Survey of Indiana Public Schools Pest Managment Policies and Practices

Transcription

1 February 2006 Bulletin No. B17872 Survey of Indiana Public Schools Pest Managment Policies and Practices Department of Entomology Purdue University Office of Agricultural Research Programs West Lafayette, Indiana

2 Survey of Indiana Public Schools Pest Management Policies and Practices Timothy J Gibb and Al Fournier Department of Entomology Purdue University

3 Survey of Indiana Public Schools Pest Management Policies and Practices This research project was conducted at Purdue University and funded in part by a grant from EPA Region 5. Project # E Questions should be submitted to: Timothy J. Gibb Purdue University IPM Technical Resource Center Department of Entomology Smith Hall 901 West State Street West Lafayette, Indiana Phone:

4 Indiana School Pest Management Survey 2003 Purdue University Department of Entomology West Lafayette, Indiana Introduction Concern about the use of pesticides in school environments and the potential effects of pesticide exposure on children s health have driven many states to implement laws that affect the use of pesticides in schools. These laws range from limitations on the types of pesticides that can be used, to training requirements for applicators, and posting and pre-notification of pesticide applications (Owens and Feldman 2002). In addition, several states now require schools to implement Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, to manage pests. Definition: Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, is a pest management approach that minimizes adverse effects on people, property, and the environment. IPM focuses on reducing food, water, and living space for pests. Monitoring practices are used to detect the presence of pests and preventive pesticide treatments are reduced or eliminated. Pests are controlled through nonchemical means when possible, or with targeted, low risk pesticide treatments wherever appropriate. Indiana does not currently mandate the use of IPM or advanced notification of pesticide applications in schools. However, in 1999 the Indiana Pesticide Review Board (IPRB) drafted a Model Pest Management Policy for schools that recommended the use of chemical and non-chemical pest control methods and adoption of a system for notifying parents and staff of pesticide applications. The Model Policy was revised several times and a final version was endorsed by the Indiana School Boards Association (ISBA) in March (See Appendix.) The Purdue IPM Technical Resource Center (IPM-TRC) was established in 2000 to help provide schools in Indiana and Illinois with resources and training to support adoption and implementation of IPM in schools. The center was expanded in 2001 with EPA funding to serve as the Midwest Regional Center for IPM in Schools. The IPM-TRC has conducted IPM workshops and presentations, IPM pilot programs in schools and child care centers, and developed a number of resources to support IPM programs in schools, including an IPM Manual, an extensive website < and a toll-free phone number for assistance. Survey Objectives In 2003, a survey of Indiana K-12 public school corporations was conducted with support from the Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5). The objectives of the survey were: 1. To determine the extent of school pest management policy adoption; 2. To identify the school personnel responsible for decisions related to pest management policy and practice; 3. To assess school pest management practices, including the awareness and use of IPM; 4. To identify adoption and implementation constraints that could inhibit the shift to IPM practices in schools; 5. To measure awareness and use of Purdue University educational resources related to IPM. Survey Methods A draft questionnaire was constructed based on survey objectives and background knowledge about the Indiana model pest management policy and IPM. The draft questionnaire was reviewed by Purdue 3

5 University Extension personnel, including entomologists, an IPM specialist, a pesticide safety specialist, and an Extension specialist with survey research expertise. The revised survey instrument was pre-tested with 8 Indiana school administrators, partially representing the diversity characteristic of potential respondents, to ensure that the questions were understood, yielded the desired information, and were not offensive to survey participants (Babbie, 1973). The survey was conducted using a modification of the Dillman method (Dillman, 1978), which seeks to maximize survey participation through survey design elements that minimize the cost of responding and provide rewards or recognition to the participant. An important aspect of this familiar method is multiple respondent contacts, including a pre-survey letter, a reminder postcard, and 3 separate mailings of survey questionnaires to respondents. The questionnaire was sent to the superintendent of every public K-12 school corporation in Indiana (N=294). The first mailing of the questionnaire was accompanied by a letter from the Indiana School Board Association (ISBA), encouraging school district participation in the survey. In order to provide information on both policies and practices, the survey included 2 sections: Part A, dealing with school pest management policy and Part B, dealing with school pest management practices. The cover letter indicated that Part A was to be completed by the Superintendent or a central administrator responsible for development of pest management policies at the school corporation level, while the Superintendent was asked to forward Part B to the person responsible for implementation of the school pest management policy. Two posted return envelopes will be provided with each questionnaire mailing, so that the two survey instruments can be returned separately. Survey data were compiled in a spreadsheet then transferred to SPSS software for analysis. Open-ended questions and comments were coded and incorporated into the data analysis where possible, and are provided in the text of this report for reference. Questionnaires with more than 25% of questions unanswered were deleted from the analysis. Response rates following these deletions were 62.6% and 57.8% respectively for Part A and Part B. A note on interpreting results: As with any type of survey, a certain amount of sampling bias is inevitable. The nature of the survey questions in this case might be expected to produce higher return rates from those school administrators who are aware of, and perhaps at some stage of implementing, IPM. Although the data may not provide an exact picture of IPM practices at all public schools in the state, they do help to identify school organizational factors and potential constraints that may influence IPM adoption decisions. The survey also provides data on the awareness and use of existing educational resources for IPM implementation. Results and Discussion Detailed results with tables summarizing the responses to both questionnaires can be found in the following sections of this report. In this section we provide a brief overview and discussion of the results in 6 sections: Demographics, Pest Management Policy, Pest Management Administration, Indoor Pest Control Practices, Outdoor Pest Control Practices, and IPM Awareness and Training. Response Rates Out of 294 school corporations in Indiana, 184 responses were retained for Questionnaire A analysis, representing 62.6%. 170 completed questionnaires were returned for Part B, resulting in a response rate of 57.8%. A total of 166 or 56.5% of school corporations returned both A and B questionnaires. 4

