1. Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University 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

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

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) “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. 4Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

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

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

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

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

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

11. 11Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University IPM support system for the school environment Education SAFE ENVIRONMENT custodialcustodial maitenencemaitenence kitchenkitchen administrationadministration PMPs staff teachers

12. 12Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University A Shift to an IPM Program monitoring, prevention, treatment (identification, biology, technology) SAFE ENVIRONMENT CulturalCultural ExclusionExclusion ChemicalChemical EDUCATION: ENVIRONMENT ScheduledScheduled TreatmentsTreatments SanitationSanitation MechanicalMechanical ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. 19Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University Prevention Doing what you do now---just think pests!!! 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26. 26Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University Pest Vulnerable Areas Pest Vulnerable Areas Kitchen, pantry and cafeteria Dumpsters Teachers lounge Custodial closets Special Ed/classroom/nursery Bathrooms External grounds

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

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

29. 29Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University STAR Certification

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

31. 31Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University Minimum Implementation Standards The school administration is aware of what their pest management program is. 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 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) Those responsible for the chemical pesticide component of IPM are certified PCOs (with instructions to treat as needed and based on monitoring)

32. 32Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University Helpful Guidelines 3 No scheduled pesticide sprays 3 Inspect and monitor 3 Restrict the pesticides allowed 3 Inform parents 3 Designate an IPM specialist 3 Train staff and teachers 3 Only certified applicators should apply chemicals 3 Communicate, Communicate, …. !

33. 33Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University 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. 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.

34. 34Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University Steps for The Monroe IPM Model – where are we in UT? 1.Agree 2.Scout 3.Contact 4.Verbal commitment 5.Cooperate 6.Sweeten the pot 7.Obtain an MOU 8.Assessment 9.Train the trainers 10.Train school staff adopters 11.Monitor 12. Introduce 13. Newsletters 14. Mid-term Evaluation 15. Mid-term Adjustment Meet 16. Handholding 17. Integrate the PCO 18. Final Evaluation 19. District Expansion 20. Reward 21. Area-wide Expansion 22. Report

35. 35Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University WHY DO WE MEASURE IMPACTS?: Program management – Program management – 1. QA/QC 2. CONFIRMATION to the adopting community GPRA – gov performance reporting act GPRA – gov performance reporting act Politics – study so you won’t be able to implement?$*? Politics – study so you won’t be able to implement?$*?

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

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

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

39. 39Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University What we measured Diffusion Diffusion 1. IPM STds – training, Pest Press, pest sighting logs, monitoring stations, no preventive treatments 2. Membership in statewide coalitions Causes of pesticide use – pest perception and complaints Causes of pesticide use – pest perception and complaints Pesticide use – annual # applications/pilot school Pesticide use – annual # applications/pilot school Transferability – increasing the rate of diffusion Transferability – increasing the rate of diffusion 1. Awareness 2. Risk mitigation (+attributes and negative attributes)

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

41. 41Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University Indiana – 10 years School district and year of inception Number of Schools Pest pressure* and the most common pests Mean number of PesticideApplications +/ school/y, pre-IPM pre-IPM (2 years) Mean number of pesticide applications /school/y, post-IPM (% reduction) Percent reduction in requests for pest control IPM STAR® certification and/or recognition Indiana:MonroeCountyCommunity School SchoolCorporation(1995)21 (3 pilot schools) schools) Moderate Blattidae (3 spp.), Formicidae (3 spp.), Vespidae (2 spp.), Apidae, Muridae (2 spp.) 12 + scheduled monthly treatments plus callback treatments1(92%)90%IPM STAR®, STAR®, news news reports reports (5), (5), awards (5)

42. 42Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University Alabama – 5 years School district and year of inception Number of Schools Pest pressure* and the most common pests Mean number of PesticideApplications +/ school/y, pre-IPM pre-IPM (2 years) Mean number of pesticide applications /school/y, post-IPM (% reduction) Percent reduction in requests for pest control IPM STAR® certification and/or recognition Alabama:AuburnCity Schools Schools (2000) (2000)9 (3 pilot schools) Severe Blattidae (2 spp.), Vespidae (2 spp.), Formicidae, Buthidae, Loxoscelidae, Muscidae, Psychodidae, Phoridae, Muridae 20 + scheduled monthly treatments plus callback treatments 6(70%)90%IPMSTAR®,News reports reports (1), (1), awards (2)

43. 43Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University Arizona 5 years School district and year of inception Number of Schools Pest pressure* and the most common pests Mean number of PesticideApplications +/ school/y, pre-IPM pre-IPM (2 years) Mean number of pesticide applications /school/y, post-IPM (% reduction) Percent reduction in requests for pest control IPM STAR® certification and/or recognition Arizona:Kyrene Schools Schools (2000) (2000)26 3 pilot schools Light Blattidae (3 spp.), Formicidae (3 spp.), Apidae, Muridae (2 spp.), Gryllidae, Tephritidae, Psychodidae, Phoridae, Theridiidae, Buthidae, Columbidae (pigeons), Felidae (feral cats) 12 + (scheduled monthly treatments, callback treatments, and "clean out" every summer before school started) 1(83%)85%IPMSTAR®,News reports (4), awards (3)

44. 44Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University Florida – 1 year School district and year of inception Number of Schools Pest pressure* and the most common pests Mean number of PesticideApplications +/ school/y, pre-IPM pre-IPM (2 years) Mean number of pesticide applications /school/y, post-IPM (% reduction) Percent reduction in requests for pest control IPM STAR® certification and/or recognition Florida:Brevard County County Public Public Schools Schools (2004) (2004)82 (3 pilot Schools) Severe Blattidae (3 spp.), Formicidae (4 spp.), Gryllidae, Apidae, Rhinotermitidae, Culicidae, Lepismatidae, Loxoscelidae, Pediculidae, Muridae (2 spp.), Ardeidae (snowy egret), Icteridae (grackle), Sturnidae (European starling), Colubridae (2 spp. snake), Chiroptera (bats), Felidae 24 + Less than 20 (first 20 (first year) year)(58%)50% New program

45. 45Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University …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% of land grant institutions have IPM in Schools programs …loosing ground? 38% have informational programs (e.g. – websites, manuals, fact sheets, etc.) 38% have informational programs (e.g. – websites, manuals, fact sheets, etc.) 26% have interactive programs (training sessions, CEUs) 26% have interactive programs (training sessions, CEUs) 14% have diffusion programs (information, interaction AND demonstrations with recognition programs) 14% have diffusion programs (information, interaction AND demonstrations with recognition programs) (Percentages based on 50 states) (Percentages based on 50 states)

46. 46Dr. Marc Lame, Indiana University

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