Making Sure Your Efforts Aren’t For Naught:

1. Making Sure Your Efforts Aren’t For Naught: Tools for sustaining School IPM programs Marc L. Lame, Ph.D. Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs

2. PREFACE: Where Am I Coming From? • As an former CE IPM Specialist (outstanding in my field?) • As a current implementer of IPM • As an ex-environmental Regulator • As an entomologist Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

3. Three “adopting” audiences • Funders & Political supporters (EPA, USDA…) • Traditional Change Agent Community - Extension • The School Community Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

4. Darlene Dinkins Frank Ellis Kathy Seikel Jim Boland Mike McDavit Don Baumgartner Keith Matthews Lee Tanner Raderrio Wilkins Kathleen Knox Mary Grisier Deborah Hartman Ralph Wright Jim Jones JaslynDobrahner Steve Owens School Integrated Pest Management at US EPA Bill Currie Steve Bradbury Sherry Glick Janet Andersen International IPM Symposium Awards Ceremony; Sherry Glick, Award of Recognition for School IPM Brian Davidson Kristi Kubista

5. Pest Control In The School Environment: Adopting Integrated Pest Management – 1992(3) Ralph Wright & Bill Currie EPA 735-F-93-012 (controversial) Information For School Districts

6. Over 19 Years, 18 States and 7 EPA Regions: • 71% Reduction in pesticide applications • 78% Reduction in pest complaints

7. Change Agent: “…is an individual who influences clients’ innovation-decision in a direction deemed desirable by a change agency.” (Rogers, 1983)

8. The Change Agent – sequence of roles • Develop a need for change • Establish an information exchange relationship • Diagnose problems • Create an intent to change in the client • Translate an intent into action • Stabilize adoption and prevent discontinuance • Achieve a terminal relationship (Rogers, 1983) Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

9. Change agent success factors • Effort • Client orientation • Compatibility with clients’ needs • Change agent empathy (Rogers, 1983) Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

10. THE INNOVATION/DECISION PROCESS MODEL (ROGERS 1983) CONFIRMATION AWARENESS PERSUASION DECISION IMPLEMENTATION Adoption Rejection

11. Models of Communication Flows Hypodermic Needle Model -“Mass media had direct, immediate, and powerful effects on mass audience.” • “Injecting” information directly into the social system ex. CES Fact Sheets, Web Sites? Webinars? Propaganda, Madison Avenue advertising • Ignored the role of opinion leaders. Two Step Flow – • Step one – transfer of INFORMATION from media to opinion leaders • Step two – spread of interpersonal INFLUENCE from opinion leaders to their followers • Horizontal diffusion - a combination of opinion leaders and peers Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

12. Critical Mass In Diffusion: The Point After Which Further Diffusion Becomes Self-sustaining • Occurs at the point at which enough individuals in a system have adopted an innovation so that the innovation’s further rate of adoption becomes self-sustaining • Threshold occurs at the individual level of analysis , whereas the critical mass operates a the system level Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

13. Strategies For Reaching Critical Mass? • Targeting highly respected individuals in a system’s hierarchy for initial adoption • Individual perceptions of the innovation can be shaped, …inevitable, desirable or that critical mass has already occurred…everyone else is doing it • Introduce the innovation to more innovative individual • Incentives… Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

14. Administrative commitment based on “it’s the right thing to do” Designated authority to IPM coordinator Empower the school community through education Technical confidence provided by training AND outreach resources Confirmation to the community that right decision was made ($$, pests, risk reduction) More confirmation through recognition (PR/awards) Reasons For Successful SIPM Implementation Dr. Marc L. Lame, IU-School of Public and Environmental Affairs

15. Discontinuance • “…is a decision to reject an innovation after it has previously been adopted.” (Rogers, 1983) • Normally occurs in the implementation phase – need to have a real implementation program!