6 Demographics Who Responded The main respondents for both questionnaires were central office administrators, including Superintendents, Directors of Buildings and Grounds, Assistant Superintendents and Directors of Facility Maintenance; although the proportions of respondents in each of these categories varied across the 2 questionnaires (Table 1, Table 26). Superintendents accounted for the highest percentage of Part A responses (45%), followed by Directors/Supervisors of Buildings and Grounds (25%). Directors of Buildings and Grounds made up the largest percentage of Part B respondents (48.8%), with Superintendents only accounting for 8.3%. Nearly 97% of Part B respondents indicated that they were responsible for buildings, grounds, or both, throughout the school corporation. School Demographics The number of school buildings per school corporation ranged from 1 to 85 with a mean of 6.7 schools (Table 2). School size ranged dramatically in terms of building square feet and acres of grounds (Tables 3 and 4). The average was 770,592 square feet of building space and 145 acres of grounds. Networking and Organizational Complexity Networking and communication with peers can have an influence on administrator s decisions to adopt new technologies in the schools (Rogers 1995). We asked two questions related to peer networking (Tables 5 and 6). The majority of administrators responding (59.3%) indicated that they were very active participants in state school administrator professional organizations, while only one respondent (0.5%) was not active. In a separate question, 72.9% of respondents claimed to have one or more administrators at the corporation serving on state association committees. These results might be higher than the average for all Indiana school corporations. The Model Pest Management Policy and IPM workshops were heavily promoted through the Indiana School Boards Association (ISBA) and the Indiana Association of School Business Officials (IASBO), and it is likely that administrators made aware of the policy and IPM through such channels would be more likely to respond to a survey on these topics. More complex organizations tend to be quicker to adopt, and slower to implement, new technologies than less complex ones (Rogers 1995). Complexity is often measured as the number of administrators overseeing a set number of tasks, as in question 7 of Part A. The median response to this question was 3 administrators overseeing 8 areas related (in some fashion) to school pest management. The most common response was 2. Pest Management Policy Policy Decisions We found that several upper level administrators have a voice in making pest management policy decisions (Table 8), including School Board members (73.4%), Superintendents (45.7%), Directors of Buildings and Grounds (29.3%), Directors of Facilities (17.4), Assistant Superintendents (16.8%). Administrators at the building level, such as Principals, were less often listed as policy decision makers. Policy Adoption Two major objectives of this survey were to measure adoption of new pest management policies by Indiana school corporations and to assess the factors that can affect decisions to adopt such policies. We found that 5

