Overview of Pest Management Policies, Programs and Practices
in Selected California School Districts:
Executive Summary
TOPICS
PURPOSE
The Environmental Monitoring and Pest Management Branch of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) conducted a study of pest management programs in California's public school districts. The study was conducted in cooperation with the California Department of Education (CDE). The purpose was to: (1) obtain an overview of district pest management policies, programs, and practices, (2) identify policy and program constraints, and (3) identify ways that DPR can work cooperatively with CDE to assist school districts in implementing pest management programs based on the principles of integrated pest management (IPM). IPM stresses the application of biological and cultural pest control techniques with selective pesticides when necessary to achieve acceptable levels of control with the least possible harm to human health and safety, nontarget organisms, and the environment.
BACKGROUND
Parents, community organizations, and advocacy groups have expressed a need and a right to know that schools are using pesticides safely and judiciously. As a result, many of California's public schools are now involved in reevaluating and improving their pest management policies and programs.
The California Food and Agricultural Code establishes DPR as the lead agency for pesticide regulation with primary responsibility for regulating all aspects of pesticide sales and use to protect the public health and the environment. DPR's mission is to evaluate and mitigate impacts of pesticide use, maintain the safety of the pesticide workplace, ensure product effectiveness, and encourage the development and use of reduced-risk pest control practices while recognizing the need for pest management in a healthy economy.
In 1993, DPR began an initiative to encourage and facilitate the adoption or improvement of IPM programs and policies in schools. The intent of the initiative is to assist school districts in their efforts to reduce potential exposure of school children to pesticides and increase the use of reduced-risk pest management strategies.
CDE does not set policy or procedures for school district pest management or other district maintenance and operations programs. Rather, each district governing board has this responsibility. CDE does provide guidelines to assist district boards with these functions.
STUDY METHODS
DPR conducted the study in two phases, beginning with a mail survey of all public school districts in the state. The survey was designed to determine which districts have written pest management policies and programs, and to obtain copies of those documents.
In the second phase of the study, DPR staff conducted personal interviews in selected districts. Most districts selected were among those that had sent a copy of their pest management policy and program in response to the mail survey. Interviews focused on identifying current pest control practices, constraints, and areas of technical and procedural support needed to improve pest management. The results helped DPR staff identify ways it might help school districts establish, reevaluate, improve, and carry out IPM policies and programs. Recommendations contained in this report are based on review of district pest management policies and programs, on interviews, and on various literature sources.
DPR staff also constructed statistical analyses to determine if survey responses from districts were associated with the size or location of the district, and type or schools predominant in the district (elementary, middle, high, mixed, or other). Demographic and other descriptive information about school districts and individual schools provided by CDE were used in these analyses.
RESULTS
Depending on the district, a range of line-and-staff organization for pest management was reported, involving district pest management supervisors, district pest management specialists, school principals, school custodial staff, and commercial pesticide applicators under district supervision.
The most common pest problems reported were: weeds, particularly along fence lines and other borders; structural pests, such as termites, ants, cockroaches, rats, and mice; outdoor pests, such as wasps, bees, gophers, ground squirrels, birds, and feral dogs and cats; and landscape pests, including various insects, mites, and plant pathogens.
Proper pest management program funding is essential for an effective program. However, pest management is included in the maintenance and operations budget and often does not have high priority in budget decisions. A primary reason for this is that the best pest management programs are based on pest prevention strategies that do not have immediate needs and do not have high visibility. Nonetheless, they must compete with other maintenance budget items that do. Examples of preventive strategies are: structural changes that eliminate trapped moisture which creates favorable conditions for wood-destroying organisms, cement mowing strips that decrease the need for herbicide use, and changes in landscape plantings to reduce pest problems.
Virtually every district was doing something innovative in one or more of the following categories: student, staff, and community involvement; community relations; safety; pest management strategy; and cost-effectiveness. Many of these creative ideas would be beneficial to other districts if there were an effective means of communicating the information. Examples are:
- Student, staff, and community involvement — A program is developed on the school campus involving students in the recycling of containers, paper, food leftovers, and landscape waste. The school donates the recycled material to community organizations and local farms. The program improves school ground sanitation and reduces the supporting environment for various pests. Because the effort substantially reduces the quantity of solid waste, cash rewards are given to the school by local government for the reduced number of garbage pick ups needed at the school.
- Community relations — The district pest manager is on the agenda of the regular meetings with school principals and other administrators to keep them fully apprised of pest problems and control actions. The result is that principals and administrators become educated about IPM and are prepared to answer questions from the community about their pest management program.
