MEETING SUMMARY

of the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s
SCHOOL INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2002

Members present

• Phil Boise, Community Environmental CouncilKim Crum, California Agricultural Production Consultants Association
• Andrea Fox, California Farm Bureau Federation
• Robert Hamm, Los Angeles Unified School District
• Tony Hesch, California Department of Education
  
• Catherine Wilson Jones, Self-Insured Schools of California
• Judy Letterman, Pesticide Applicators Professional Association
  
• Patrick J. O’Connor-Marer, UC Statewide IPM Program
  
• Teresa Olle, California Public Interest Research Group
  
• Eric Paulsen, Pest Control Operators of California
• Cassie Prudhel, California Parent Teacher Association
• Debbie Raphael, City/County of San Francisco
  
• Renee Robin, Children’s Environmental Health Network
• Steve Zien (Alternate), Californians for Pesticide Reform/Living Resources

TOPIC #1: Welcome and introductions.  Paul Helliker, Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), welcomed members.  Paul introduced the DPR School Integrated Pest Management (IPM) staff. Members and observers introduced themselves. Meeting facilitator Dennis Tootelian, Professor of Marketing, California State University, Sacramento, summarized the meeting format and agenda (handout #1) (PDF 159 kb).

Paul Helliker provided background information on the advisory group, emphasizing its key role in the implementation of DPR’s school IPM program. The Director outlined that the purpose of the advisory group is to offer suggestions and comments to DPR as it develops materials and activities to: help districts to establish IPM policies and programs, train individuals designated by school districts to carry out these programs, develop an IPM guidebook, establish an IPM in Schools Web site, and evaluate IPM adoption in schools. The advisory group’s advice has been most helpful in ensuring that this program provides the best support possible for its constituent groups and achieves its mandated goals.

TOPIC #2: California Department of Education update. Tony Hesch, School Facility Consultant with the California Department of Education, briefly described several studies that are being conducted that address environmental pollution at schools. They include:

• Portable classroom study.  The objectives of the portable classroom study are to assess the statewide environmental health conditions in California’s portable classroom and to develop recommendations to prevent any problems identified.  As specified in Assembly Bill 2827 (Shelley, 2000) and section 39619.6 of the Health and Safety Code, the Air Resources Board (ARB) and Department of Health Services (DHS) are required to evaluate the school ventilation systems and maintenance practices, assess indoor air quality and identify any toxic contamination including molds and allergens in California’s classrooms. The ARB and DHS must also submit a final study report, including recommendations, to the Legislature by June 30, 2002. ARB obtained data on formaldehyde from nearly 1,000 schools statewide. This year, ARB is collecting data on other pollutants and environmental factors from two portable classrooms and one traditional classroom at each of 70 randomly selected schools statewide. For more information about results and next steps, click here.
• Children's Environmental Health Protection Program (Senate Bill 25, personal monitors). Last year, ARB identified six school sites for air monitoring to help determine the adequacy of California’s air quality monitoring network to measure infants’ and children’s exposures to air pollutants. ARB completed a pilot study that examined children’s exposures during their school commute. For more information, click here.
• School bus exposure study (part of above study). ARB is conducting a larger study that includes monitoring for gaseous and particulate pollutants inside school buses as well as monitoring at bus stops and loading areas. For more information, click here.
• Fresno Asthmatic Children’s Study (FACES), which began recruiting children in October 2000, is the first to be sponsored by the ARB’s new Vulnerable Populations Research Program. The study is being conducted by a team of researchers from a number of organizations, led by University of California, Berkeley. The study focuses on how environmental factors in Fresno influence the way a child’s asthma progresses over time. Among the environmental influences of interest are air pollutants from man-made and natural sources, such as particulate matter. About 300 children, diagnosed with asthma, have been enrolled in the study. For more information, click here.
• Tony also briefly mentioned several other studies: (1) Indoor air quality—cleaning agents, (2) Sierra radon survey, and (3) air quality and proximity to highways—valuable information for schools.

[For more information about steps the California Environmental Protection Agency is taking to protect children from environmental pollutants, including clean-ups of hazardous substances at school sites, evaluations of air quality in portable classrooms, and ensuring that our environmental standards safeguard infants, children, and sensitive people, click here.

He also updated the group on the Healthy Schools Act: Where are we? In general, school districts are doing a great job. When the law first went into effect (January 2001), some districts did not know the meaning of IPM. Now most districts know what IPM is, many have programs, policies, or both in place, and many have reduced applications of pesticides, especially in the classroom. However, a small percent of schools are not yet participating. Generally, small and mid-sized school districts will be slower to implement this new program as they already may be understaffed for existing activities. He suggested the need to focus on getting the word out to districts that are not yet implementing the Healthy Schools Act.