7 91.7% of Questionnaire A respondents were aware of the ISBA Model Pest Management Policy (Table 9). 85.3% of responding school corporations had adopted a policy at the time of the survey (Oct. Dec 2003), with another 10.9% considering adoption or in the process of adoption (Table 10). Of those corporations which had adopted policies, the most common components of those policies (Table 11) were advanced notification of pesticide use (91.6%), additional record keeping requirements (83.2%), and a prohibition against pesticide applications when children are present (77.4%). Interestingly, 27.7% of the policies reportedly have a pesticide posting requirement, although this was not a component of the model policy. Among those schools that adopted a pest management policy, 27.4% of those policies reportedly required the schools to use IPM while another 30.6% recommend IPM (Table 20). This is an interesting result because the Model Pest Management Policy that was distributed among school administrators did not include the phrase Integrated Pest Management, although it did encourage a combination of chemical and non-chemical control methods for pests. This relatively high rate of IPM adoption (58% for schools recommending and requiring IPM combined) could indicate the impact of 3 years of workshops and programs to promote IPM adoption, often coupled with presentations and discussions about the model policy. Factors Affecting Policy Adoption Questionnaire A respondents were asked to note each of 16 factor s level of influence on their decision to adopt a pest management policy. The most highly ranked factors were (Table 12): concern about pesticide exposure, concern about chemical sensitivity, and it was the right thing to do, all of which were rated as very important by more than 50% of respondents. Liability issues, the possibility of legislation, endorsement of Indiana school associations and parent complaints about pesticides were also rated as very important by more than a third of respondents. Respondents who indicated that they chose not to adopt a policy were asked in an open-ended question to explain their reasons for not adopting (Part A, question 15). The most common reason provided by 13 out of 27 non-adopting respondents (Table 14) was that they were in the process of drafting or considering a policy. Other factors cited (only once each) were lack of time and concerns about the cost of policy implementation. Benefit and Burden Policy Implementation Two sets of identical questions in Part A (question 13 and 14) and Part B (question 6 and 7) asked respondents to rank how beneficial and how burdensome the policy was to the school corporation. Rankings ranged from 1 for not beneficial/not burdensome to 4 for very beneficial/very burdensome. Results from both questionnaires demonstrated that the majority of respondents felt the policy was more beneficial than burdensome (Table 13 and Table 31) (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The most common rankings for both Part A and B were level 3 for beneficial and level 1 for burdensome. Impact of the Policy Two questions were included in Part B to assess internal communication of the policy (Table 29) and changes in pest management practices resulting from the policy (Table 30). The policy was most commonly communicated to school administrators and staff in a memo or at a meeting, although 5.2% of respondents indicated that the policy had not been communicated to them. Over 90% of respondents indicated either a small change (44.2%) or a big change (46.4%) in pest control practices as a result of the policy. 9.4% said there was no change. 6

8 Pest Management Administration Contract Decisions The majority of schools contract for pest management services (Table 32). 92.9% of respondents indicated using contractors for indoor pest management while 68.1% said they used contractors on school grounds. Question 16 on Part A asked respondents to indicate the main decision maker for indoor and outdoor pest management contracts (Tables 15 and 16). It should be noted that a high proportion of respondents (41/184 = 22%) misinterpreted this question and provided more than one response in each column. In such cases, the highest ranked position checked was accepted as the response. The main decision makers for indoor pest management contracts listed were Superintendents (29.9%), Directors of Buildings and Grounds (28.3%), Directors of Facilities (11.4%) and Assistant Superintendents (10.3%). Similar percentages and rankings were listed for outdoor contracts (Table 16). Pest Management Program Components The most common components of pest management administration (Table 17) included advanced notification of pesticide applications (84.2%) and regular pest management inspections by professional (65.2%) or school staff (59.2%). Pest management tasks most commonly assigned to school staff (Table 18) included assigning a contact for pest management problems (90.8%), assigning a contact for parents with questions about pest management (78.3%), providing legal oversight of pest management implementation (73.4%), and monitoring for pests (69.0%). 49.5% of responding schools said a staff member was responsible for educating staff about pest management. According to respondents, the records related to pest management most commonly kept by schools (Table 33) are pesticide application records (83.0%) and MSDS (80.6%). Nearly 34% of respondents said they kept pest sighting logs and about 22% kept pest monitoring data. Indoor Pest Control Indoor Pest Management Decisions and Pesticide Use According to survey respondents, the most important decision makers for indoor pest control (Table 34) were Directors of Buildings and Grounds (61.8%), Pest Management Contractors (34.7%), Superintendents (31.8%), and Maintenance Directors (27.6%). Building Principals also ranked fairly high as decision makers (15.9%), while custodians (2.4%) and teachers (0%) ranked low. The person most often reported as responsible for making pesticide applications indoors (Table 35) was the Pest Management Professional (85.8%), followed by Head Custodians (14.8%), Maintenance Directors (11.8%), and Directors of Buildings and Grounds (11.2%). Questions about pesticide practices in Part B (Table 36) show that additional progress can be made in Indiana schools toward reducing pesticide use. Although the majority of schools (67.1%) reported using certified applicators to apply pesticides indoors, pesticides were commonly applied as routine preventative treatments (60.6%) and less commonly as remedial treatments (38.2%). 41.2% of schools reported using a combination of chemical and nonchemical methods to control pests and 42.9% indicated that pests were identified prior to making a pesticide application. Four school corporations (2.4%) indicated that they never applied pesticides indoors. These results show that efforts to encourage IPM have been only partially successful. IPM practices that were new to most school administrators, such as pest monitoring and non-chemical control methods, showed fairly high rates of adoption, but the use of the routine preventative pesticide applications was more common than would be expected, given the percent of school corporations that reported using IPM. IPM favors remedial treatments for pests, based on monitoring, over routine preventative applications of pesticides. 7

