Clean Schools, Safe Kids. Striving for Safer Pest Management in North Carolina Public Schools

Clean Schools, Safe Kids Striving for Safer Pest Management in North Carolina Public Schools a survey and report by: Agricultural Resources Center & Pesticide Education Project Toxic-Free Schools Project November 2003

1 Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools Table of Contents i. Executive Summary...2 I. Introduction...2 II. Pesticides and Children s Health...3 III. Pesticides in North Carolina Schools: Results from the NC School Pesticide Survey...4 Pest Control Practices Cost Comparisons IV. The ABC s of School Pest Control: IPM...9 V. Recommendations...12 Appendix 1: References...13 Appendix 2: Resource Guide...14 Sidebars: What is IPM? Pest Management Practices: Relative Risk Why School IPM? A Teacher s Role in Pest Management Profile of a Success: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Abbreviations used in this report: DPI - Department of Public Instruction (NC) DPR (California) Department of Pesticide Regulation EPA - Environmental Protection Agency (US) IARC International Agency for Research on Carcinogens IPM - Integrated Pest Management MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets NCSU - North Carolina State University NCDA - North Carolina Department of Agriculture OPP EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (US) PCT - Pest Control Technician Authors: Billie Karel, Fawn Pattison and Alaina Rogers. Illustrations (c) 2003 by Lindsey Rogers. Acknowledgements Thanks very much to the following for their participation, insight and contributions to this report: Dr. Kathy Shea; Dr. Godfrey Nalyanya and Dr. Mike Linker, NCSU School IPM Program; Steve Cutright, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools; Buddy McCarty, Wake County Public Schools; Angela Storey, Washington Toxics Coalition; Sue Sturgis, Raleigh EcoNews; NC Association of School Administrators; and the NC Department of Public Instruction. Agricultural Resources Center The Agricultural Resources Center and Pesticide Education Project is a private, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization chartered in 1976. Mission: ARC/PESTed advocates for alternatives to toxic pesticides in North Carolina by empowering people to make sound decisions about their health and environment. Agricultural Resources Center is a private, non-profit organization, and is funded by support from individuals and grants from private foundations. In 2003, funding for our work has included grants from the Educational Foundation of America, Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, Waterwheel Foundation, and the Cooper Foundation. This research project was made possible by internship funding from the Environmental Careers Organization (ECO). The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our reviewers or funders. Copyright (c) 2003 by Agricultural Resources Center, Inc. Permission is granted to reproduce portions of this report, provided title and publisher, Agricultural Resources Center, are acknowledged. Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper with soy ink.

Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools 2 Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in North Carolina Public Schools i. Executive Summary Children spend 30 to 50% of their waking hours in school nine months of the year. Schools are publicly funded institutions dedicated to educating children and ensuring their successful futures. Schools should be physically safe and free from health hazard s, including unnecessary toxic chemicals. In re c e n t years, several issues have drawn greater attention to the role schools play in promoting a healthy environment for children, ranging from indoor air quality to school violence. Pest control is an important component of school environmental quality which, unlike many other health and safety issues, is within the power of school officials to improve, and can even result in cost savings to the school district if implemented well. Exposure to pesticides in childhood can have serious impacts on long-term health. Schools can also bear a great deal of liability for immediate injuries to students, faculty, or other staff resulting from improper management of toxic chemicals such as pesticides. Schools can reduce or even eliminate those risks using simple, low-cost methods such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM). With proper training, planning, and effective communication among affected parties, IPM can prevent pest problems, reduce the need for pesticide applications, and greatly improve the quality of the school environment. Several school districts in North Carolina are already using IPM to lower the frequency of pest infestations as well as the cost of pest control. During the summer of 2003, the Agricultural Resources Center & Pesticide Education Project (ARC/PESTed) surveyed the facilities departments at all of North Carolina s 117 public school districts regarding their pest management practices. 60 districts responded, representing more than half of NC school districts and 1.3 million students in grades K through 12. The survey found that many schools still use high-risk pest control practices such as fogging buildings with pesticides or using pesticides regularly as prevention. Schools with leasttoxic or IPM programs consistently spent less than the statewide average on pest control, and tended to be more satisfied with their pest management programs overall. Stories from some of these schools, as well as cost comparisons, are included in this report. Some of the survey s most interesting findings include: On average, North Carolina school districts spend $1.77 per student per year on pest control. Districts with least-toxic pest control programs (such as IPM) spend $1.49 per student per year. 43% of school districts report using pesticides regularly in classrooms. 17% of school districts fog buildings with pesticides. Only 3 school districts reported notifying parents when pesticides are used at school. 65% of districts report consciously selecting leasttoxic pesticide product formulations. Large, urban districts as well as small, rural districts in North Carolina report success with IPM programs. Reducing toxic pollution has cost benefits to the public that can sometimes be difficult to quantify. However, we have found that reducing the use of pesticides in schools and switching to an IPM system can benefit schools directly through reduced cost and improved quality of pest control. Fewer pesticide applications are also likely to result in qualitative benefits to student and staff health. Resources for more information and action, as well as our recommendations, are included at the end of this report. Parents, teachers, administrators and others are encouraged to contact ARC/PESTed for a more detailed analysis of your school district s pest control practices.

