IPM Use in California School Districts Whitney Webber Abstract A new California law AB 2260 encourages the adoption of integrated pest management IPM programs by all school facilities The purpose of this study is to determine the influence of cost on the implementation and outcome of IPM programs in school environments Facilities managers in California unified school districts were surveyed by telephone The facilities managers were asked to evaluate their pest control practices compare their districts with others in California and to estimate expenses for pest control IPM districts were compared with non IPM districts for expenditures on pest management per student Results indicate that there is no significant difference in the pest management expenditures per student between IPM and non IPM districts While IPM is often cited as a cost effective longterm solution to pesticide use the results show that there is very little correlation between the length of time districts have practiced IPM and the amount districts are spending Although IPM may not provide large financial savings in California school districts it will provide a safer school environment without much if any increase in pest management costs Introduction Exposure to pesticides in California schools has resulted in illness acute and chronic health problems and even death Boise and Feeney 1998 Fischer and Eikmann 1996 Sesline et al 1994 Currently researchers are examining the link between pesticides and childhood cancer Landrigan et al 1999 Solomon et al 2000 Zahm and Ward 1998 Following on the heels of measures to eliminate lead and asbestos from school premises pesticides are among the newest toxicants to become more heavily regulated by policymakers and government officials On February 24 2000 Assemblyman Kevin Shelley D San Francisco introduced AB 2260 a bill designed to establish the Healthy Schools Act of 2000 Seven months later California Governor Gray Davis signed the bill into law Since January 1 2001 the bill requires that parents receive written notification of pesticide use in schools and provides training for staff in integrated pest management or IPM Bill Number AB 2260 elect comm By encouraging IPM in schools policymakers hope to see a reduction in the amount of pesticides being used Now that AB 2260 is law information on districts that have endeavored to limit pesticide exposures with IPM may help to evaluate the benefits and costs of the change in legislation Rosynsky 2001 Sahagun 1999 Tuhus 1999 According to the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides there are 11 unified school districts in California using integrated pest management NCAMP elect comm As the proposed safer alternative to pesticides IPM aims to minimize pesticide use and the associated risks to human health and the environment while controlling pest populations A pest is legally defined as any unwanted organism and includes rodents insects and weeds As defined by AB 2260 Integrated pest management or IPM means an approach to pest control that utilizes regular monitoring and record keeping to determine if and when treatments are needed and employs a combination of strategies and tactics to keep pest numbers low enough to prevent unacceptable damage or annoyance Chemical controls shall be used only when necessary Bill Number AB 2260 elect comm There are several reasons why IPM may be a practical alternative to pesticide use in schools While pesticides are often a temporary control for pests IPM offers long term solutions which aim to reduce costs and pesticide use Owens and Feldman 2000 Some critics of pesticide use have claimed that pesticides do more to address the symptoms of a pest problem than the causes Owens and Feldman 2000 Findings of the Environmental Protection Agency 1993 indicate that one time expenses of IPM such as improving waste management installing physical barriers training school staff in IPM relandscaping and structural maintenance result in fewer pests less reliance on other pest control measures and reduced overall costs of pest control In using IPM several school districts have been successful at decreasing pest management costs In Montgomery County Maryland outside contractors charged 2400 per school per year prior to the implementation of an IPM program WTC Following the implementation of IPM operating costs were in the range of 500 per school per year WTC The IPM program in Gwinnett County Georgia has lowered costs by 40 EPA 1995 A comparison of schools Peabody Charter and Vista de Las Cruces in the Santa Barbara School District indicates that IPM strategies demand more money up front but less in the long run Boise and Feeney 1998 Lynch and Small 2000 One year after its implementation the IPM program in the Anne Arundel school district in Maryland cut budget expenditures for pest management from 46 000 to 14 000 Spitzer 2000 Given the above information I designed a survey to test the following three hypotheses 1 IPM districts use fewer pesticides than non IPM districts 2 IPM districts spend less money than non IPM districts 3 IPM districts decrease their pest management costs over time Methods For my survey I compiled questions similar to those asked for the CWA survey of IPM Use in Pennsylvania School Districts CWA and CWF 1997 Additionally I worked with the survey center on the UC Berkeley campus and followed specific guidelines for conducting effective survey research To test the question of whether IPM districts spend less money than non IPM districts I asked districts to identify their current pest control method expenditures for pest management and number of students Appendix Questions 1 10 20 To test the question of whether IPM districts decrease their pest management costs over time I asked IPM districts to indicate how long they had practiced IPM and if they were spending less more or equal to the amount spent before transitioning to IPM Appendix Questions 2 9 To gain a general understanding of the implementation and outcome of IPM in the districts I asked districts to detail their pest management expenses indicate the factors important to the implementation and outcome of their programs comment on their policy and report the decision makers influencing the districts financial decisions Appendix Questions 3 4 5 6 7 12 13 I did not design my survey to test the question of whether IPM districts use fewer pesticides I chose to conduct a telephone interview for my survey method after
View Full Document
Unlocking...