9 Indoor Monitoring and Non-chemical Pest Management On the other hand, schools reported using a number of monitoring practices (Table 37) for indoor pests, including visual inspection by professionals (74.1%) and school staff (54.7%), Monitoring traps (64.7%), and pest sighting logs (26.5%). Only 5.3% of respondents indicated that no monitoring program was used. A majority of respondents indicated the use of several maintenance, cleaning and exclusion practices to reduce pests (Table 38). These included repairing leaks (87.3%), caulking and sealing (77.1%) and eliminating cardboard (66.9%) and clutter (72.9%). Indoor Insect and Rodent Control The most common methods reported for indoor insect control (Table 40) were elimination of food sources (76.9%), sealing gaps and entryways (69.8%), glue traps (65.7%) and physical removal of pests (57.4%). Insecticide baits (56.8%) were used more frequently that targeted insecticide sprays (34.3%), which were more common than area-wide sprays (28.4%). Insect growth regulators (4.1%) and biological control (0.6%) were not commonly reported. This trend of higher use of lower-impact pest control practices is consistent with the goals of IPM, but seems to contradict data cited above about the use of preventative pesticides on a routine basis. The most common methods reported for indoor rodent control (Table 39) were elimination of food sources (82.8%), sealing gaps and entryways (75.1%), glue traps (72.8%), snap traps (49.1%) and preventing access to nesting sites (47.3%). Rodent baits (42.0%) were used more frequently than tracking powders (4.1%). Outdoor Pest Control Outdoor Pest Management Decisions and Pesticide Use According to survey respondents, the most important decision makers for outdoor pest control (Table 41) were Directors of Buildings and Grounds (59.2%), Pest Management Professionals (32.5%), Superintendents (32.5%), Maintenance Directors (26.6%) and Grounds Maintenance Staff (24.3%). Building Principals were listed as decision makers by 8.3% of respondents, and Custodial Staff by only 0.6%. The person most often reportedly responsible for making pesticide applications outdoors (Table 42) was the Pest Management Professional, although this result (56.2%) was lower than for indoor applications. The person next most often responsible for applications were Grounds Maintenance Staff (46.2%), followed by Landscaping Service (17.2%). Questions about outdoor pesticide practices (Table 43) show that additional progress can be made in Indiana schools toward reducing pesticide use. Although the majority of schools (57.7%) reported using certified applicators to apply pesticides outdoors, pesticides were commonly applied as routine preventative treatments (59.5%) and less commonly as remedial treatments (39.3%). 32.1% of schools reported using a combination of chemical and non-chemical methods to control pests outdoors and 44.0% indicated that pests were identified prior to making a pesticide application. These results are similar to those for indoor pesticide use, in that there is room for improvement on reducing routine preventative pesticide applications. Outdoor Monitoring and Non-chemical Pest Management Visual inspections by school staff (74.1%) and pest management professionals (48.2%) were the only two outdoor monitoring practices commonly reported by respondents (Table 44). Pest sighting logs and monitoring traps for landscape pests and flying insects were less commonly reported. Nearly 10% of respondents indicated they had no monitoring program in place for outdoor pests. A strong majority of 8

10 respondents indicated the use of good management practices to maintain turf (Table 45), including mowing frequently (93.5%) and high (79.4%), and fertilizing (90.6%), irrigating (79.4%) and aerating (74.7%) turf. Outdoor Insect, Weed and Rodent Control Due to a typo, Part B question 22 asks about insect pests but includes choices related to weed and rodent control as well. The most commonly reported non-chemical methods for outdoor pest control (Table 46) were weed whacking (72.0%), physical removal of pests (54.7%), and hand weeding (44.1%). Schools also reported using insect glue traps (16.1%) and flying insect traps (11.8%) for insects and baits (14.3%) and traps (18.0%) for rodents outdoors. Three schools (1.9%) reported using biological control for outdoor pests. IPM Awareness and Training IPM Awareness and Practice Awareness of IPM (Table 19) is, by necessity, the first step toward IPM adoption. Only 14.7% of Part A respondents had never heard of IPM prior to completing the survey. 51.6% of respondents indicated they were familiar with IPM practices or regularly used IPM themselves. The same question posed on Part B (question 19) yielded similar results, but a higher percentage of Part B respondents (28% compared to 19%) claimed to practice IPM. Seeking information about a technology is a characteristic behavior of people considering adoption (Rogers 1995). More than 60% of respondents to both questionnaires reported seeking information about IPM (Tables 21 and 48). The most common type of information they looked for (Table 22) was general information (e.g. what is IPM? ) (65.7%) followed by how to (49.1%) and technical (40.7%) information. The need for technical and hands-on information on IPM is a good indication that these schools were trying to implement IPM. 38.9% of Part B respondents reported using IPM in all school buildings and another 34.7% claimed to be using some IPM practices indoors (Table 49). Outdoors, 31.3% of respondents reported using a full IPM program for grounds at all schools and 35.0% reported using some IPM practices outdoors (Table 50). This stands in stark contrast to the reportedly high use of routine pesticide applications noted above, and shows that some school administrators don t see these applications as inconsistent with an IPM approach. Factors Affecting IPM Implementation It is important to distinguish between IPM adoption (as policy) and IPM program implementation. We included 2 open-ended questions on Part B where respondents who reported using IPM were asked to identify factors they felt either facilitated or inhibited the implementation of IPM. Qualitative methods were used to code and categorize text responses to facilitate analysis. 41 respondents provided facilitating factors and 36 provided inhibiting factors for analysis. Those that responded often provided more than 1 factor for each question. The most frequently listed factors facilitating IPM were: help from the pest management contractor (29.3%), attending a Purdue IPM workshop (24.4%) and advice from Purdue Extension (17.1%). Other important factors were educating staff, and staff and administrative support (all were 12.2%). The most frequently listed factors inhibiting IPM were time constraints (25.0%), lack of adequate staff (13.9%) and scheduling pesticides applications (13.9%). Pest Management Training Resources Questions on Part A and B were used to assess the use of pest management training resources from Purdue and elsewhere. Question 24 on Part A and question 29 on Part B asked respondents to indicate which of several pest management training resources they had used, but, because of an oversight, did not provide none of the above as an option. For this reason, it was impossible to distinguish non-responses due to a 9

