MEETING SUMMARY
SCHOOL INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2001

Kim Crum, California, Agricultural Production Consultants Association
Mary Louise Flint, University of California Statewide IPM Project
Mary Grisier, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Rick Henry, Los Angeles Unified School District
Tony Hesch, California Department of Education
Catherine Wilson Jones, Self-Insured Schools of California
Vernard Lewis, University of California Cooperative Extension
Patrick O’Connor-Marer, University of California, IPM Education & Publications
Teresa Olle, California Public Interest Research Group
Bode Owoyele, California School Boards Association
Dennis Patzer, Structural Pest Control Board
Eric Paulsen, Pest Control Operators of California
Fred Rozo, Western Exterminator Company
Cindy Wong, California State Parents Teachers Association

Members Participating by Conference Call

Gene Harrington, National Pest Management Association
Phil Boise, Community Environmental Council

TOPIC #1: Welcome and introductions.  Paul Helliker, Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), welcomed members.  Members and observers introduced themselves.  Paul introduced new advisory group members:  Kim Crum, Executive Director, California Agricultural Production Consultants Association; Catherine Wilson Jones, Director of Safety and Loss Control, Self-Insured Schools of California; Joe Romero, Director of Operations Branch, Long Beach Unified School District; James Reineke, Pest Control Supervisor, Long Beach Unified School District; Troy Sears, President, Coast Pest and termite Control; Cindy Wong, Vice President of Health, California State Parents Teachers Association; Rick Henry, IPM Coordinator, Los Angeles Unified School District.   Paul then introduced the DPR School IPM Staff.  Meeting facilitator Dennis Tootelian, Professor of Marketing, California State University, Sacramento, summarized the meeting format and agenda (handout #1).

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 will be most helpful to ensuring that this program provides the best support possible for its constituent groups and achieves its mandated goals.

Paul asked if there were any additional ideas for the role of the advisory group.  There were no additional suggestions.  Group response indicated support for the role of the advisory group as stated.

TOPIC #2: California Department of Education update. Tony Hesch, School Facility Consultant with the California Department of Education (CDE), provided each member of the advisory group with a packet of material that DPR sent to all schools districts in May.  The Department of Education, DPR and representatives of the County Agricultural Commissioners jointly prepared the materials in this packet.  DPR mailed the packet to all school district superintendents and business managers, all county office of education superintendents, and all county agricultural commissioners.  The packet included (1) a letter from Ms. Delaine Eastin (handout #2) , State Superintendent of Public Instruction, informing county and District superintendents of the requirements of the Healthy Schools Act and requesting that they notify DPR as to who they designate as IPM Coordinator, (2) a memo from DPR’s Pest Management & Licensing Branch to all county agricultural commissioners to clarify state and county roles in enforcing provisions of the Healthy Schools Act, (3) a copy of the law, (4) a program overview of DPR’s California School IPM Program, (5) DPR California School IPM Web site information, (6) DPR sample information sheet for parents, (7) DPR sample annual written notification letter to parents or guardians of students and staff, (8) DPR sample specific pesticide application and notice to parents or guardians of students and staff, (9) DPR sample pesticide warning sign for posting, and (10) list of upcoming DPR presentations on the Healthy Schools Act (handout #6).

About 250 school districts have notified DPR who they have designated as IPM Coordinator.  Tony described some of the difficulties involved with successfully routing this information to the appropriate people and having them act on it.  The advisory group suggested follow-up mailings with those districts that have not provided DPR information about their IPM Coordinators, and to ensure each IPM Coordinator receives information about the Healthy Schools Act.

ACTION:  CDE and DPR will discuss a plan for follow-up mailings.  DPR will implement a second mailing after completing this study of the best mail routing options.

TOPIC #3: Specifics on implementation of AB 2260. Rick Henry, IPM Coordinator from Los Angeles Unified School District, gave a very informative presentation on progress of AB 2260 implementation in his district.  Rick provided handouts (handout #3) and discussed the district’s IPM policy and program, pest management decision process, IPM Program Management Team, approved products list, product use and approval process, training, notification, record keeping, pesticide use reporting, and IPM program budget.

Dennis Tootelian then facilitated a roundtable discussion of the advisory group’s perspective on the successes and barriers of AB 2260 implementation.  The comments presented are summarized below:

1. What successes and novel ideas for implementing the Healthy Schools Act have you seen?
   • Use of licensed pest control advisers as related to outside structures.
   • Use of licensed pest control advisers for pesticide applications inside buildings.
   • Use licensed Qualified Applicator License and Qualified Applicator Certificate holders to apply pesticides.
   • Perhaps it’s too early to see "success" unless a school district had already started right-to-know activities and an IPM program before Healthy Schools Act became law.
   • About 40-50% of the school districts have implemented the right-to-know requirements of the Healthy Schools Act.  DPR needs to target (focus) outreach more to reach those who have not heard or begun implementation.
   • Schools may want to consider contracting for professional services.
   • Notification for the registry may be more successful if the form to register is provided directly to parents (as opposed to parents having to pick it up at the office).
   • By law, adopting an IPM program in schools is voluntary, not a requirement.
   • In several areas (e.g., Thousand Oaks, Shasta), parent groups have done fund raising to include hiring outside contractor for IPM program.
   • In the Self-Insured Schools of CA Joint Powers Authority, many districts use IPM already and are successfully implementing the requirements of the Healthy Schools Act and IPM programs.  These districts range in size from 6 to 35,000 students.  The Healthy Schools Act requirements are leading districts to turn to IPM and use materials exempt from the notification requirements.
   • Some schools have active parents who work with other parents to increase knowledge of and use of the opportunity to register to receive advance notification of specific pesticide applications.
   • In the Bay Area and elsewhere, schools have in-service staff meetings.  These meetings would be a good way to get information to staff, since all teachers and other staff attend them.
     