3 Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools I. Introduction Clean Schools, Safe Kids presents the results of a survey of North Carolina s public school districts carried out over the summer of 2003. This report builds on previous studies of pest control in public schools conducted by NCSU researchers and others. Sixty school districts, representing a little more than half of North Carolina s 117 public school districts, responded to the survey. Pest control is very important for the health and safety of students and staff. Pests can carry disease, contaminate food supplies, and trigger allergic reactions. However, many pest control strategies used by schools can harm the health of students and staff. As a growing body of evidence draws connections between human health and environmental contaminants like pesticides, many schools are developing safer, more effective pest management programs that cut dependence on toxic chemicals and focus instead on pest prevention, with limited use of least-toxic chemical pesticides when necessary. This report presents an overview of pest management practices used in North Carolina public schools during the 2002-2003 school year. The report also outlines the basic components of a least-toxic school Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. Recommendations for improvement and resources for parents, teachers and schools interested in further work on improving school environmental health are included at the end of the report. A model school IPM policy is available at www.pested.org and by request. II. Pesticides and Children s Health Conventional approaches to the control of unwanted insects, weeds, and fungi often rely on the use of toxic chemicals called pesticides. Pesticides are the only class of substances deliberately released into the environment for their poisonous properties. They are designed to attack bodily systems and pathways in the target pests that are often the same or similar in humans. Pesticides pose unknown hazards to children because most have only been tested for acute (immediate) toxicity to healthy adults, not for chronic (long term) toxicity to other segments of the population. As the EPA revisits pesticide registration criteria in response to the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, it has found that many pesticides are unsafe for children at levels of exposure that are currently very common, particularly when exposures occur before children are physiologically mature. Evidence of toxicity to children s developing nervous systems has recently spurred EPA to require the phase-out of specific uses of several common pesticides, most recently chlorpyrifos and diazinon. Other pesticides have been implicated as carcinogens contributing to childhood cancers, or as disruptors of the reproductive, endocrine and immune systems. Common sense dictates that until a chemical is proven safe at specific exposure levels, it should not be knowingly introduced into children s environments. Asthma. Airborne pesticides have long been known to trigger asthma attacks. Recently, re s e a rchers in the Children s Health Study at the University of Southern California found that exposure to herbicides and insecticides in early life was associated with increased risk of developing asthma in childhood (Gilliland et al 2003). This is among the first studies to implicate pesticides as not only a trigger for asthma attacks, but a possible cause of childhood asthma. Neurobehavioral Problems and Learning Disabilities. A 1998 study of Mexican pre-school children found that those growing up in an agricultural valley where pesticides were often used performed worse on standard tests of neurological development than children growing up in the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a common sense, prevention-based approach to pest management that keeps pest populations under control using the least toxic methods possible. A successful IPM program does not rely on the use of chemical pesticides. An effective School IPM Program involves: a) Educating school staff, teachers, students, and administrators about their role in a successful IPM program; b) Monitoring the school building and grounds regularly to identify and manage pest populations before they become problems; c) Preventing pest problems through better sanitation and storage, pest-proofing waste disposal, structural maintenance, and good soil health; d) Least Hazardous Approach to pest management, using chemicals only as a last resort when preventative and mechanical controls have failed, and then choosing the least-toxic chemicals and most targeted application methods possible; e) Notifying school staff, students, and parents in writing before pesticides are used on school grounds; and f) Keeping Records of pest occurrences and actions taken to establish trends that will help school staff anticipate and prevent future problems.

Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools 4 neighboring foothills where pesticides were seldom, if ever, used. The researchers also observed that valley children appeared more aggressive, less social and less creative in their play activities than foothill children (Guillettte et al 2003). While the data are not conclusive, they do show neurological and behavioral effects of pesticide exposure in human children similar to effects that have been conclusively demonstrated in animal studies. Cancer. Studies have linked pesticide use in the home to several forms of childhood cancer, including leukemia (Ma 2002) and brain cancer (van Wijngaarden et al 2003). A recent article from EPA scientists also discusses possible relationships between childhood pesticide exposure and cancer in adulthood; their review of the medical literature showed a correlation between women s diagnoses with breast and uterine cancers in adulthood and their prenatal and early life exposure to endocrine disrupting pesticides (Birnbaum and Fenton 2003). There are a variety of reasons for children s special susceptibility to pesticide-related health problems. Children are not small adults; their smaller size and higher metabolic rate mean that they eat, drink, and breathe more per pound of body weight than adults, and are therefore exposed to more of the contaminants commonly found in food, water, and air. They are also closer to the ground where air contaminants settle, and are much more likely to touch the floor or put things in their mouths, increasing their likelihood of exposure to environmental contaminants. While children are exposed to more toxins in their environment relative to their size, children s bodily systems are not yet fully developed, making them both more susceptible to long-term damage from toxins and less able to process and eliminate those toxins than adults. III. Pesticides in North Carolina Schools: Findings from the School Pe s t i c i d e Survey In the summer of 2003, the Pesticide Education Project (PESTed) mailed a three-page survey to the administrative and facilities management offices of all 117 school districts in the state of North Carolina. The survey included questions about each district s decision making process and budget for pest control, problematic pests, regularly used techniques and methods, most common sites and methods of pesticide application, type and timing of notification of pesticide application, and degree of satisfaction with the pest control program. Survey respondents were able to submit their answers by mail, fax, or over the internet. P E S Ted gathered survey responses from 60 of North Carolina s 117 school districts, together representing more than half of the state s 1.32 million students in grades K-12. Pest Management Practices Lowest Risk Education of students and staff Structural modifications & repairs (screens, door sweeps, blowers, sealing cracks) Improved sanitation Crack-and-crevice treatments, spot treatments, baits Aerosol sprays Baseboard spraying Calendar-based spraying (monthly, quarterly, etc) Fogging, tenting, bombs High Risk Responding districts are distributed throughout the state and include rural, suburban and urban school districts of a wide range of sizes and socio-economic characteristics (see list of participating school districts on p. 13). A. Selected Results Pest Control Practices Use of private pest control companies: 92% of responding school districts contract with one or more private companies for school pest control services. 48% rely exclusively on contracts with a private company or companies, while 42% use some combination of school employees and private contracts. 8% of responding districts use school maintenance employees exclusively for pest control. Presence of a district-wide written policy covering pest management: Only 17% of survey respondents indicated that their district has a written policy on pest management. Use of IPM: 57% of responding districts reported that they do not use IPM; 18% reported that they use IPM indoors only; and 25% reported that they use IPM both indoors and outdoors. Taken together, the latter two figures indicate that a subset of 43% of districts claim to use IPM indoors; however, over half of districts in that subset also indicated that they regularly use high-risk indoor pesticide application methods such as baseboard spraying and chemical fogging. Only 18% of responding districts use IPM and do not use chemical fogging or baseboard spraying, and so can be said to have a working understanding of, and commitment to least-toxic pest control. Use of non-chemical IPM techniques: Most districts indicated that they use several of the non-chemical IPM techniques listed in the survey. The most commonly selected were plastic liners in garbage (87%), cleaning up all messes (80%), and vacuuming (80%). Some responding

5 Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools Table 1: Chemical pest control methods used by North Carolina Public Schools Table 2: Most common locations of pesticide application on school grounds Table 3: Average cost of school pest control, in dollars per student per year.

Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools 6 districts also selected best practices from the list that indicate some adherence to a least-toxic IPM model: 65% of districts conduct regular pest inspections and 65% consciously avoid the use of highly toxic products. Only 47% of districts responded that they educate students and staff on the prevention of pest problems. Use of chemical pest control techniques: 55% of responding NC school districts have pest control programs that rely on regular baseboard spraying, and 17% rely on pesticide fogging. Other common chemical pest control practices include baits (72%) and spot treatments (78%). 57% of districts schedule regular pesticide applications regardless of pest activity, 47% use pesticides for aesthetic purposes, and 35% say they use pesticides for pest prevention. Locations of pesticide application: The single most common site of pesticide application on school grounds in North Carolina is in cafeterias (78%). Other common sites include classrooms (43%), athletic fields (40%) and offices (38%). Notification of pesticide application: In 50% of responding school districts, there is no system for notification of pesticide application. In 43% of the total sample, school administrators are notified of pesticide application, and in 10%, a sign is posted at the site of application. However, in only 5% of responding districts (just three schools), notice is sent home to parents before a pesticide application occurs at school. Cost of Pest Control Annual pest control budget: 60% of the school districts that responded to our survey keep a separate budget for pest management/control costs. The average cost of pest control per student per year in these districts is $1.77, ranging from as low as $0.28 to over $6.00 per student per year. No IPM: Of school districts that do not use IPM and also reported an annual pest control budget figure (n=16), pest control costs an average of $2.11 per student per year, ranging from as little as $0.45 for some districts to over $6 for others. Some IPM: Of school districts that reported using a combination of indoor IPM and high-risk pesticide application methods, and also reported an annual pest control budget figure (n=13), pest control costs an average of $1.46 per student per year, ranging from $0.28 to $4.40. All IPM: Of school districts that use IPM and do not use high-risk pesticide application methods, and also reported an annual pest control budget figure (n=8), the average cost of pest control per student per year is $1.48, ranging from $0.73 to $4.10. Only one of the 8 schools in this subset reported spending more than the $1.48 average for the set. B. Discussion of Results Pesticides at School Many North Carolina schools still rely on high-risk practices for pest control. 55% of responding NC school districts use baseboard spraying, and 17% still fog school buildings regularly. These pesticide application methods are the least targeted and have the highest potential for human exposure, even when the treatment is performed at times when no one is in the building. Studies have found that pesticides persist for days and even weeks indoors (Gurunathan 1998), where they are not subject to wind, rain and soil microbes that would cause them to break down more quickly in outdoor environments. Yet many schools use these high-risk pesticide application methods on a regular basis, suggesting that in those schools, infestations are relatively common and that pests are not in fact under control. The goal of an IPM program is to minimize pest problems and curtail the need for high-risk chemical control measures by focusing on the prevention of pest infestation, rather than waiting to treat infestations after they appear. Cafeterias are the most common sites of pesticide application in NC schools. 78% of school districts responding to this survey regularly use pesticides in cafeteria kitchens and dining rooms. While a concentration of pest activity around sites of food storage and consumption is not surprising, it is not desirable to conduct regular pesticide applications in areas where food is prepared and consumed every day. The need for regular pesticide application in cafeterias and kitchens also suggests that those places are sites of regular pest infestation, which raises concern about the relative health and safety of food preparation in those areas. Rather than regular spraying of high-risk chemicals, schools should commit to preventing pest infestations with regular thorough cleaning, pest-proofing food storage and kitchen garbage, arranging of large equipment to ease cleaning, and making structural enhancements that exclude pests. Given the tendency of chemicals to persist indoors even days or weeks after application, it is not appropriate to apply pesticides in classrooms where children spend so much of their time. However, 43% of North Carolina school districts in our survey regularly spray pesticides in classrooms. Classroom pesticide use is particularly inappropriate in the lower grade levels because exposure is likely to be highest among the youngest children with the greatest potential vulnerability to harm. School districts should concentrate on classroom sanitation and education of teachers and students regarding pest prevention. This is especially true for schools that house the lowest grade levels with the most vulnerable children. One interesting finding is that many school districts with strong IPM programs in place are located in parts of the state which census data indicate have relatively high pover-