11 respondent having skipped the questions from no responses for all types of training resources listed. This interpretive dilemma was resolved by analyzing the data both ways. The third column in Tables 24 and 53 show percentage data when blank questions were deleted from the analysis as non-responses; the fourth column shows percentages when blank questions were interpreted as no responses. The former interpretation results in higher percentiles for each of the categories because of a lower n number. This might be thought of as a best case scenario for the impact of training resources. However, because it is likely that the majority of questions left blank were actually no responses, the second percent column presents a more conservative, and possibly more accurate, estimate of training resource use. According to this more conservative interpretation, the most commonly used resources by Questionnaire A respondents (Table 24) were pesticide applicator training (41.8%), Purdue IPM workshop (41.3%) and Purdue IPM training manual (23.9%), followed by EPA s IPM in Schools ( Ratbook ) publication (19.6%). The Purdue IPM in Schools website was used by 13.6% of Part A respondents. The same question posed on Part B of the survey (Table 53) yielded similar results, but omitted the option about pesticide applicator training. In this case, the order of resource use was %), Purdue IPM workshop (48.2%) and Purdue IPM training manual (32.4%), the Purdue IPM in Schools website (22.9%) and EPA s IPM in Schools ( Ratbook ) publication (21.2%). In a separate question (#23) on Part A only, approximately 40% of respondents indicated that 1 or more school staff members were certified pesticide applicators (Table 23). When administrators responding to Part A of the survey were asked to rank a list of pest management training resources according to their preference, there wasn t a great deal of consensus. Different respondents showed different training preferences. But overall, written manuals and continuing education showed the highest mean ranking while online training showed the lowest. Summary and Conclusions Results indicate a high rate of new pest management policy adoption among Indiana school corporations, with over 85% of responding schools having adopted policies and another 11% considering adoption or in the process of adoption. About 27% of policies adopted require schools to use IPM to control pests while 30% recommend IPM to control pests. The most important factors influencing policy adoption were related to concerns about children s health. This high rate of voluntary policy adoption can be attributed to a combination of factors, including the extent and success of IPM workshops, training programs and resources provided by the Purdue IPM Technical Resource Center and others, endorsement of the policy by state school associations including the Indiana Association of School Business Officials (IASBO) and the Indiana School Boards Association (ISBA), as well as the threat by local legislators of mandatory statewide legislation if voluntary adoption failed. The majority of respondents to both questionnaires indicated a moderate to high level of IPM knowledge and awareness, and 68% reported seeking information about IPM. About 39% of respondents indicated using a full IPM program indoors while 31% reported outdoor IPM programs in all their schools. Another 35% indicated using some IPM practices both indoors and outdoors. However, a more detailed look at specific pest management practices used revealed some inconsistencies between IPM adoption levels and practices in the schools. Some components of IPM, such as non-chemical controls and monitoring, showed fairly high use rates among schools. However, the majority of schools (about 60%) reported the use of routine preventative pesticide applications both indoors and outdoors - a practice not generally consistent with the goals and philosophy of IPM in schools. These results show that additional and continued educational efforts are needed in Indiana to reduce pesticide risk even further. Respondents were asked to identify factors that facilitated or inhibited IPM implementation. The most commonly cited facilitating factors were related to outside help, either from pest management contractors or Purdue Extension service and the IPM Resource Center. The most common factors inhibiting implementation of IPM tended to be internal factors, such as lack of time, staffing difficulties, education issues, or cost. 10

