigan-1992/1995
X
X
X
Minnesota-2000
X
Ohio
X
X
Wisconsin
X
X
Min Requirements
Defines
Exempt
Defines Training
for Applicators
Types of
Products
IPM
for school
(Training, Certification Products
from
staff
Supervision, etc.)
to be Used Notification
of pesticide hypersensitive students (2) = Outdoor environments
(3) = Indoor environments
X(v)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X (v)
X
X(v)
Reentry or other
Requirements
(Beyond label)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X(v)
x
X
X
X
X(v)
X (3)
X(v)
X(2)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L EGISLATION BY EPA R EGION
State
Year law adopted
or updated
Region 6
Arkansas
Louisiana-1995
New Mexico-2000
Oklahoma
Texas-1991/2007
Region 7
Iowa
Missouri
Nebraska
Kansas
Region 8
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Region 9
Arizona-2005
California-2000
Hawaii
Nevada
Region 10
Alaska-2007
Idaho
Oregon
Washington-2001
Restricted Interior Outdoor
PreIPM Law
Spray Zone Posting Posting Notification or Rule
Reentry or other
Requirements
(Beyond label)
Min Requirements
Defines
Exempt
Defines Training
for Applicators
Types of
Products
IPM
for school
(Training, Certification Products
from
staff
Supervision, etc.)
to be Used Notification
(v) = Voluntary (1) = Schools must keep list of pesticide hypersensitive students (2) = Outdoor environments
(3) = Indoor environments
X
X
X(1)
X
X
X(v)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X(1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X(v)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X(v)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C OORDINATION : N ATIONAL
S TEERING C OMMITTEE AND …
Northeastern Working Group, 37 members
Western Working Group, 80 members
www.nepmc.org/work_school.cfm led by
http://cals.arizona.edu/apmc/westernschoolIPM
• Lynn Braband, Cornell University
.html led by
• Kathleen Murray, Maine Dept. of Agriculture • Carrie Foss, Washington State University
• Dawn Gouge, University of Arizona
• Tim Stock, Oregon State University
Southern Working Group, 48 members
www.sripmc.org/schoolIPM/ led by
• Fudd Graham, Auburn University
This National School IPM Working Group
• Janet Hurley, Texas AgriLife Extension
includes over 221 professionals from
across the country including:
• Government officials.
North Central Working Group, 56 members
• University scientists and
www.ipminstitute.org/NC_IPMIS_Working_Group
Extension educators.
/main.htm led by
• Industry experts.
• Thomas Green, IPM Institute of North
• Representatives from nonAmerica
governmental organizations.
• Bob Stoddard, Envirosafe
National SIPM Working Group Priorities
School IPM Priorities
• Two sets of priorities:
1. Regional (four regions)
2. National
• The national priorities were identified and ranked with input from
22 stakeholders active on the national level.
• These priorities are likely to be used by readers to assess or
document worthiness of a specific project for funding or
implementation
• Priorities are ranked according to the number of votes received
during the ranking process
Regional Priorities
North Central Working Group
http://www.ipminstitute.org/NC_IPMIS_Working_Group/NCWG%20School%20IPM
%20Priorities_total%20tally_FINAL_12%2006.pdf
Northeastern Working Group
http://www.northeastipm.org/work_schoolpriority.cfm
Southern Working Group (to be updated spring of 2012)
http://www.sripmc.org/schoolIPM/docs/Final_Priorities_document.pdf
Western Working Group
http://cals.arizona.edu/apmc/docs/WesternRegionalSchoolIPMPriorities2011.pdf
National Management
Priorities
1. Establish appropriately trained IPM coordinators in school systems to oversee day-to-day
implementation of IPM policies and programs.
2. Partner with pest management professionals and organizations to create and implement
effective, economical IPM service relationships.
3. Increase funding for management, coordination, education, research and
implementation.
4. Identify, educate and activate appropriate school-related organizations to embed IPM
into the organizational culture, including ongoing continuing education opportunities for
members.
5. Create job-specific IPM guidelines for roles within schools, e.g., athletic field managers,
custodians, maintenance staff, principals, etc.
National Educational
Priorities
1. Provide education for custodial, maintenance, kitchen and grounds staff, physicians and
school nurses.