16. “Uneducated” mandates (more on their plates – money, logic, motivation) Not understanding the technical situation Not understanding the economic situation Not understanding the audiences Over reliance on written material Too much paper work Those (internal or external) responsible for changing behavior have no authority ….educational competence ….Motivation Reasons for failed implementation Dr. Marc L. Lame, IU-School of Public and Environmental Affairs

17. 8 Tools Change Agents Should Use For Sustaining School IPM Programs: • A message of Demand Side IPM • Environmental Health & Safety Committees (EHS) • Pest Presses • PMP Partner with job specs • Area-wide Coalitions • Recognition Program • Willingness to GET DIRTY! • Non-pesticide-centric Legislation Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

18. Why should they Demand IPM? POLICY STATEMENT: Pesticide Exposure in Children PEDIATRICS Volume 130, Number 6, December 2012 (33 referenced papers) • Three overarching principles can be identified: • pesticide exposures are common and cause both acute and chronic effects; • (2) pediatricians need to be knowledgeable in pesticide identification, counseling, and management; and • (3) governmental actions to improve pesticide safety are needed.

19. The Best Way To Protect Our School Community From These Risks Is By Implementing IPM - But, They Gotta want it more than we do!

20. A message of Demand Side IPM Fact: the vast majority of pest management activities are conducted by food service, administrative and building maintenance professionals…. NOT pesticide applicators SAFE ENVIRONMENT 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

21. Implementers must demonstrate IPM is compatible with the district’s current operations • 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

22. Recognizing IPM As A Pollution Prevention Innovation: Source Reduction For Pesticides Is Preventing Pests From Triggering Pesticide Applications • Don’t attract Pests • Keep them out • Get rid of them, if you are sure you have them with the safest, most effective method(s)

23. Reasons for Environmental Health & Safety Committees (EHS) - Are to utilize the experience, expertise and influence of leaders in your school community to provide advice, political support and continuity to the corporation’s environmental program staff.

24. The Pest Press – Best If Hard Copy – They Have To Search For It! • Over time defines IPM and what it means to the school community • addresses the pest of the month, why it is attracted to our school, how to prevent it from infesting our school, and control upon infestation • the status of your IPM program, • recognize folks that are helping make it work and • short “bug facts” on simple biology insects in general • The key to this newsletter seems to be that whatever information on pest management is given, it relates to what is going on in the readers home. Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

25. PMP Partner With Job Specs • Partner: an entity who wants to work with you to reach SHARED goals • Accountability • Shared responsibility • QA/QC • Communication required • Co-production • Resource leverage • Empowerment • Partnership • Leadership

26. Area-wide Coalitions – Two step flowing

27. Recognition Programs - To Confirm To The Adopting Unit That They Made The Right Decision – Reaching Critical Mass!

28. WILLINGNESS TO GET DIRTY – Credible Hand Holding!

29. Non-pesticide-centric Legislation • Rules that address conducive conditions • Regulated by Health Departments? Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

30. where Do we go from here? Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

31. “One epa for kids” structural model - logic = Agency infrastructure development for implementation AND child institution infrastructure development for “cascading” adoption of Pollution Prevention innovations IEO OCSPP OCHP Cascading Media Reduction (pesticides, other Toxics, IAQ, Obesity?) Serial Audiences (schools, Child care, housing, residential) Regional Tribal Programs Regional Children’s Health Protection Regional School IPM C D C NEHA N P M A objective 1 Train regional IPM (curriculum=group meet + One-on-one) State HDs Objective 2 = develop “team one epa for kids” in each region Objective 3 = develop Change Agent Core Ag IPMers to help impl. Objective 4 = strategic implementation of IPM to the audience GOAL = verifiable IPM in US schools (serially child care, housing, etc) children’s env. Health protection + cost effective mgt. for institutions Measurements = adoption of tfs, i-pestmanager, ipm coordinator/plan Outcomes = risk reduction + cost reduction

32. Questions And Comments The End Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University