7 Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools Profile of a Success: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Five years ago, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School officials became so fed up with the poor quality and high cost of their contract pest control services that they decided to switch to an in-house, least-toxic pest management program. Private pest control operators simply weren t getting the job done to their standards pests were infesting school buildings, and that never seemed to change no matter how much they spent. Today WSFCS Facilities Manager Steve Cutright oversees a successful IPM program that maintains all 70+ sites in the district using in-house technicians. The quality of pest control in the district has improved dramatically in the past five years. In-house technicians focus on preventive inspections and maintenance, rather than waiting until there is an infestation to act. The need for pesticide applications has been drastically reduced, marking a real victory for the health and safety of students and staff. Cutright notes that teachers and other staff have been very cooperative because they can see how well the in-house IPM program is working. Cafeteria managers in particular are very pleased because the new program has led to significant improvements in sanitation and fewer complaints from county health inspectors. Cost differences between the new in-house IPM system and the old contracts are hard to determine exactly, says Cutright, because money that used to go to one pest control contract is now distributed across several budget categories, including staff development, maintenance and repairs, sanitation, and others. However he noted, The important thing is that IPM works better. In that sense, it is definitely more cost-effective, because the old way, when the contractor just came in and sprayed every month, was never very effective in the first place. Ultimately, Cutright attributes the success of WSFCS IPM program to the quality of the PCTs working under him. A school IPM program is only as good as the technicians doing the work, he said. WSFCS technicians are well trained, and their long tenures in the district make them particularly conscientious because they are personally invested in the health and safety of the students. Over time they ve become familiar with each school site and its particular strengths and vulnerabilities, experience that, combined with their technical training, makes them especially good at their jobs. ty levels (www.census.state.nc.us). Some examples include Elizabeth City/Pasquotank and Hertford County school districts, which have among the strongest IPM programs in the state. This positive trend may reflect the efforts of Dr. Godfrey Nalyanya and Dr. Mike Linker, school IPM specialists in NCSU s Department of Crop Science. Over the past several years, they have been training school PCTs in least-toxic IPM practices, and have specifically targeted districts in socioeconomically disadvantaged parts of the state. It should be noted that the two largest and most urbanized districts in the state, Wake and Mecklenberg counties (which include the Raleigh and Charlotte metropolitan areas), did not return survey responses. Both of these districts are known to use IPM, but it is impossible to estimate whether and how the inclusion of data from those two schools would change this statistical picture of NC school pest control practices overall. The Cost of Pest Control: IPM vs. Conventional Methods There is a strong negative correlation between amount spent on pest control and effectiveness of the pest control program, judging by the number of major problem pests in each district. Districts that indicated no major problem pests spend an average of $1.38 on pest control per year per student, while districts that indicated one or more major problem pests spend an average of $2.30 per student per year, about 65% more. A causal relationship between program cost and effectiveness was not captured in the survey data. This raises the question: do more frequent pest infestations require costlier pest control, or are some schools spending more on costly programs which are less effective? Anecdotal evidence from school personnel indicates that major, ongoing pest infestations can be effectively brought under control with reasonably-priced IPM programs (see sidebar). There does not seem to be a significant difference in reported costs between districts that use private pest control contractors exclusively and those that use a combination of contractors and in-house staff, nor do the data indicate a significant difference in the effectiveness of contract vs. combination or in-house pest control. The data do show that on average, schools using conventional pest control methods are spending more than schools using least-toxic methods. The average cost of pest control for districts that use IPM is $1.48 per student per year, about 16% less than the statewide average, and 42% less than the average for schools that do not use IPM. Though the cost range is wide in all categories, that range is smallest for schools consistently using IPM, and largest for schools that do not use IPM at all.

Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools 8 Case Studies District A uses IPM. District B does not. The following case studies examine two pairs of school districts that are close in size but spend substantially different amounts on pest control each year. Survey data (based on 2002-03 school year) and additional information collected in phone conversations with district facilities or maintenance directors (Karel 2003) illustrate some of the reasons for cost differences. Case study 1: Districts A & B School District A, a rural district in southeastern North Carolina, uses a contract pest control company for cafeterias that sprays monthly. However, District A uses mostly leasttoxic IPM methods in all other parts of its school buildings and grounds. Facilities staff cite the need to protect students with respiratory illnesses like asthma as a primary motivation for sticking to least-toxic methods. District staff perform most IPM work themselves, and occasionally call in a professional contractor for emergencies or special problems. District A listed no major pest problems. Including the annual cafeteria contract, as-needed contract work for other areas, preventive maintenance and chemicals used by district staff, District A s yearly pest control budget is about $5,600, or $0.84 per student. District B, also a rural district in southeastern North Carolina, uses contract pest control exclusively, with contracts from several different companies. Those companies perform conventional pest control services for the district, namely calendar-based baseboard spraying and spot treatments. District B listed three major problem pests. Though District B s schools are not any older than those in District A, District B s oldest buildings have ongoing problems with mice, and cockroaches are a consistent problem in three schools that were built in the 1950s. District B has almost the same number of students as District A, but spends $40,000 per year for pest control, or about $6 per student. The larger number of school buildings may contribute somewhat to District B s higher costs. However, when pest control costs are calculated on a per-building basis, District B still spends more than five times as much District E uses IPM. District F does not. as District A. Pests continue to be a problem there despite the larger amount spent on pest control. Case Study 2: Districts E & F District E, a rural district in northeastern North Carolina, spends $3,000 per year on pest control. At District E, pest control is conducted exclusively by one contractor. District E uses indoor IPM, employing a variety of non-chemical measures for pest prevention, including staff and student education and keeping records of all non-chemical methods used. District E s contractor does not spray pesticides on a calendar basis, but rather conducts monthly inspections and uses bait stations. District E does not have a pest management policy, however the administration must approve any new pesticide to be used, and the district s maintenance supervisor uses a standard contract for any private companies that lists prohibited chemicals and preferred least-toxic methods. District E s maintenance supervisor is extremely satisfied with the cost and effectiveness of the district s current pest management program. He noted that the district used to fog buildings regularly, and feels that the current least-toxic program is more effective. District F is a rural district in the sandhills of North Carolina that spends $12,640 per year on pest control. District F does not use IPM, though their maintenance director is learning about IPM and beginning to incorporate it into his pest control decisions. In District F one contractor performs all indoor pest control and district staff perform most outdoor pest control. Relative age of buildings does not seem to be a contributing factor to cost differences, as District F reports that most pest problems actually occur in newer buildings. District F s contractor uses regularlyscheduled baseboard spraying. Again, the larger number of school buildings could contribute to higher pest control costs at District F, but when pest control costs are calculated on a per-school basis, District F still spends 130% more than District E. District F s maintenance director stated that he is not very happy with the current pest management program, and cited the difficulty in getting good pest control companies

9 Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools to travel out to his rural district. He also noted that the biggest challenge to effective pest management in the district is messy classrooms. With the addition of preventive measures such as teacher education and regular inspections to their pest management practices, District F could bring their costs down considerably. Reliance on baseboard spraying poses an unnecessary threat to the health of its students and staff and seems to cost more than less-toxic alternatives in comparable districts. A Teacher s Role in School Pest Control What role should teachers play in their s c h o o l s pest control program? Many school districts report that teachers sometimes make effective pest management more difficult by storing food improperly in their classrooms, keeping pets with pest-prone conditions, or spraying pesticides in classrooms themselves. Because teachers control most of what goes on in their classrooms, it is important that they participate in creating a safe, healthy school environment. For pest control, this has several components: Food attracts cockroaches, ants, rodents, moths, and other pests. All food, including pet food, should be properly stored in airtight, pest-proof containers. Candy and other snacks should be kept to an absolute minimum in the classroom. Food dropped on the floor or kept in students and teachers desks is a strong pest attractant. Classroom pets are wonderful, but their cages contain many elements that pests need: food, water and shelter. For the best possible pest control, pets should not be allowed in classrooms. However, if pets are permitted, their cages should be kept scrupulously clean and regularly inspected for pests, and their food should be stored in airtight, pest-proof containers. Teachers should never keep or use any form of chemical pesticide at school. Undocumented pesticide application can disrupt a functioning IPM program, but no matter what kind of pest control program a school uses, the safety and liability risks involved make it inappropriate for teachers to use pesticides in their classrooms. Teachers should report all pest sightings to the proper pest control staff in their school. PCTs using an IPM system treat pests according to thresholds, reserving chemical pesticide application and other extreme measures for serious pest emergencies only. Other factors in increased pest control cost and/or poor pest control results Low-bid contracts. Many school districts are required to accept the lowest possible bid for their pest control contract. While it may seem like a good way for schools to save money, the safest and most effective pest control contracts are not always the cheapest. This can lead to serious pest infestations, requiring special corrective actions that add significantly to costs. For a low-bid system to yield highquality pest control, or to use a low-bid system for an IPM program, the school district must clearly spell out its pest control requirements and expectations in the bid request. Multiple Contracts. School districts often contract out portions of their pest control operations to different companies. It is not uncommon for school districts to have separate contracts for the cafeterias, school buildings, grounds, and termites. While each individual contract may be granted to the lowest bidder, they often add up to a pest control program that is poorly coordinated and overpriced. No Policy. A clear policy can eliminate many of the possible pitfalls of pest management. Districts lacking clear criteria for pest control decisions, or with little oversight of their pest control programs, tend to spend more and report a lower level of satisfaction with pest management. A policy can also improve accountability by designating a staff member or committee with direct oversight of the pest management program. The survey results point to a common theme: least-toxic pest management systems that use IPM are effective at controlling pests, reduce the need for toxic chemicals in schools and cost less than conventional pesticide-reliant systems. It is important to note that changing technologies always requires an initial investment, whether in staff time and training, supplies, or structural modifications. But the upfront costs can be quickly offset by the reduced cost of IPM as the program continues. Many districts are accustomed to paying a set amount for pest control, or are locked into ineffective contracts because of a low-bid system. Staff can become used to a relatively high frequency of pest infestation in their schools. Heightened awareness of the effects of pests and pesticides on human health should help spur schools to make the initial investment in adopting more effective, more efficient IPM programs. IV. The ABC s of School Pest Control: IPM School Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a cost-effective system that reduces children s exposure to pesticides in school. As shown by the survey results, several North Carolina school districts have implemented successful IPM programs. Outside of North Carolina, the nation s two

Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools 10 largest school districts, Los Angeles Unified School District and New York City Public Schools, both use IPM successfully. For school IPM success stories from around the nation, see Safer Schools (SPRC and Beyond Pesticides 2003). What follows are the ABC s of a successful IPM program. School facilities staff can find a detailed manual for IPM in schools in Integrated Pest Management for North Carolina Schools from the NCSU Urban Integrated Pest Management Program (Nalyanya et al 2002) A. Inspect, Detect, Correct The old-fashioned method of pest control is still quite common in North Carolina schools. Rather than acting in response to actual pest activity, pest control is often performed according to a calendar. Under this system, a PCT (pest control technician) visits schools on a regular basis (often quarterly), sprays the baseboards, and leaves. The PCT does not thoroughly inspect school facilities to determine pest presence and locate actual areas of pest activity, so problem areas may be missed, while chemicals are unnecessarily applied in areas where children can be exposed. Jerry Jochim of Monroe County Schools in Indiana uses an Inspect, Detect, Correct method to train school technicians in least-toxic pest control. Thorough inspections allow the trainees to detect pest infestations and take corrective measures that are most appropriate for the particular site, variety, and scale of pest infestation. Areas such as cafeterias, kitchens, and life skills/home economics classrooms, or any other areas that are prone to regular pest outbreaks, are inspected monthly for evidence of pest activity. If a pest problem is detected during the inspection, the PCT should use or recommend the least toxic methods appropriate to correct the problem. Least-toxic methods can include s t ructural improvements such as repairing scre e n s, installing door sweeps and sealing holes; sanitation improvements such as removing food sources, cleaning spills or correcting overflowing trash cans; or as a last resort, carefully selecting and applying a low-toxicity pesticide formulation. If pest problems are not detected during an inspection, no action is required. B. Communication Teachers, custodians, and other staff have an important role to play in pest management. Wi n s t o n - S a l e m / F o r s y t h County Schools use a pest log to record pest sightings in classrooms, offices, and other areas. Between inspections, teachers and other staff are asked to record any pest sightings on the log, including the type of pest they saw and time and location of the sighting. Then WSFCS pest control technicians can refer to the pest log during inspections at the building and respond appropriately. The pest log also has room for PCTs to note whether any action was necessary and what was done, so that it serves both as a record Why is IPM Better for Schools? IPM is more cost-effective than conventional methods of pest control. Rather than controlling pests once they ve already become a problem, the bulk of the effort in an IPM program is made in prevention. The majority of pest problems are avoided altogether by pest-proofing the school buildings and grounds, maintaining good sanitation and making regular inspections, thus eliminating the need for most control measures. In many cases, the money saved on pest control makes up for investments in school maintenance, staff education, and sanitation. More importantly, IPM is healthier for the school s students and staff. An IPM system is clearly preferable for schools because it minimizes children s exposure to dangerous pesticides, more effectively controls pest populations, and improves the overall sanitation and structural integrity of school buildings. for the PCTs reference, and advises other school staff of pest occurrences and pest control measures that have been taken. Another important component of an IPM program is leaving pesticide application to trained and certified personnel. Teachers or other untrained and uncertified staff should never apply pesticides themselves. Unfortunately, teachers at many North Carolina schools reportedly keep cans of toxic bug spray in their classrooms for just such purposes. Keeping desks clean and food stored in pest-proof containers are appropriate and indeed necessary steps for teachers and school staff to make an IPM program successful. However, it is inappropriate for teachers and other untrained school staff to apply pesticides. Undocumented pesticide application may interfere with pest monitoring and endanger the safety of students and staff in the process. C. Proper notification Several states (including Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas and Illinois) have laws re q u i r i n g schools to notify parents before pesticides are used in schools. Some states exclude least-toxic formulations, such as baits, gels or boric acid from these requirements (SPRC and Beyond Pesticides 2003). No such law is in place in North Carolina, and only three of 60 responding school districts in this survey report notifying parents when pesticides are used in school. Many districts reported using pesticides frequently in classrooms and/or playgrounds, areas where children are most likely to be exposed. Several stated that notice was not given because pesticides are applied outside school hours, when students are not pre s e n t.