For many districts, significant costs are associated with the registry notification and record keeping requirements of the Healthy Schools Act. The state economic situation continues to adversely affect schools, e.g., open positions in support services (such as in maintenance and operations) are not being filled. State funds for this program do not exist, so it will be very hard for school districts to implement this program on a no-cost or low cost basis.  Although unintended, the Healthy Schools Act notification requirements may be causing some schools to move more towards calendar spraying, due to issues of convenience. Tony recommended that the best way to help address decreasing funding is to get involved and help your local school district make decisions about its budget allocations and cuts that will come.

Tony mentioned the recent Californians for Pesticide report, Learning Curve:  Charting Progress on Pesticide Use and the Healthy Schools Act, by Corina McKendry, California Public Interest Research Group Charitable Trust. He thought the report put a negative interpretation on its results; he preferred to see the cup half full, rather than half empty. The advisory group discussed it briefly.

TOPIC #3: Update on the guidebook. Belinda Messenger, lead on DPR’s school IPM guidebook, reviewed DPR’s legal mandate to develop and distribute the guidebook, the goals of the guidebook, and the contents of the pilot edition of the guidebook  (click here) that is available for review.  Over 20 advisory group members requested copies; six have provided their comments. Since these comments are valuable to DPR as it revises the guidebook, Belinda requested that advisory group members return their comments to DPR.  Some members summarized their written comments at this meeting. Click here to view her presentation.

ACTION:  Those interested were asked to send comments to Belinda Messenger at bmessenger@cdpr.ca.gov by August 30, 2002.

TOPIC #4: Summary of DPR’s school IPM pilot training. Sewell Simmons, lead on DPR’s school IPM training, provided information on what the pilot workshop covered and its evaluation both by those who attended and those who were invited observers. He also indicated that DPR plans to provide four workshops in fiscal year 2002-03. Click here to view his presentation.

TOPIC #5: Observers’ thoughts on the training program and group discussion of the training program plans. The following six people attended DPR’s school IPM pilot training to observe and evaluate this workshop, held on June 19, 2002:

• Kathy Boyle, DPR Enforcement Branch
• Stacy Carlsen*, Marin County Agricultural Commissioner
• Tanya Drlik*, Model School IPM Project  (Alliance)
• Mary Louise Flint**, UC Statewide IPM Program
• Debbie Raphael*, City/County of San Francisco
• Steve Zien*, on behalf of Californians for Pesticide Reform

Of the six observers, four attended this advisory group meeting* (one also provided brief written comments**) and shared their comments.  In addition, Ed Perry, IPM Coordinator (New Haven Unified School District, Alameda County) attended the workshop and presented his observations at this meeting.  Other advisory group members also presented their comments during the roundtable discussion. 

Roundtable Discussion—Perspectives on Pilot Training

• Good interaction between participants
• Train people who actually do pest control
• Pests aren’t the problem—merely a symptom
• Include a question and answer component
• Who are the right people to receive training? Landscape vs. structural
• Coordinate people with the same job description (i.e., peers) and do this horizontally, not vertically. (e.g., all food service workers)
• Important to build in networking time
• Even those without technical know-how need to be involved
• Online bulletin board would be helpful
• Identify tools and alternatives (active ingredients only) {this point was brought up a few times}
• Pest management should be prescriptive (that is, learn about specific problem, don’t focus on pesticides. Involve two-way communication.
• Not enough time, expertise, confidence (e.g., maintenance and operations directors and staff who are going through a second year of training are just beginning to get it)
• The train-the-trainer approach will only work if each school district is confident with its knowledge of the information and can spread the word among peers
• Involve county offices of education (mixed opinions about doing this)
• There’s an evolution involved in training (and everything else)—what have we learned? What are our priorities? We need to have succinct and salient information to get out.
• Base training on IPM principles, but first provide alternatives and preventive practices, how to use IPM tools properly, get hazardous pesticides out of schools
• Include social promotion (peer support)
• Could DPR issue an approved-materials list?  U.S. EPA has not issued an approved materials list.
• Make a list available of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 25(b)-exempt active ingredients  See the guidebook and web site for this information.
• Have FIFRA 25(b)-exempt registrants submit product names for listing Sounds good in theory, but DPR cannot list product names.
• Link to district IPM policies and programs. See DPR’s Web site for policies and programs—including San Francisco’s approved product list.
• Not really a train-the-trainer program—how do participants know how to train?
• Michael Baefsky provided examples of products, but there seemed to be little interest.
• Amazing training! Amazing quality of materials given out.
• Alternatives need to be peer reviewed and validated by research.