     
2. What barriers, and solutions to overcome them, have you seen?
   • The range in size of districts and the scope of effort they are capable of, e.g., those districts that have never heard of IPM to Los Angeles Unified School District that implemented an IPM program for their 700,000+-student population.
   • Small schools (and others) have limited discretionary dollars and those dollars may already be committed to other school priorities.
   • Administrative authority:  certificated versus classified staff.  For example, the maintenance director does not have authority to direct teachers to remove food from the classroom, nor can he/she remove it without their permission.
   • Communication--if you can communicate to teachers what it is (IPM), how they can assist in implementing it, you will increase success, increase cooperation.  Let them know how to find the DPR School IPM Web site and what information it contains.
   • Resources--where do they come from?
   • Nuts/bolts of implementing IPM--pest identification and efficacy.
   • Entomophobic behavior of people.  Need help on human perception of bugs--fear of bugs inside and fear of pesticides outside.
   • May be trying to make it look too easy to do IPM, and oversimplifying.
   • UC has expertise to help in some of these areas, but has limited resources.
   • Every participant in the school community has a role.  Need to contact all groups who have a role in successfully implementing an IPM program:  teaching staff, janitorial staff, custodial staff, etc. and provide them information.
   • Suggest flashcards to teachers . . . to not use Raid.  Use single issue format describing what you want teachers/parents to do.
   • Helpful that the Healthy Schools Act requires the State (DPR) to provide a comprehensive directory of resources describing and promoting least-hazardous pest management practices in schools, a model program guidebook, and other resources.  Very important to complete the guidebook; suggest DPR focus its attention here.
   • Clarify mandatory components of the Healthy Schools Act versus voluntary elements because confusion exists.
   • Questions about: (1) who is required to post signs?  Ultimate responsibility lies with the local school district.  (2) If a contractor applies a pesticide at a school, does the school district include that pesticide in the annual notification?  Yes. (3) Pest control operators' applications of pesticides and use reporting?  The Healthy Schools Act requires that licensed pest control businesses report pesticide applications annually to DPR on a new form that DPR is developing.  (4) Will DPR collect notices of expected annual pesticide use from school districts?  On an informal basis, DPR will collect some examples of those notices.  (5) Reimbursement for cost of school district mailings?  State-mandated cost reimbursement may be available.  Healthy Schools Act capped such reimbursements at one million dollars.
   • Training element:  Easy to facilitate IPM coordinator and associated staff.  Training all employees more difficult.  Training as part of the schools’ in-service programs works well, but schools don’t have many in-service days.
   • Label database--scan labels in with exact language to make more useful and easy.  [Others commented that they have not found getting a label a problem.]
   • Untrained individuals implement the requirements of the Healthy Schools Act and establish an IPM program.  Works better if individuals are trained in pest management.
   • School districts may be using home use products.
   • School site not often listed on label.
   • Helpful if UC IPM published list of what products are available for use at schools.

TOPIC #4: DPR’s web site update. Chris Geiger, lead on DPR’s School IPM Web Site, summarized the progress on development of DPR’s permanent web site.  Chris used an Internet presentation to demonstrate the web site format; layout, graphics, template requirements, site map, navigational tools, and the home pages and the individualized content packages, or "kits," that are currently being developed for each target audience.

ACTION:  The advisory group will soon be asked to review website material developed for each target audience as appropriate.

TOPIC #5: Poster session.
A poster presentation was presented during lunch.  The session featured DPR’s School IPM Program, models for notification, models for IPM policies, school IPM Expo materials and photos, and computer demonstration of the School IPM Web Site.

TOPIC #6: Update of outreach activities. Nita Davidson, lead on DPR’s School IPM Outreach Activities, provided a summary of outreach activities, including direct mailings, School IPM Expo, and formal presentations.  Target audiences for presentations include maintenance and operations (M&O) directors; M&O staff, custodians and groundskeepers; IPM coordinators; risk managers; business managers; and applicators (structural and landscape).

