Integrated Pest Management (IPM) began in Monroe County Community Schools (MCCSC) in 1994.  Graduate students from the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) Lilly Fellowship Program provided MCCSC with a Pest Management Analysis and Policy Recommendation. These students talked with school principals, teachers, custodial staff, pest control operators (PCO) and administrators.  They also examined the communication channels surrounding our pest management practices.  While communicating with our PCO’s the graduate students were also able to study the fiscal impact of our pest management program.

The bottom line, once the study was nearly complete, we really did not know what was going on with pest management. Over half of our schools called the PCO directly when extra treatments were needed.  Rarely was there any communication between our staff and the pesticide applicator.  As the 1994 report notes, ”the teacher is often the primary decision-maker in determining whether or not a pest control action is taken.”  Most teachers did not know the difference between a cockroach and a beetle.  Our custodial staff, while good cleaners, did not know what to look or ask for when dealing with pests.  We were having our PCOs apply nearly 17 gallons of pesticide per school year in our classrooms and other areas. 

How did we go about getting a better handle on our pest management?  First of all we adopted a Pest Management Policy.  Initially this was not given to our School Board for formal adoption (it has since been adopted as policy).  However, we did use this policy to guide our planning and the implementation of our IPM program.  We had the support of the school principals for the pilot program at three schools.

The basis of the Monroe IPM Model is education, education, and more education.  Our custodial staffs know their jobs and take pride in doing them well.  Teaching them about pest biology and pest exclusion enabled them to do their jobs better.  Convincing staff this was not more on their plate, just focusing on pests, was not as difficult as we initially thought. Providing inservice instruction to the teachers and students about pests and IPM and how they can help be part of the solution brought them on board.  The Lilly Fellowship students produced The Pest Press, an IPM in schools newsletter, to keep everyone up-to-date with the program.  During the pilot project we neglected to include the food service staff in any training.  That was a mistake because they are an important part of any IPM program.  Our food service staff now monitors all the traps located in the kitchens.  Through training they understand how important it is to know if there are pests in the kitchen and exactly where they might be located.

Moving from 3 pilot programs to all school facilities was actually quite smooth.  The success of the pilot programs allowed us to move right into the rest of the facilities without a hitch.  All the building principals bought into the program.  Custodial and food service staffs were trained. The Pest Press was produced in house and distributed to all classrooms and departments.  Education and communication are vital to the success of an IPM program.  They are also essential for the continued success of the program.

Prior to beginning our IPM program we contracted with 3 different pest control companies to provide service to our facilities.  The final year in which we had coverage for all facilities the total amount paid to the PCO’s was $34,000.  After completing our pilot project in the spring of 1996 we determined we could handle the PCO duties in house rather than contracting them. MCCSC was a district with 18 schools and in the process of adding two more.  A very high level of internal communication was necessary to make this a successful program.  The current spending for pest control was enough to support more than a half-time position.  We were able to meld two needs, pest control and custodial supervision/supplies, into one new position, the IPM/Custodial Coordinator.  We hired someone from inside who knew the staff and the facilities.  He received the proper training and obtained the necessary certifications.  The IPM Custodial/Coordinator receives monitoring reports from the custodial and food service staffs on a regular basis.  Districts smaller than MCCSC can integrate a PCO into their program, but still should have school staff monitor traps and report problems.  Again, communication between and among departments/contractors is a key.

At the outset of the district wide implementation we had an environmental audit performed for all our schools.  This was a detailed examination of our facilities and those areas needing attention vis-a-vis pest management.  Specifics included new door sweeps, replacing window screens, sealing or caulking holes in walls, providing escutcheon plates for water lines and much more.  Trying to address everything in the report overnight was not the intention of the inspection.  Prioritizing items was the intent, i.e.; replacing entry doors was a capital project task, maybe 2 years off depending on the availability of funds.

Integrated Pest Management in Schools is an ongoing process.  If a pest problem crops us we treat it as an opportunity to teach the staff more about IPM.  We will not prevent all the pest problems or infestations, but we can reduce them and treat them with the least toxic pesticide, if any is needed.  We schedule refresher-training sessions with staff on a yearly basis.