11 Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools H o w e v e r, notice is always necessary, since pesticide residues typically linger for days or even weeks after an application. Parents and school health officials should be notified before any pesticide applications occur so that pesticide exposure can be avoided, and any negative health effects can be quickly and appropriately treated. Parents, teachers, and other school staff have the right to know what chemicals are being used around them and their children. Proper notification before pesticide applications take place is an important part of the right-to-know process. D. Good record-keeping Keeping records of pest populations and actions taken is the cornerstone of a successful pest management program. According to IPM for North Carolina Schools, record keeping is an important management tool because it allows schools to determine whether their program s objectives are being met, allows for easy and informed decision-making about p ro c u rement of pest control supplies and equipment, reveals seasonal patterns in pest populations that make pest control planning easier, and preserves important information when there are changes in pest management staff (Nalyanya et al 2002). It is also important to track the costs of a pest control program to allow for adequate allocation of staff and resources. E. The written policy The importance of a written policy for school pest management cannot be overstated. A clear policy ensures that staff members understand the goals of the pest management program and their roles in it, while providing clear guidelines about safe pest management practices. If pest management is done by a private company on contract, the policy lets that company know exactly what is expected of it. A good policy also allows all members of the school community, including parents, teachers and school health officials, to participate in pest management decisions that affect them. A sample School IPM policy is available on our website at www.pested.org. toxic, carcinogens, endocrine disru p t o r s, re p roductive/developmental toxins, neuro t o x i n s, immunotoxins, and/or respiratory toxins (see Resources for guidance). Fortunately, high-risk practices like these are not necessary for safe, cost-effective pest management. When chemical treatment is deemed necessary to combat an existing pest problem, low-risk, low-toxicity formulations such as baits and crack-and-crevice treatments maximize contact with the pest populations while minimizing human exposure. Broadcast spraying of pesticides is less efficient, uses large quantities of potentially dangerous chemicals, and carries a high risk of student and staff exposure. Such practices should be replaced with monitoring, inspections, and targeted, least-toxic spot treatments when necessary. Creating and following an IPM policy that specifically prohibits the most toxic practices reduces potential conflicts, reduces liability, and virtually eliminates the risk of harm to children and staff. Conclusion Research on school pest control practices in North Carolina and around the country has shown that least-toxic pest control can be effectively implemented in public schools. IPM reduces the potential for staff and student exposure to pesticides at school, and is highly effective for controlling pests and preventing infestations. IPM requires that administrators, faculty, parents, students, and facilities staff commit to fulfilling their specific roles in order to ensure a safe, healthy school environment. This commitment is one that places health and safety first, but which has both qualitative and quantifiable benefits to public schools. F. What is not a part of School IPM There are certain pest control practices that are simply not appropriate for use in schools or other areas occupied by children. A good school pest management program should specifically prohibit: Pesticide use that is purely for aesthetic or cosmetic purposes; Calendar-based pesticide applications; Use of pesticides when children are present or will return to the area within 24 hours; Fogging, bombing, tenting, broadcast, or baseboard spraying of pesticides; Use of any pesticides known or suspected to be acutely

Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools 12 V. Recommendations Changing practices often requires an up-front investment at the administrative level. That investment can take different forms: funding, staff time, or simply a supportive environment. The following recommendations are intended to help administrators at both the local and state levels to facilitate smooth, productive transitions to school IPM. 1. Reduce risk and liability. School districts should not permit high-risk pest control practices in areas where children spend their days. NC school districts should eliminate their use of fogging, bombing, tenting, broadcast, or baseboard spraying of pesticides; the use of any pesticides known or suspected to be acutely toxic, carcinogens, endocrine disru p t o r s, reproductive/developmental toxins, neurotoxins, immunotoxins, and/or respiratory toxins (see Resources for guidance); the use of pesticides for cosmetic or aesthetic purposes, and spraying of pesticides on a calendar basis. These methods pose unnecessary risks to the health and safety of students and staff. 2. Safe, effective, accountable pest control contracts. Schools should take steps to improve the safety, effectiveness, and accountability of their private pest control contracts. This can include: a) Seeking alternatives to the low-bid system of choosing pest control contracts. Selection of a contractor should be based on adherence to a least-toxic pest management system, quality of pest control services, and cost. b) Extending the length of pest control contracts from oneto three-year contracts. Private companies will have more incentive to train staff in least-toxic pest management, as well as the opportunity to build on experience; and/or c) Move to an in-house system that utilizes trained and licensed school staff. 3. Improve communication. North Carolina school districts can improve communication between PCTs and the rest of school staff and students to ensure that all parties understand and fulfill their roles in safe and effective pest management. Steps to take: educating teachers, students, and other staff about pest prevention, and adopting pest logs to track pest activity and control measures. parties including staff, students, and parents. 5. Trained, licensed pesticide applicators. School staff (other than trained and licensed pest management staff) must be expressly prohibited from storing or applying pesticides at schools. While teachers should not be allowed to store and apply pesticides themselves, they must be included in decision-making and education efforts related to school IPM programs. 6. Support for start-up costs. While Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is generally a cost-effective method of pest control, there are always startup costs associated with the introduction of new practices. Schools should have access to financial support for the transition to an IPM program. Such funds could be directed from different sources, including child health and safety, staff development, structural improvements, or pesticide environmental funds. 7. End high-risk practices in our public schools. The state of North Carolina should specifically prohibit the use of high-risk pest control practices in public schools, child care facilities, or any public places occupied by child ren. This includes broadcast spraying of pesticides, including fogging, bombing, tenting, or baseboard spraying; the use of pesticides for cosmetic or aesthetic purposes; and calendar-based spraying 8. Notify parents and staff of pesticide applications. The right to know about toxic exposures is extremely important to both parents and school staff. North Carolina should mandate notification of all staff and parents before pesticides are applied in schools and child-care facilities. This information helps students and staff to avoid pesticide exposure, and helps parents and school nurses to quickly and correctly identify and treat any symptoms that arise as a result of accidental exposure. Schools should also be notified by pesticide users when pesticides will be applied on nearby farms, utilities, or other areas. 4. Adopt a pest control policy. All school districts in North Carolina should adopt a written pest control policy that requires least-toxic pest management and parental notification of pesticide use. The policy should clearly indicate who is responsible for pest control decisions, and should allow for input from all affected

