1 / 22

IPM in Schools

IPM in Schools. National School IPM Steering Committee. History. 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.

marijke
Download Presentation

IPM in Schools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IPMin Schools National School IPM Steering Committee

  2. History 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.

  3. School 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: • Improved coordination across US • Expanded network of implementers and support

  4. Metrics since 2006 Number students and staff impacted by demonstrations:611,499 Number impacted by coalitions: 1,510,359 Average pesticide use reduction: 69% Average pest complaint reduction: 31% Over 75 meetings & workshops More than 25 publications 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.

  5. Successful Models 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.

  6. Legislation by EPA Region

  7. Legislation by EPA Region

  8. Coordination: National Steering Committee and… • Northeastern Working Group,37 members • www.nepmc.org/work_school.cfm led by • Lynn Braband, Cornell University • Kathleen Murray, Maine Dept. of Agriculture • Western Working Group, 80 members • http://cals.arizona.edu/apmc/westernschoolIPM.html led by • 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 • Janet Hurley, Texas AgriLife Extension • This National School IPM Working Group includes over 221 professionals from across the country including: • Government officials. • University scientists and Extension educators. • Industry experts. • Representatives from non-governmental organizations. • National SIPM Working Group Priorities • North Central Working Group,56 members • www.ipminstitute.org/NC_IPMIS_Working_Group/main.htm led by • Thomas Green, IPM Institute of North America • Bob Stoddard, Envirosafe

  9. School IPM Priorities • Two sets of priorities: • Regional (four regions) • 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

  10. 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

  11. National Management Priorities Establish appropriately trained IPM coordinators in school systems to oversee day-to-day implementation of IPM policies and programs. Partner with pest management professionals and organizations to create and implement effective, economical IPM service relationships. Increase funding for management, coordination, education, research and implementation. Identify, educate and activate appropriate school-related organizations to embed IPM into the organizational culture, including ongoing continuing education opportunities for members. Create job-specific IPM guidelines for roles within schools, e.g., athletic field managers, custodians, maintenance staff, principals, etc.

  12. National Educational Priorities Provide education for custodial, maintenance, kitchen and grounds staff, physicians and school nurses. Provide training for IPM coordinators to improve effectiveness in their role. Provide education and advanced certification for pest management professionals, specifically addressing high-level IPM practices for school environments. Develop Best Management Practices for schools to use with vendors of pest management services, design and construction, food and drink products, etc. Educate policy makers, e.g., city councils and legislatures on need and benefits using case studies detailing success stories.

  13. National Research Priorities Economics of IPM (implementation and education) vs. conventional pest management. IPM impacts on academic performance, e.g., asthma, absenteeism, grades. Evaluation of health hazards of pests and pesticides. Development of tools and measures for IPM and continuous improvement. Impact of building design and maintenance on pest management.

  14. National Regulatory Priorities Create and mandate minimum standards for school IPM at federal level, including applicator licensing and written IPM program, for example, through new legislation. 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. Create pesticide education program at national level to target schools, i.e. school boards, superintendents, facilities managers, etc. Provide IPM input, including verifiable standards and methods of funding, into existing legislation related to schools. Mandate high-level IPM training/licensing for pest management professionals.

  15. Current Projects • 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.

  16. School IPM Grants2008-2011 • 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

  17. School IPM Grants2008-2011 • 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

  18. 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

  19. Tools Established Emerging 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 • 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 www.ipminstitute.org/school_ipm_2015/resources.htm

  20. Opportunities to Engage • 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: • newsletter@schoolipm2015.com • 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

  21. Next Steps 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!

  22. Thank you to our funders More than 18 school IPM projects nationwide are currently supported by: US EPA, US EPA Regions USDA NIFA Regional IPM Centers USDA Smith-Lever Grant Center for Disease Control and Prevention National Environmental Health Association CDC

More Related