- Safety — District staff assume that school children or visitors are on school grounds 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Pesticide and equipment use and storage precautions are tailored accordingly
- Pest management strategy — Districts are working with vendors to insure that delivery trucks do not introduce pests to school destinations. Some districts have reached conditional contract agreements with vendors which designate vendor responsibility for pest exclusion at origin and in delivery vehicles. Some districts refuse to accept delivery if there is evidence of pests in trucks or on containers at destination.
- Cost-effectiveness — Tree maintenance companies dump their wood chips for free at the school district headquarters site. The chips are then used as mulch for weed suppression on district landscape sites. The necessary labor to spread the chips at the landscape sites is provided by the correctional work furlough program.
Liability has a major influence on pest management decision-making, on pest management policy and program development, on program documentation and recordkeeping, and on the need for licensing and certification, professional training, and public relations. Districts want to take every precaution to avoid litigation initiated by concerned parents, community organizations, and advocacy groups regarding adverse health, safety, or environmental impacts from pesticide use. Liability can create a disincentive for districts to improve their pest management programs. In effect, districts are faced with the problem of going to the considerable effort and expense involved with program improvement, whereas the potential for expensive litigation would be reduced with less district involvement with pest control.
Districts also reported the advantages and disadvantages of contracting out pest control work. Contracting can result in improved cost-effectiveness, less disruption of other district staff work, elimination of the need for a pesticide storage facility, and improved public relations. Disadvantages can include the continuing need for district monitoring of contractor activities, and the limitations on the cost-effectiveness of contracting for projects that a district is adequately staffed and equipped to handle.
Pest prevention strategies discussed by districts were: sanitation, including recycling programs that give students incentives to keep school facilities clean; pest exclusion; improved facility design; and proper landscape design and maintenance.
The importance of interdistrict communication was discussed as well as the potential advantages of improving information sharing on a regional and statewide basis.
Districts recognized the importance of community outreach and education programs, especially for increasing student, staff, parent, and community awareness of the need for pest management on school grounds; of district program objectives; and of the proposed pest management strategies. Both statewide and local efforts can help increase community support of pest management programs.
The regulatory issue of greatest concern was that, under state law, most uses of pesticides on school grounds do not require a written recommendation by a licensed agricultural pest control adviser, and do not require application by or under the direct supervision of someone who holds a Qualified Applicator Certificate. Most district staff interviewed believe that stronger licensing and certification requirements for pesticide use on school grounds would be one way to increase the knowledge and professionalism of school staff and would help address the critical need for training.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
School district personnel were very willing to provide information about their programs and enthusiastic when talking about new ideas for program improvement. Most districts were well aware of changes needed to improve their pest management policies and programs, and identified the technical, institutional and economic constraints that make change difficult.
The study identified a number of DPR options for encouraging more widespread adoption of IPM policies and programs in public school districts throughout the state, and for assisting districts in dealing with constraints. The recommendations of this report represent the most viable DPR options for working cooperatively with CDE within the existing framework of CDE's administrative role and the autonomy of district school boards in setting policies and designing programs.
DPR staff made the following recommendations to facilitate the voluntary adoption of IPM practices by California public school districts:
- Each school district should develop and implement a written pest management policy. The development of the pest management policy should follow the steps and considerations contained in the 1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication entitled Pest Control in the School Environment: Adopting Integrated Pest Management, and the 1986 CDE publication, Administration of Maintenance and Operations in California School Districts, A Handbook for School Administrators and Governing Boards.
- Each school district should provide, within available district resources, professional pest management training for all district staff involved with pest management activities.
- DPR could identify sources of information for school districts to use as part of their pest management program. DPR could also provide information on upcoming approved training programs, worker safety information, pesticide laws and regulations, and university and private sector IPM experts.
- DPR's IPM Innovator Program should continue to be used for recognizing those school districts who are providing leadership in developing and implementing reduced-risk pest management systems, for establishing and promoting these systems as working models for other districts, and for encouraging the adoption and implementation of these systems in school districts throughout the state.
The following criteria are used for identifying IPM Innovators: they develop reduced-risk practices or programs; they are organized as a group; they pursue outreach and/or education; and they are economically viable. They should show creativity or leadership in one or more of the criteria and in encouraging the use of IPM.
John S. Sanders March 1996
Branch Chief
For further information contact Sewell Simmons at: ssimmons@cdpr.ca.gov