12 Resources provided by the Purdue IPM-TRC and others were used by many respondents to assist with IPM program implementation. By the most conservative estimate, 42 to 48% of respondents had attended a Purdue IPM-TRC workshop while 24-32% had used our IPM Manual and 14-23% had used the IPM-TRC website. EPA s IPM in Schools publication, Pest Control in the School Environment: Adopting Integrated Pest Management, was familiar to at least 20% of respondents. In conclusion, these results show measurable impact of Purdue s efforts (along with partner organizations) to promote adoption of new pest management policies and IPM among Indiana public school corporations. They also indicate a continuing need for education and refinement of the IPM message to further reduce pesticide risk to children in Indiana schools. Detailed Results Detailed survey results are presented in two major sections: Part A corresponds to Questionnaire A of the survey, and includes demographic information and questions on school pest management policy and administration. Part B corresponds to Questionnaire B, and mainly includes information on policy implementation and specific pest management practices in the schools. Both sections contain questions about IPM awareness, and use of training and other pest management resources by the school corporation. In each section, questions are presented in the same sequence as the questionnaires. 11

13 Detailed Results PART A: Pest Management Policy Part A is divided into 4 subsections: Demographics, Pest Management Policy, Pest Management Administration, and IPM Awareness and Training. Survey questions are shown in bold; results follow directly beneath. Note that percentages for multiple-response ( check all that apply ) questions do not sum to 100. Response Rates 184 out of 294 school corporations in Indiana completed and returned Questionnaire A, providing a response rate of 62.6%. Demographics 1. What is your position in the school corporation? Table 1: Respondent s Title Job Title Frequency (n = 184) Superintendent Dir. /Supv. of Buildings and Grounds Assistant Superintendent Director of Facility Maintenance Other Business Manager Director of Operations Pest Management Coordinator Safety Specialist How many school buildings are there in your school corporation? (Please include only buildings occupied by students.) Mean: 6.71 Median: 5 Range: 1-85 Table 2: Number of School buildings No. of Schools Frequency (n = 184) or more

14 3. What is the total square feet of school corporation buildings? Mean: 770,592 Median: 483,593 Range: 76,000 5,200,000 Table 3: Building Square Feet Building Square Feet Frequency (n = 160) < 300, , , , , mil. or more What is the total acreage of school corporation grounds? Mean: Median: 100 Mode: 40 Table 4: School Grounds Acres School Grounds Acres Frequency (n = 166) < > Over the past three years, how active have administrators in your school corporation been in state professional association meetings, such as the Indiana Association of School Business Officials (IASBO), the Indiana School Board Association (ISBA), and the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents (IAPSS)? Table 5: Association Activity Association Activity Frequency (n = 182) Not Active 1.5 Somewhat Active Regularly Active Very Active

15 6. How many administrators would you estimate currently serve or recently have served (last 4 years) on IASBO or IAPSS boards or committees? Mean: 1.56 Median: 1 Mode: 1 Table 6: Association Involvement No. of administrators on state association committees (n = 170) Frequency or more Please indicate the total number of school corporation employees responsible for directly supervising all of the following tasks throughout the school corporation. In other words, how many central office employees oversee all of the tasks listed below? a. Building maintenance b. Building sanitation c. Grounds maintenance d. Kitchen management e. Kitchen sanitation f. Transportation g. Procurement h. Contracting All these tasks are supervised by (fill in total number) central office employees. Mean: 3.01 Median: 3 Mode: 2 Table 7: Organizational Complexity No. of Supervisors Frequency (n = 174) or more

16 Pest Management Policy 8. Who in the school corporation makes policy decisions about the use of pesticides or other pest management practices? (Check all that apply for both indoor and outdoor policy decisions.) Note: Although given a choice of selecting indoors and/or outdoors for each decision maker, most respondents indicated that the same person made decisions about indoor pest management policy and outdoor pest management policy. For this reason, responses have been combined for indoor and outdoor policy decisions. The only exceptions to this were in the categories of school principals (2 made only indoor decisions, 19 made indoor and outdoor decisions); food service directors (9 made only indoor decisions while 12 made indoor and outdoor decisions) and head custodians (5 made only indoor policy decisions, 2 made only outdoor policy decisions and 10 made both indoor and outdoor decisions). Because multiple choices could be checked by each respondent, percentages do not sum to 100. Table 8: Policy Decisions Job Title Frequency (n = 184) School Board Superintendent Director of Buildings & Grounds Director of Facilities Assistant Superintendent School Principals Food Service Director School Safety Specialist Head Custodian Pest Management Coordinator Director of Grounds Business Manager Other Prior to completing this survey, were you aware of the Indiana Pesticide Review Board and Indiana School Board Association s model pest management policy? Table 9: Model Policy Awareness Aware of policy Frequency (n = 181) No Yes

