FOCUS ON IPM: Optimizing IPM For Public Buildings

he doctrine of IPM (Integrated Pest Management) has entered a crucial third phase in its brief, but colorful, history. For at least two decades following its inception in the 1950s, the concept remained purely technical in nature. As entomology’s primary contribution to the environmental era, IPM was conceived as a system of principles and procedures for a more efficient, sustainable and biologically rational approach to agricultural pest control. From the beginning, it was derided as ivory-tower wishful thinking by skeptical growers reluctant to change their prevailing practice of rigidly scheduled treatments with broad-spectrum pesticides.
The new concept was destined to become far more than just a distinct approach to combat pests. By the 1980s IPM had become firmly established as an icon of environmental activism, widely invoked as part of an agenda for minimizing the excessive use of pesticides everywhere. The acronym had become a cause, and its original cadre of academic promoters was now swollen with a wide array of crusaders captivated by the promise of this new idea. It was during this second phase — the passage from methodology to ideology — that pitched battles were fought by partisans on both sides of the issue. A large segment of the structural pest control industry, fearing the possibility of being deprived of its entire chemical arsenal, repeatedly denounced IPM as unrealistic, unworkable and prohibitively expensive. 
But change was inevitable. Perhaps the most significant event to usher in the new age was the adoption of the “IPM — the Bridge to the Future” theme for the 1994 convention of the National Pest Control Association (now called the National Pest Management Association, see pg. 36). In a historical blink of the eye, the industry so rapidly and thoroughly embraced the IPM concept that the bit-ter rhetorical conflicts of a few years ago seem almost quaint today.
But the revolution wasn’t over. In 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act mandated the use and promotion of IPM by all federal agencies. Much like the practice of recycling, another initiative that eventually became enshrined as policy at all levels of government, IPM was no longer just a good idea — it was the law. And for better or worse, federal statutes have traditionally influenced American culture far beyond their original purview.

THE IPM CHALLENGE. IPM’s third phase as “techno-law” is accompanied by more than its share of irony. At one time, structures were among the backwaters of the IPM movement — now they’re at its forefront, particularly regarding children. At last count, 20 states and more than 150 localities nationwide have policies or programs that require or recommend IPM in schools (Beyond Pesticides 2002). The number of initiatives is actually far greater. For example, 268 of Indiana’s 292 school districts voluntarily adopted IPM programs last year, prompted by attempts to establish state-mandated regulations (Stuteville 2002).
Furthermore, due to tireless lobbying by its lead organizations, the structural pest control industry has turned a corner in its ability to determine its own technical destiny and is increasingly being invited to partner with other stakeholders in the formulation of IPM legislation and regulations. In fact, the necessity to strictly define what “IPM compliance” actually means on the frontline has resulted in a growing realization by advocates of pesticide reform that good results do not necessarily depend on elaborate administrative procedures. This is advice that most industry IPM practitioners have been giving for years, only to be ignored by numerous other advocates and consultants who seemed far more preoccupied with process rather than objective. Now that schools, communities and public agencies are forced to confront the realities of economics and efficiency in the creation of “sustainable” IPM programs, a practical approach has a much greater chance to win out over dogma.
This is the challenge facing all pest management professionals — to focus on IPM doctrine as a means, not an end — and to recommend program formats to our clients in the public sector that achieve the desired end results as cheaply and simply as possible. What exactly are these end results (or “outputs” in government jargon)? For the past several years there has been a firm consensus that the purpose of IPM is to provide pest control that is as safe, effective and economical as possible, where “safe” implies minimizing risks to both human health and environmental quality. From a public policy perspective, anything that achieves these goals can legitimately be termed “IPM.” Results rule. It’s that simple.
Implementing programs for public buildings that meet this challenge should be aided by studying lessons learned from established models. As one of the oldest and best-documented demonstrations of structural IPM success, the initiative of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) has several important lessons to offer.

THE GSA MODEL. GSA is the largest commercial-style real estate organization in the United States, maintaining workspace and providing support services for more than 1 million federal employees nationwide. In 1988, the agency established a pilot IPM program for about 100 government buildings in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia, collectively containing about 30 million square feet of indoor space. The new program’s first contract was launched the following year. Since then, GSA has continually refined its specifications, tested and perfected a wide array of innovative pest management technologies and provided IPM guidance to more than 100 federal, state and municipal government agencies across the country.
Although a small in-house staff develops and coordinates the educational and preventive aspects of the IPM effort, the day-to-day functions of pest control — trapping, pesticide application and routine surveillance — are performed by commercial firms hired by RFP (request for proposal) procurements. (Editor’s note: For a weekly list of RFPs, visit www.pctonline.com and register for PCT’s E-newsletter.) Although areas at particular risk are inspected on a regular basis in each building, the program operates mainly on a service call system. Building occupants phone in requests for service to their facility manager’s office, where they are logged in and answered by a technician on the next scheduled visit (generally weekly or biweekly, although emergency calls are serviced within three hours). These work orders provide the accountability data for GSA to measure the customer satisfaction component of IPM program performance. The pesticide use component is measured by data maintained by the contractors according to law.
Together, these “built-in” data sets comprise a comprehensive and detailed record of the initiative’s progress over time (Greene and Breisch 2002). Here we compare two benchmark years: 1988, the final year of the conventional program that emphasized scheduled spraying, limited inspection, minimal public relations and little or no coordination with other facilities management programs; and 1999, the conclusion of the second “IPM-style” contract that emphasized baits and enhanced inspection, public relations and inter-program coordination. The data pertain to a sample of 55 structures, totaling 16.5 million square feet (see chart on page 34).
The bottom lines are impressive. From a baseline figure of 14,716 in 1988, tenant service requests had fallen to 1,581 in 1999, an almost 90 percent decline. Cockroaches, the dominant category of complaints, accounted for 72 percent of service requests in 1988, but only 46 percent in 1999. Actual number of roach complaints in 1999 was only 7 percent of the number in 1988. The decade separating the two sample years also included a dramatic shift in pesticide use. In 1988, 98 percent of all insecticides applied were liquid formulations from compressed air sprayers, mainly chlorpyrifos and a pyrethroid. Organophosphates were immediately banned by the program in 1989 and pyrethrin/pyrethroids phased out in a few years. By 1999, all insecticides applied were bait products, with liquid and aerosol formulations totally eliminated. Combined weight of these baits’ active ingredients in 1999 was a mere 230 grams, amounting to only 5 percent of the total insecticide active ingredient weight in 1988 (see chart on page 38).
An undeniable reduction in pesticide use and risk. An undeniable increase in effectiveness of control. And all for hourly prices that did not exceed the baseline rates and actually fell slightly throughout the decade. The secret is to be found in the GSA program’s guiding credo: Components of IPM should be selected and applied according to need, not by formula. Which is to say, if you don’t need it, don’t do it. Simplify, simplify, simplify.