Parking Lot Topics

• Confusion about the Healthy Schools Act—simplify implementation
• Who do people talk to if they want to change requirements of the Healthy Schools Act?
• What products and tools are available? DPR is developing a list of IPM tools
• Discussion of the Healthy Schools Act should be a separate training
• Recognize that some things are obstacles (e.g., maintenance)
• Simplify training—intelligent pest management
• Continue the train-the-trainer program and keep publicizing other resources
• Not enough money in school budgets to manage perceived risk
• What about an ongoing training program?

ACTION:  DPR will consider these comments as it revises its training program.

TOPIC #6: DPR’s school district surveys’ results and school IPM Web site.  Chris Geiger, lead on DPR’s school IPM Web site, summarized results of a survey of IPM coordinators at school districts that DPR conducted in 2002. (click here to view presentation). He noted that the DPR survey in 2001 was oriented towards information and research needs, while this year’s was designed to be a tool for measuring the progress of the program.

Chris also demonstrated the new HELPR feature on the school IPM Web page. Click here to view his presentation. DPR and the University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project (UCIPM) have teamed up to provide a service unlike any other on the Web: the School IPM Health and Environmental Impacts Lookup Resource (School IPM HELPR). School IPM HELPR allows users to look up UCIPM's Pest Notes recommendations for managing a particular pest, then proceed to a page that summarizes environmental and health information for each management tactic mentioned. Users can view information on toxicology, exposure, available products, and regulatory status in a convenient tabular format. Click here to go to a sample School IPM HELPR page. At this time, the HELPR page contains information for cockroaches; information on additional pests will be added in the future.

The Advisory Group suggested that DPR provide information on hazards by also including links to NCAMP (National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides) and Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Web sites.

ACTION:  DPR will take these comments under consideration.

TOPIC #7:  A past school IPM pest management alliance (PMA).  Catherine Wilson Jones (Director, Safety  & Loss Control, Self-Insured Schools of California) represents 140 school districts in about 11 counties, most of which are in the Central Valley. Self-Insured Schools of California promotes IPM and encourages its member school districts to be proactive with respect to IPM.  She provided information about the PMA that DPR funded. Its activities included efforts to partner public schools to identify specific challenges schools face in adopting IPM programs and to develop tools and resources to help overcome those challenges. Since the PMA project Self-Insured Schools of California (SISC) has conducted numerous workshops and training sessions at the district level and has established partnerships with local vendors and regulatory agencies to assist in education school district personnel. SISC developed a model IPM program to specifically address the Healthy Schools Act requirements and distributed it to member districts and others in at least 19 counties. SISC has conducted and/or facilitated a variety of IPM workshops for : (1) administrators, (2) IPM coordinators, including a pest management seminar and informal roundtable of IPM coordinators, (3) district staff (custodial personnel, food services workers), and (4) pest management responders. See handout #2 (PDF 75 kb) for information about the handbook and workshop topics.

TOPIC #8:  The current school IPM pest management alliance.  Stacy Carlsen (Marin County Agricultural Commissioner) summarized the activities of this current alliance and outlined future plans in Alameda, Contra Costa, Madera, Marine and Solano counties. DPR also funded this alliance.  Click here to view his presentation.

TOPIC #9: The Santa Barbara regional IPM coalition. Phil Boise (Pesticide Reduction Manager, Community Environmental Council) summarized results and activities, including some at schools, of this grant that was funded by DPR. This grant developed “green, red, and yellow zones” that factor in degree of exposure and hazard when considering which pest management option to use. Schools include Ventura Unified, Los Angeles Unified School District, Santa Barbara schools, Vista Del Mar, and Vieja Valley. Click here to view his presentation.

TOPIC #10: Future advisory group meetings?  Paul Helliker thanked the group for their participation and helpful input. He pointed out that DPR has implemented the initial phase of each element of its California School IPM program and asked the group if they wanted to continue to meet. The Director recommended that the advisory group meet on an as-needed basis. In addition, several members suggested that DPR:

• Simplify its information to school districts about an IPM program; simplify the guidebook.
• Focus on major pests in training and the guidebook.
• Continue training.
• Provide pest management alliance-like activities in more regions, in addition to providing training (like the pilot workshop).

ACTION:  DPR will continue to provide information about its California School IPM program to advisory group members by e-mail, as appropriate.

Please contact Madeline Brattesani at (916) 324-4082 if you have questions about this meeting summary.

Handouts distributed at the August 1, 2002 meeting

Hard copies will be mailed upon request, or you can view them here:

Meeting agenda (PDF 159 kb)

Handouts from Catherine Wilson Jones, SISC (PDF, 75 kb)

Prepared on September 24, 2002, by Tom Babb, Madeline Brattesani, Nita Davidson, Chris Geiger, Belinda Messenger, Sewell Simmons, and Angelica Welsh.