[School IPM] IPM in Schools: Better Defining the PMP’s Role

DACS field training coordinator Paul Mitola (Florida DACS) demonstrating how to do an inspection for German cockroaches in kitchen equipment.  Mitola is holding the head of the scale where a live German cockroach is resting.

The Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials (ASPCRO) has supported IPM in schools since the inception of the program; however, in 2008 ASPCRO formalized its interest by creating a subcommittee solely dedicated to regulatory issues related to IPM in schools. During the 2011 ASPCRO annual meeting, an informal gathering of EPA Region 4 reps and 3 to 4 people representing different states turned into a school IPM meeting of almost 20 people, representing more than 15 different states, demonstrating the great interest ASPCRO members have in this issue.

ASPCRO established its Pest Management in Schools Committee to assist member states working toward implementation of IPM programs in schools. ASPCRO sees a need for IPM programs in school facilities, indoors and outdoors, based on two concerns: (1) health and safety effects of allowing pests to infest school facilities; and (2) possible unintended effects of pest management tactics used to control pests. The goal of a school IPM program is to reduce children’s exposure to pests. When this is accomplished, children’s risks to exposure from pesticides also is reduced. The committee has worked to identify impediments to implementation and develop what it hopes will be useful strategies for IPM implementation. This article discusses some of the work being done by ASPCRO, problems related to implementation of IPM programs in schools and the important role pest management professionals (PMPs) play in IPM in our nation’s schools.

While PMPs have long practiced IPM, schools are just beginning to realize the benefits of IPM programs as an alternative to a reactive, spray-only pest control service. IPM is a prevention-based, highly effective approach that has demonstrated reductions in pest complaints and pesticide use by as much as 90% in schools and other public buildings. IPM relies heavily on a community effort to coordinate practices such as de-cluttering, sanitation and exclusion as primary means of managing pests. It coordinates the use of pest biology, environmental information, and available technology to prevent unacceptable pest levels by the most economical means, while posing the least possible risk to people, property, resources and the environment.
 

Pest Problems in Schools. Information provided to ASPCRO shows that there is an uptick in nationwide pest problems in schools related to ants, cockroaches, rodents, dust mites and — more recently — bed bugs. Pest infestations from cockroaches and rodents degrade the quality of our living environments, resulting in sanitation problems and poor air quality. Cockroach dander (exoskeleton particles), is known to trigger asthma and allergies in susceptible populations.

Each day approximately 49 million children and 7 million teachers and staff spend a minimum of six hours in our nation’s schools in environments that may harbor these and other pests. Although approximately 70%-90% of schools contract pest control services to licensed PMPs, data suggest that pest management in our nation’s schools needs improvement. ASPCRO believes that pest problems existing in our nation’s schools are due to factors that limit the effectiveness of PMPs and those responsible for pest management — not a lack of effort.
 

Manatee County’s IPM Coordinator, also a certified operator, demonstrating monitor placement to Mike Page (Florida DACS) and Danielle Dimon (MCSD).

Insufficient School Resources. One of the biggest factors contributing to inefficient pest management in schools is the lack of resources and implementation expertise to address pest management problems. In many states, school funding is dependent on meeting mandated testing requirements. When schools have to compete for limited funds based on expected test results, it means that school administrators and teachers are focused on educating students, and pest management gets shorted. The myriad social problems schools must address on a daily basis almost guarantees pest control is given a low priority. Pest management is viewed as another low-priority responsibility for overloaded school personnel and not as a duty that should be incorporated into daily operations related to sanitation. Incorporation into daily operational activities can drastically reduce this overload. In addition, when pest control services need to be purchased, schools, like any other government agency, must acquire these services through a bid process. Unfortunately, schools are often forced to accept the “low bid,” which can lead to a level of service that does not include IPM as the basis of a pest management program.

ASPCRO, through its Pest Management in Schools Committee, is promoting partnerships that include PMPs, state regulators and state land-grant universities (extension) as the logical solution to the lack of available resources. State regulators are qualified to help form these partnerships because they regulate the industry that can administer IPM programs. In addition, state regulators maintain well established and productive relationships with the state land grant universities that are appropriately the main developers and implementers of these programs. Establishing PMPs as “change agents” in a three-way partnership with state regulators and extension experts makes sense when PMPs are the front line in controlling pests in schools.
 