17 10. Has the school corporation adopted (or revised) an official written pesticide use/pest management policy in the past 4 years? Table 10: Policy Adoption Policy status Frequency (n = 184) Yes/No Adopted In Process Considering Adoption Chose Not To Never Considered If a pesticide use/pest management policy was adopted, which of the following practices does the school corporation s pest management policy require? (Check all that apply.) Table 11: Policy Components Policy Component Frequency (n = 155) Advanced notification Record keeping No children present Staff contact Applicator training Emergency exemption Non-chemical methods Posting Other Note: Because multiple choices could be checked by each respondent, percentages do not sum to

18 12. If a pesticide use/pest management policy was adopted: Please rate the following factors according to their importance in the school corporation s decision to adopt a policy by placing a checkmark in the appropriate space. Check column 1 for not important, 2 for somewhat important, 3 for quite important, and 4 for very important. Table 12: Factors Affecting Policy Adoption Factors Affecting Policy Adoption n (1) Not Important (2) Somewhat Important (3) Quite Important (4) Very Important Median/ Mode Concern about pesticide exposure /4 Concern about chemical sensitivity /4 It was the right thing to do /4 Liability issues /4 Possibility of legislation /4 School associations endorsement /3 Parent complaints about pesticides /4 School board support of policy /4 Staff complaints about pesticides /3 Advice of school corporation attorney Advice of pest management contractor / /3 Community support of policy /2 Attending a Purdue workshop /1 Concerns about previous practices /1 and 3 Recommendation from peers /1 Dissatisfaction with pest control /1 13. If a pesticide use/pest management policy was adopted, in your opinion, please rank how beneficial the adoption of the policy has been to the school corporation. (Circle 1 for not beneficial up to 4 for very beneficial.) Not beneficial Very beneficial

19 Not Beneficial 3.9 Benefit of Policy Beneficial Somewhat Quite Beneficial Very Beneficial If a pesticide use/pest management policy was adopted, in your opinion, has the adoption of 18.1 a pest management policy has 21.9been a burden to the school corporation? (Circle 1 for not burdensome up to 4 for very burdensome.) 10 Not burdensome Very burdensome Not Burdensome Burdensome Somewhat Burden of Policy Quite Burdensome 19.4 Very Burdensome Table 13: Policy Benefit/Burden Responses Benefit of Policy Burden of Policy N Mean Media Benefit of Policy n 3 2 Mode 3 1 Burden of Policy Figure If a pesticide use/pest management policy was considered, but not adopted: Please take a moment to explain what factors were most influential in the corporation s decision not to adopt a policy. 13 out of 27 respondents who had not passed a policy at the time of the survey indicated their reasons for not adopting. The reasons have been summarized into the 7 categories below. Respondent s actual comments follow. 18

20 Table 14: Reasons for not adopting a pest management policy Reason for not adopting a policy Frequency In the process of writing/revising a policy 5 Lack of time 1 Pest management issues covered in a previous policy 1 Still considering a policy 1 Concerns about costs of policy 1 Unaware of model policy 1 Misc. 3 Direct quotes from respondents: Board felt policy on health and safety standards covered it. I have never seen any information about the pesticide policy. We contract our pesticide control. Still considering We use the common sense policy but have not taken the time to write it up yet. School corporation getting information together to adopt. Didn't want to expend corporation funds. We adopt our policies after recommendations from NEO/A. To my knowledge they have not recommended we adopt such a policy. Not yet considered by governing body. Slated for Dec We felt uncomfortable with our management practices. Not complete No time We are working with our contracted pest control service to finalize these plans. Policy being used at present is going through some revision. Our policy is an administrative policy not a board policy. Pest Management Administration 16. Who in the school corporation is the main decision-maker for pest management service contracts, both indoors and outdoors? (Please check only one choice for each column.) Note: A significant proportion of respondents (41/184 = 22%) misinterpreted this question and provided more than one response in each column. In such cases, the highest ranked person checked was accepted as the response. Table 15: Indoor Contracts Job Title Frequency (n = 184) Superintendent Director of Facilities and Grounds Director of Facilities Assistant Superintendent School Board Business Manager Director of Operations Other Table 16: Outdoor Contracts 19

21 Job Title Frequency (n = 183) Superintendent Director of Facilities and Grounds Assistant Superintendent Director of Facilities School Board Business Manager Director of Grounds Director of Operations Other Which of the following are included in the school corporation s pest management program? (Check all that apply.) Table 17: Program Components Program Component Frequency (n = 184) Advanced notification Regular inspections (professional) Regular inspections (staff) Initial inspection Pest management roles Posting Note: Because multiple choices could be checked by each respondent, percentages do not sum to Which of the following tasks/duties related to pest management have been assigned to one or more school corporation employees (administrators or staff)? Table 18: Pest Management Tasks Pest Management Tasks Frequency (n = 182) Staff/contractor contact Parent contact Legal oversight Pest monitoring Outdoor pesticide applications Supervising implementation Educating staff Staff follow-up Indoor pesticide applications Note: Because multiple choices could be checked by each respondent, percentages do not sum to