2. Provide training for IPM coordinators to improve effectiveness in their role.
3. Provide education and advanced certification for pest management professionals,
specifically addressing high-level IPM practices for school environments.
4. Develop Best Management Practices for schools to use with vendors of pest
management services, design and construction, food and drink products, etc.
5. Educate policy makers, e.g., city councils and legislatures on need and benefits using case
studies detailing success stories.
National Research
Priorities
1. Economics of IPM (implementation and education) vs. conventional pest management.
2. IPM impacts on academic performance, e.g., asthma, absenteeism, grades.
3. Evaluation of health hazards of pests and pesticides.
4. Development of tools and measures for IPM and continuous improvement.
5. Impact of building design and maintenance on pest management.
National Regulatory
Priorities
1. Create and mandate minimum standards for school IPM at federal level, including
applicator licensing and written IPM program, for example, through new legislation.
2. Increase funding for the enforcement of existing regulations including compliance by
commercial pest management professionals and other businesses providing services to
schools, and for evaluating pesticide-use records submitted to state-lead agencies in
states with mandated reporting for compliance.
3. Create pesticide education program at national level to target schools, i.e. school boards,
superintendents, facilities managers, etc.
4. Provide IPM input, including verifiable standards and methods of funding, into existing
legislation related to schools.
5. Mandate high-level IPM training/licensing for pest management professionals.
C URRENT P ROJECTS
2010 PRIA 2 Grant Objectives:
• 50% reduction in asthma incidence and severity and 70% average reduction in pest
complaints and pesticide risk for over 300 participating school districts
• Effective coalition partnerships in 15 states with high asthma rates.
• An effective coalition model including a written business case, operating protocol,
memorandum of understanding and model funding proposal; an on-line performance
measure reporting system; statistical analysis of performance and indicators of success; and
participating school district membership in PESP.
• An effective outreach and media campaign including pest press newsletters, presentations
to multi-state or national audiences; publications in national & webinars
• Leverage funding of 200% of the EPA PRIA 2 investment attributable to national working
group actions.
School IPM Grants
2008-2011
US EPA Regions 1 - 3
•
Educating the Next Generation of IPM Users: Supporting and Promoting IPM Education in Schools, Kathy Murray
(Region 1)
•
Vermont School Coalition, Carol Westinghouse (Region 1)
•
Northeast School IPM Implementation Working Group, Lynn Braband and Kathy Murray (Regions 1-3)
US EPA Region 4
•
Update of Priorities of the Southern Region School IPM Working Group: A New Beginning, Fudd Graham
•
School IPM in Alabama, Henry Fadamiro and Fudd Graham
•
Marketing IPM as Green School Technology for Southern Schools, Faith Oi, Janet Hurley, Fudd Graham, Rebecca
Baldwin and Mike Merchant
US EPA Region 5
•
North Central Regional Working for IPM in Schools, Tom Green and Bob Stoddard (Regions 5 and 7)
•
Consultation Services: Mini-Grant Project that will provide Pest Press documents for North Central Regional School
Districts to support their IPM efforts, Allen Wilson
•
Indiana Department of Human Services – Asthma, Marc Lame
US EPA Region 6
•
Smith-Lever 3(d) Extension Integrated Pest Management, New Mexico State University
•
School IPM Cost calculator expansion and marketing, Janet Hurley, Mike Merchant, Blake Bennett
•
Leveraging Resources through the Southern Regional School IPM Working Group in Support of Children's
Environmental Health, Dennis Ring, Dale Pollet, Fudd Graham and Janet Hurley
•
Hosting an Integrated Pest Management Coordinator Statewide Symposium, Janet Hurley, Mike Merchant and Don
Renchie
School IPM Grants
2008-2011
US EPA Region 7
•
Nebraska EIPM CS Coordinator Project Proposal: IPM in Schools Component, Clyde Ogg
•
Show-Me School IPM: Expanding Beyond the Demonstration Phase in MO Schools, Anastasia Becker
US EPA Region 8
•
IPM in Colorado Schools, Deborah Young
•
Smith-Lever 3(d) Extension Integrated Pest Management, Utah State University, University of Wyoming and