OPTIMIZING THE PROCESS. These are the four most important IPM lessons learned by GSA throughout the years:
• DO use baits whenever possible. Twelve years ago, when many pest control companies claimed they were “doing IPM” with containerized bait, senior author told the audience at one of Dave Mueller’s Fumigants & Pheromones seminars that “IPM is a process, not a product.” In ret-rospect, that may have been a bit overstated — the right products make an overwhelming difference. Although the nationwide success in devastating German roach populations with baits has not been repeated with any other pest, these minimalist formulations have been the primary reason that structural IPM programs can claim such impressive progress with pesticide use and risk reduction. Once the industry overcomes its curious addiction to sprayed pyrethrins and pyrethroids (undeniably handy at times, but grossly overused by many), the indoor pes-ticide revolution will be largely complete.
• DON’T rely on infrastructure improvements. “Built-in” pest-proofing measures are really the heart and soul of IPM and the essence of the preventive mindset. We must always strive to implement them. But meaningful improvements in sealing, sanitation and building design are by far the most difficult component of IPM to accomplish, particularly on a long-term basis. GSA has made these “applied facility management” approaches a signature part of its program and has pioneered the use of self-contained trash compactors, backpack vacuums, compact pressure washers, rodent-resistant landscape designs and many other technologies. They have been invaluable at many sites. But without the use of corrective measures throughout its aging real estate inventory — pesticides and trapping — there is no way that most pests could be suppressed to acceptable levels.
• DO use the customer as the primary surveillance mechanism whenever possible. Use of on-site customers as a labor source is a well-established business strategy to optimize service delivery cost and efficiency. Naturally, the clients need a way to efficiently inform the technician where they perceive a problem and the centralized service request log is usually the most efficient way to do this. There are obviously situations where client-based monitoring won’t work, such as in unoccupied space (e.g., storage facilities) or where there is a culture of pest tolerance (e.g., some food-preparation facilities). But in most types of public buildings, including schools, the customers should guide the pest control effort just like they do anywhere else.
• DON’T go overboard on superfluous monitoring, record-keeping or detailed protocols. An awful lot of time, effort and money can be wasted on dogmatic IPM rituals that contribute very little to bottom line results. Thousands of sticky traps are used annually in the GSA program, but the deployment of every single one of them is strictly an ad hoc affair. They are put out when a technician or program official feels it is necessary for a local problem, not according to some predetermined plan. The program itself neither records nor maintains data on pest numbers because it has no use for these data. In general, the orthodoxy of action thresholds is totally irrelevant for schools or offices. Client satisfaction (as revealed by work order trends) should be what drives the operational decisions for these buildings. And it is far more efficient for an organization to set a few boundaries for pesticide use and give a trained, certified professional some credit for brains, rather than to formulate elaborate rules for every conceivable pest situation.

Dr. Al Greene is the U.S. General Services Administration’s national point of contact for IPM issues. Dr. Nancy Breisch is a senior research associate in the Dept. of Entomology, Univ. of Maryland, College Park. They can be reached at agreene@pctonline.com and nbreisch@pctonline.com respectively.

M-WORD MANIA

For most purposes, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) IPM program prefers to describe the service it delivers as “pest control,” simply because the average client is a lot more familiar and comfortable with that expression than “IPM.”

There’s been a rush during the past few years to transform “control” into the far more sophisticated, formidable and politically correct “management.” Not only has it been difficult adjusting to our national organization’s new acronym (NPMA), the label of choice for the industry’s frontline employees has been shifting uncontrollably for decades. “Exterminators” became “pest control operators,” then “pest control technicians,” who now are called “pest management professionals.”

Obviously, labels send messages. The use of “management” conveys a recognition that safe, effective and economical pest suppression isn’t just a simple matter of spraying some bug juice. Particularly in a sensitive environment such as a school, it indicates that this service often presents a complex, multidimensional challenge, requiring the coordination of a broad array of technological, legal and cultural elements.

On the other hand, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the word “control.” It’s used for such grave affairs as “arms control,” “birth control” and “air traffic control,” none of which are considered particularly lightweight issues. Not to mention control rooms, control boards, mission con-trol.…you get the idea.
I think everyone should lighten up and temper this M-word obsession with some common sense. The term Integrated Pest Management is here to stay as a symbolic expression of environmental awareness — and that’s fine. But there’s no reason why not to use the term “pest control” if that’s the subject you’re discussing.

Take a stand. Go retro. Use “control” proudly in your conversation today! — Albert Greene