A ‘Pesticide-Centric’ Paradigm. The technology and chemical tools available to PMPs have changed rapidly during the past decade-plus. Pesticides have been viewed as a quick fix since their early development in both agricultural and non-agricultural settings. This led to a “pesticide-centric” paradigm. The operating paradigm that chemical tools can be used alone to efficiently control pests in a school facility has to change. Although new advancements are being made in the area of polymers to improve the residual effectiveness of pesticides, it is important for PMPs to adopt and incorporate the use of other non-chemical interventions such as sanitation, de-cluttering and exclusion in their pest management programs because they directly eliminate sources of food, shelter and access to pests and reduce pest pressure without the need for product use.

To shift the paradigm away from “spray and pray” pest control, ASPCRO is developing and recommending the use of model standards, or Best Management Practices (BMPs), for IPM by PMPs. The National Pest Management Association developed such standards for their Quality Pro Green program in April 2009. Model standards can help communicate expectations to administrators so they understand the benefits of IPM in schools. PMPs that adopt IPM methods to control pests makes them important “change agents” in the implementation process.
 

Typical school office illustrating the need to de-clutter as a component of an IPM program.

Anti-Pesticide Influence. While overreliance on pesticides may contribute to pest problems, the opposite can also be problematic. Limiting the use of pesticides may be contributing to the resurgence of pest problems nationwide. The move to severely restrict, or eliminate altogether, the application of registered pesticides in schools is a result of the general public’s lack of understanding behind the science of modern pesticide chemistries and application technologies. ASPCRO supports the product registration system used by EPA to ensure that pesticides, when used according to label directions, pose no unreasonable adverse effects to people or the environment, including schools. ASPCRO also recognizes that application techniques and some pesticides pose inherently lower risks for human exposure and have lower toxicity ratings and these products are more appropriate for school facilities.

Legislation in some states has been influenced by non-government organizations in ways that limit the use of efficacious chemical intervention tactics requiring “least toxic” products that have unproven or no efficacy against pests. These groups argue that pesticides are the real threat to children’s health. This is a mischaracterization because pests such as cockroaches and rodents may pose a greater risk to children’s health than those resulting from the use of registered pesticides.

It also should be pointed out that the phrase “least toxic” can be a trap that results in increased risk of exposure. An example that state regulators have experience with is the use of boric acid to control fleas. Although touted as a “least toxic” product, it is also relatively ineffective in controlling fleas, resulting in repeated applications that significantly increase unnecessary exposure. The use of unregistered “25 (b)” products are another example. Although sold as “safe” products, they are still toxic when used inappropriately, and repeated applications of ineffective products can lead to unnecessary exposures.

ASPCRO has worked diligently to balance national discussions related to “toxicity” and “risk” and the use of pesticides in schools. ASPCRO also advocates for maintaining the science-based, risk-benefit regulatory framework delineated in the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. ASPCRO was recently invited to be part of a subcommittee that is part of EPA’s Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee. The PPDC is a group of stakeholders that make recommendations to the agency on a number of environmental issues, one of which is IPM. ASPCRO is committed to participating in the national discussion of IPM implementation and has recommended the inclusion of PMPs in an overall strategy for the implementation of IPM in schools.

Meaningful School Regulations. There are 39 states in the nation (and the District of Columbia) that have enacted regulations related to pest management in schools. This may sound encouraging; however, estimates suggest that only 5%-8% of the schools nationwide have implemented verifiable IPM programs. There are a few states that are the exception, but the failure of laws to address the need for effective pest management appears evident. The laws that have been enacted by states are mostly concerned with posting and notification standards; neither of which are components of an IPM program. Appropriate funding and regulatory support also are lacking in many state laws. IPM is a prevention-based approach to pest management that emphasizes interventions such as de-cluttering, sanitation and exclusion as the first line of defense for managing pests. Meaningful legislation would require contractors and responsible school personnel to implement components such as monitoring and surveillance, sanitation and exclusion techniques as primary activities for the control of pests. In addition, training requirements specific to IPM in school facilities, the need for a knowledgeable IPM coordinator in school systems and appropriate funding for activities such as improving the building envelope to help exclude pests and make facilities more energy efficient need to be considered.

In response, ASPCRO drafted a position paper addressing what it believes are fundamental requirements that, if enacted by states, will help move IPM implementation in a positive direction.
 

PMPs as Change Agents. PMPs already play an important role in protecting the public’s health from unwanted pests that often invade our homes, work places, and our nation’s schools. Working together with state regulators and extension experts, PMPs can become effective change agents by helping inform, train and develop school personnel to become “participating consumers” in an effort to achieve the goal of implementing IPM in our nation’s schools.

The author is chief of the Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control at the Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services. He also is co-chair of ASPCRO’s Pest Management in Schools Committee and can be contacted at mpage@giemedia.com.