22 IPM Awareness and Training 19. Prior to completing this survey, please state your level of familiarity with IPM. Table 19: IPM Knowledge Level of IPM Knowledge Frequency (n = 184) Never heard of IPM Not sure what IPM is Familiar with IPM concept Familiar with IPM practice Regularly use IPM (y/n) Does the school corporation s pesticide use/pest management policy require or recommend the use of IPM? Table 20: IPM in Policy IPM in Policy Frequency (n = 157) IPM is required IPM is recommended IPM is neither required nor recommended Has the school corporation sought information about Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the past 4 years? Table 21: IPM Information Seeking Information sought Frequency (n = 184) Yes No Don't Know If you answered yes to the previous question, please select the choice(s) that best describes the type of information sought. (Select all that apply.) Table 22: IPM Information Type 21

23 Type of Information Frequency (n = 108) General Information Evaluative Information Principles Information How-to Information Technical Information Other Information Note: Because multiple choices could be checked by each respondent, percentages do not sum to How many school employees have become certified by the state to apply pesticides in schools or on school grounds? Table 23: Certified Applicators on Staff Number Certified Frequency (n = 179) Certified no/yes No = Yes = Please indicate which of the following pest management trainings and resources your school corporation has used in designing or implementing a pest management program (Check all that apply.) Note: Because of an oversight when the questionnaire was drafted, this question did not provide none of the above as an option. For this reason, it was impossible to distinguish non-responses due to a respondent having skipped the question from no responses for all types of training resources listed. This interpretive dilemma was resolved by analyzing the data both ways. The third column in Table 24 shows percentage data as calculated when blank questions were deleted from the analysis as non-responses. This interpretation results in higher percentiles for each of the categories because of a lower n number. This might be thought of as a best case scenario for the impact of training resources. However, because it is likely that the majority of questions left blank were actually no responses, the fourth column presents a more conservative, and possibly more accurate, estimate of training resource use. Table 24: Pest Management Resources 22

24 Training Resource Frequency (n = 135) (n = 184) Applicator training Purdue IPM workshop Purdue manual Other manuals Purdue IPMIS website National IPMIS website Other websites EPA IPMIS book Other publications IASBO workshop (write-in) Misc. or unspecified workshop Other resource Note: Because multiple choices could be checked by each respondent, percentages do not sum to Please rank the following resources according to the likelihood that the school corporation would use them in the near future. Check column 1 unlikely to use, 2 for somewhat unlikely, 3 for quite likely to use, and 4 for very likely to use. Table 25: Training Preferences Training Resource n Mean Median Mode Written Manuals Continuing Education Toll-Free Phone Online Info CD-Rom IPM Workshop One-on-One Online Training Please provide any addition comments you like: Final comments arranged by topic: 1. Work with PM professional/contractor I had assumed that since we contracted our controlling of pesticides out we are okay. We use [name deleted] for our indoor [pest control] we also use [name deleted] for our outdoor [pest control] service. We rely on professional pest control company for all services Since we hire a professional pest control company we rely on them to apply pesticides in our school buildings. At this time we have a contract with [name deleted]. [Our contractor] is at this time making us a pest management program; We hire a professional pest controller for our corporation. 23

25 2. IPM/policy constraints I have looked into IPM but we don't have the extra staff to do what is needed at this time. Any funding from the state to provide for their new "mandate"? For example, which of [the trainings listed in question 25] might have a cost? We've simply resigned ourselves to the acceptance of more "pests" in and around the schools. (Even with IPM!) The current outline does not allow for rain delays. If it were to rain every third day it would be impossible to re-notify before the next rain. 3. IPM benefits IPM has been a positive step for the safety and welfare of our students. Communication is the key to the success of the IPM program. 4. Training I have attended several trainings and have licenses in several areas 1 person in progress for pesticide applicator certification 24

26 Detailed Results PART B: Pest Management Practices Part B is divided into 4 subsections: Demographics, Pest Management Policy, Pest Management Practices, and IPM Awareness and Resources. Survey questions are shown in bold; results follow directly beneath. Note that percentages for multiple-response ( check all that apply ) questions do not sum to 100. Response Rates 170 completed questionnaires were retained for Part B analysis, representing 57.8% of Indiana public school corporations. Demographics 1. What is your position at the school corporation? Table 26: Respondent's Title Job Title Frequency (n = 168) Director of Buildings and Grounds Assistant/Associate Superintendent Director of Facility Maintenance Superintendent Business Manager Other/Misc Director of Operations Director of Grounds Maintenance Custodial Supervisor Grounds Maintenance Supervisor Pest Management Coordinator School Safety Specialist 1.6 Head Custodian Please indicate the level of your responsibility for building and/or grounds management. Table 27: Level of Responsibility Level of Responsibility Frequency (n = 165) Building and grounds at all schools All school buildings Grounds at all schools school building Grounds at 1 school