Why School IPM Programs Succeed – And Why They Fail

Marc L. Lame

Indiana University

School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Minimum Implementation Standards

• The school administration is aware of what their pest management program is.

• Those responsible for the cultural (sanitation) and mechanical (exclusion) components of IPM have been trained to incorporate them into existing job responsibilities .

• Those responsible for the chemical pesticide component of IPM are certified PCOs (with instructions to treat as needed and based on monitoring)

Reasons for successful implementation

• Administrative commitment based on “it’s the right thing to do”

• Designated authority to IPM coordinator

• Empower the school community through education

• Technical confidence provided by training AND outreach resources

• Confirmation to the community that right decision was made ($$, pests, risk reduction)

• More confirmation through recognition (PR/awards)

In short

Developing “Political Will” taking advantage of a centralized management system and COMMUNICATION!!!

Reasons for failed implementation

• “Uneducated” mandates (more on their plates – money, logic, motivation)

• Not understanding the technical situation

• Not understanding the economic situation

• Not understanding the audiences

• Over reliance on written material

• Too much paper work

• Those (internal or external) responsible for changing behavior have no authority

•

• ….educational competence

• ….Motivation

In short

Lack of technical competence and organizational skills, but mostly….

No “political will”, poor communication and unwillingness to empower the school community!!!

Goals ?

• To coordinate existing efforts to decrease the cost of re-invention and time of implementation

• To reach a comfort level for “political will” development

RECOMMENDATIONS

1) More coordination and communication for policy and implementation by agencies that are involved with children’s facility management or health protection

• Education

• Health

• Cooperative Extension

• Environment

• Military

• GSA

• Agriculture

2) More educational outreach to school district decision-makers regarding the importance, identification, and implementation of quality pest management programs

(acknowledging that quality informational material exists)

3) The continuing analysis of the cost/benefit relationship of IPM in schools

4) More facilitation regarding the development of pest management notification policies
(who is viewed by all stakeholders as trustworthy and credible?)

5) a need for funded IPM certification programs

6) That existing resources should be coordinated for national use, and supported--not “re-invented”

7) Annual meetings/workshops are needed and valuable to move this topic forward in a cost efficient manner which would improve the quality of children’s lives

COMMENTS:

• All stakeholders should be considered, therefore...

•National implementation should be FACILITATED - for joint ownership

• Schools

• National PCA

• School Admin. Assoc

• Child Advocates

• Environmental Advocates

• Healthcare Providers

• Manufactures

• PCOs

• USEPA

• Extension

• State Lead Agencies (pesticide regulators)

• Tribes

• Others...