TOPIC #7: Feedback from Advisory Group on possible outreach venues and upcoming events. Dennis Tootelian facilitated discussion and suggestions from the group on how the presentations can be made more effective, and for suggestions on other outreach venues and formats.  The comments presented are summarized below:

1. How do we make these more effective?
   • Take advantage of other people doing outreach, e.g., UCCE--provide them information they can use/distribute, e.g., PowerPoint slides, handouts.  Tailor it to what their role is.
   • Target your audiences. Focus efforts.
   • Target pest control businesses with information on IPM.
   • DPR requests information that anyone might have on cost-effectiveness of IPM.  Please send to Nita Davidson at ndavidson@cdpr.ca.gov.
   • What about train-the-trainer program?  When will DPR provide that outreach?
   • Publish articles about the program in statewide magazines, newsletters, and trade journals, e.g., PTA.
   • Companies or businesses put together programs for schools to comply--target some of your outreach to these groups.
   • Identify contact people for working with counties/districts to set up meetings with school districts (Catherine Wilson Jones/Self-Insured Schools of CA volunteered to help).
   • Increase involvement of teachers and parents.
   • Provide outreach to CTA--teachers’ union.
     
     
2. What other venues and formats should we consider?
   • Los Angeles County Fair:  September 7 through the next three weeks every year.
   • State PTA: Annual convention is the first four days of May.
   • Entomological Society of America:  Attend future meetings.  Researchers have a stake.
   • CTA--teachers’ union.
   • School district superintendents meet in March annually in Monterey.
   • Publish articles in trade journals, e.g., California Association of School Business Officials, etc.
   • School district newsletters.

ACTION:  DPR will take these comments under advisement, and incorporate them into its outreach efforts as appropriate.

TOPIC #8: Feedback from Advisory Group about guidebook table of contents.  Belinda Messenger, lead on DPR’s School IPM Guidebook, provided a summary of content and progress in development for each item in the table of contents (handout #4).  Dennis Tootelian then facilitated discussion and suggestions from the group on additions, deletions or other changes to the guidebook.  Suggestions presented are summarized below:

1. What needs to be added? What needs to be emphasized?
   How to Develop an IPM Program
   
   • Say something about importance of well-trained(licensed) professional.
   • Training: include; emphasize for employees.
   Monitoring Pest Populations and Damage
   • Is the section "Inspection Checklist for Detecting Structural Decay and Structural Pest Damage" the one in section 8516 of the Business and Professional Code?
   Indoor and Outdoor Pest Management
   • Focus on ants common to CA.
   • See UC IPM for resources.
   • Ensure that the chapter addresses the complexity of cockroaches, e.g., adult and immature stages.
   • Clothes moths and carpet beetles are not as big an issue as ants and cockroaches, so they should be emphasized less.  Emphasize ants, cockroaches.
   • How will DPR update the guidebook?  Consider combining UC and DPR efforts; UC authorship, too.
   • DPR plans to tailor material to existing UC information as much as possible.  Coordination presentation and maintenance.
   • Delete chinch bugs (???)
   • Spiders’ section lists removal of non-dangerous ones as a management option.  Why don’t you list that option for other pests?
   • What’s the level of readability?  A bridge to more technical?          

ACTION:  DPR will take these comments under advisement, and incorporate them into its outreach efforts as appropriate.

TOPIC #9: School district survey Q&A.  Dennis Tootelian provided an overview of the purpose of the survey, and briefly summarized highlights of the results (handout # 5).  The purpose of the survey was to provide a baseline of activities.  The surveys were mailed in late March and returned in April/May, 2001.

ACTION:  DPR will provide the Advisory Group a copy of the final survey report when available.

TOPIC #10: Future activities of advisory group.  Paul Helliker expressed his appreciation to the group for their participation and helpful input, asking for additional topics the group would like discussed.   Suggested topics included an update from the County Agricultural Commissioner/ California Department of Education/ Department of Pesticide Regulation Subcommittee, and clarification of how AB 2260 implementation involves day-care centers.

In the future, DPR will also continue to develop and offer train-the-trainer workshops to IPM coordinators by region, and evaluate effectiveness of our program and adoption of an IPM program and practices by school districts.  DPR will continue to solicit the group’s comments and suggestions on these program elements and update the group on progress being made.  DPR plans to solicit the group’s comments and suggestions primarily in writing or by e-mail over the next few months, and schedule future meetings as needed. 

ACTION:  DPR will take these comments under advisement, and incorporate them into its outreach efforts as appropriate.

TOPIC #11: Other. Bode Owoyele, representing Policy Services, California School Boards Association (CSBA) in West Sacramento, presented an overview of the CSBA Sample (Administrative Regulation) Integrated Pest Management.  This sample may be useful to districts as a model policy that can be revised to reflect district practice. Please contact Bode Owoyele at (916) 371-4691 if you are interested in seeing this sample.

Please contact Sewell Simmons at (916) 324-4245 if you have questions about this meeting summary.

Handouts distributed at the September 6, 2001 meeting
Hard copies will be mailed upon request, or you can view them here:

1. Meeting agenda
   
2. California Department of Education and DPR (letter from CDE Superintendent Delaine Eastin, re:  AB 2260 packet mailed to County and District Superintendents
   
3. Los Angeles Unified School District, Integrated Pest Management Program documents
   
4. School IPM Guidebook table of contents
   
5. School district survey, summary and highlights
   
6. DPR School IPM Presentations
   

Prepared on September 28, 2001 by Madeline Brattesani, Nita Davidson, Chris Geiger, Belinda Messenger, Sewell Simmons, and Angelica Welsh.