University of Idaho
•
Implementation of IPM in Public Schools in Colorado, Assefa Gebre-Amlak
•
Discretionary cooperative agreement, Montana Department of Ag, Dan Sullivan
•
School IPM, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Robert Hayes
US EPA Region 9
•
Western Region School IPM Implementation & Assessment Working Group, Carrie Foss, Dawn Gouge and Tim Stock
•
Arizona Tribal School IPM Change Agent Practicum, Susan Ratcliffe
•
School Integrated Pest Management: A Change Agent Practicum, Dawn Gouge
US EPA Region 10
•
Advancing School IPM in Oregon, Tim Stock
•
School IPM Implementation, Carrie Foss
•
Smith-Lever 3(d) Extension Integrated Pest Management, Oregon State University
National
•
High-level IPM in all US Schools by 2015, Tom Green
•
Healthy School Communities through IPM and Expanded Partnerships: Reducing Pest and Pesticide Risks, Improving
Asthma Outcomes and Furthering Environmental Justice, Tom Green, Dawn Gouge, Tim Stock, Carrie Foss, Fudd
Graham and Janet Hurley
PENDING US EPA School
IPM Grants
• “The Midwest United States Consortium – Expanding Verifiable Integrated Pest Management
in Public Schools” – Jodi Perras
• “The Rocky Mountain Consortium - Expanding Verifiable Integrated Pest Management in
Public Schools” – Deborah Young and Ryan Davis
• “Expanding School IPM in Wisconsin: Using the Cooperative Extension Services Agency
(CESA) Model” - Jessica Schroeder
• “Implementing a Verifiable School IPM Program in the Orleans Parish School System, a
collaborative Partnership City of New Orleans Mosquito and Termite Board in collaboration
with Tulane University, the LA Department of Public Health, LA Dept. of Ag and Forestry, with
assistance from Texas AgriLife Extension” – Claudia Riegel
• ““The Pacific Northwest School IPM Consortium: Expanding Verifiable Integrated Pest
Management in Public Schools” – Carrie Foss and Tim Stock
• “A School IPM Consortium Reaching One Million Children” – Faith Oi
Tools
Established











Emerging
State-level legislation
State-lead individual, sole
responsibility is school IPM
State/federal grants
Schoolbugs listserv
Train the trainer
Fact sheets, manuals
Pest Presses, timely IPM bulletins
Monroe, Texas models, IPM STAR
School district IPM policies, plans,
contracts for services
IPM curricula
Regional working groups


Regional school district
coalitions
Texas IPM Affiliates for Public
Schools





Professional org for school
district IPM coordinators
Green Shield Certified
Business Case for School IPM
Reducing Your Child’s Asthma
using IPM
IPM Voice, www.ipmvoice.org
www.ipminstitute.org/school_ipm_2015/resources.htm
O PPORTUNITIES
TO
E NGAGE
Ways to get involved now
• Subscribe to the monthly School IPM 2015 Newsletter to learn how to reduce pesticide use
and pest complaints by more than 70% with no long term increase in costs. Signing up is easy.
Email your name and contact information to:
[email protected]
• Join the national Schoolbugs email listserv.
Ways to facilitate school IPM efforts (for little or no cost)
• Join the mailing list of your regional school IPM working group
• Provide regional school IPM working groups with a monthly conference call line
• Partner with regional working groups on program planning, including ranking priorities
• As appropriate, provide letters of support for state, regional & national SIPM projects
• Report internal accomplishments and success to your regional school IPM working group
and national steering committee representatives
• Report and promote work group impacts within EPA and other agencies
• Recruit IPM practitioners onto state and federal committees and work groups
• Efficient movement of funds and in-kind contributions through state lead agency partners
N EXT S TEPS
Every child has the
right to realize their
highest potential
•
Submit revised School IPM 2015 to USDA
•
Implement new EPA SIPM grants
•
Case study article on state legislation, model
legislation.
•
Mid-term evaluation of progress towards goal of
high-level IPM in all US public schools by 2015.
Includes on-line survey of all school districts.
•
Hold SIPM sessions at the 7th International IPM
Symposium.
•
Partner with you!
T HANK YOU TO OUR FUNDERS
More than 18 school IPM projects nationwide
are currently supported by:
CDC
US EPA, US EPA Regions
USDA NIFA Regional IPM Centers
USDA Smith-Lever Grant
Center for Disease Control and Prevention
National Environmental Health Association