13 Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools Participating School Districts Alamance-Burlington School System Alleghany County School District Anson County School District Ashe County School District Avery County School District Beaufort County School District Bladen County School District Buncombe County School District Burke County School District Cabarrus County School District Caldwell County School District Camden County School District Carteret County School District Catawba County School District Clay County School District Clinton City School District Columbus County School District Cumberland County School District Dare County School District Davidson County School District Davie County School District Durham County School District Edenton-Chowan School District Edgecombe County School District Elizabeth City/Pasquotank County School District Elkin City School District Gaston County School District Gates County School District Greene County School District Guilford County School District Henderson County School District Hertford County School District Hickory City School District Hoke County School District Hyde County School District Iredell-Statesville School District Lee County School District Lenoir County School District Macon County School District Montgomery County School District Moore County School District Nash-Rocky Mount School District New Hanover County District Northampton County School District Pender County School District Pitt County School District Polk County School District Richmond County School District Roanoke Rapids City School District Rowan-Salisbury School District Rutherford County School District Shelby School District Union County School District Warren County School District Weldon City School District Wilkes County School District Wilson County School District Winston Salem/Forsyth County School District Yadkin County School District Yancey County School District Appendix 1 References Abrams, Robert, Attorney General of New York State, 1993. Pesticides in Schools: Reducing the Risk. New York State Department of Law. Birnbaum, LS and Fenton SE, 2003. Cancer and developmental exposure to endocrine disruptors. Environmental Health Perspectives 111(4):389-94. Childproofing our Communities Campaign, 2001. Poisoned Schools: Invisible Threats, Visible Actions. Center for Health, Environment, and Justice. Daar, Sheila et al, 1997. IPM for Schools: A How-to Manual. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. EPA 909-B-97-001. Gilliland FD et al, 2003. Early life risk factors for asthma: findings from the children s health study. International Conference of the American Thoracic Society, Mini-symposium D011. May 21, 2003. (Abstract available at http://www.abstracts2view.com/ats) Guillette EAet al, 1998. An anthropological approach to the evaluation of preschool children exposed to pesticides in Mexico. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(6):347-53. Gurunathan, Somia et al. 1998. Accumulation of Chlorpyrifos on Residential Surfaces and Toys Accessible to Children. Environmental Health Perspectives 106:1. Karel, Billie. October 2003. Personal communications with facilities management personnel at Hoke, Pender, Hertford and Montgomery County Schools. Lilley, Steve, 1999. A Pest Management Survey of North Carolina Public Schools. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Ma, X et al, 2002. Critical windows of exposure to household pesticides and risk of childhood leukemia. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(9):955-60. Nalyanya, Godfrey et al, 2002. Integrated Pest Management for North Carolina Schools. NC Cooperative Extension Service. http://ipm.ncsu.edu/urban/cropsci/schoolipm/schoolipm_manual.pdf. Nalyanya, Godfrey and Lilley, Steve, 2002. Pest Control Practices in North Carolina Public Schools. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Office of Pesticide Programs, 1993. Pest Control in the School Environment: Adopting Integrated Pest Management. US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 735-F-93-012. School Pesticide Reform Coalition and Beyond Pesticides, 2003. Safer Schools: Achieving a Healthy Learning Environment Through Integrated Pest Management. van Wijngaarden E, Stewart, PA, Olshan, AF, Savitz, DA, Bunin, GR 2003. Parental occupational exposure to pesticides and childhood brain cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 157(11):989-97. Wood, David G., 1999. Use, Effects, and Alternatives to Pesticides in Schools. United States General Accounting Office. School Superintendent Insider, 2002. Protect Students, Save Money with Integrated Pest Management Program. Brownstone Publishers, Inc.

Clean Schools, Safe Kids: Striving for Safer Pest Management in NC Public Schools 14 Appendix 2 Resources for More Information Current Scientific Information on Pesticides & Environmental Health Issues Carcinogens: International Agency for Research on Carcinogens http://193.51.164.11/monoeval/grlist.html Reproductive & Developmental Toxins: California Prop. 65 List www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html Endocrine Disruption: Colborn List www.ourstolenfuture.org/basics/chemlist.htm Neurotoxicity: California DPR (for pesticides registered in CA) www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur98rep/tables05.htm Acute Toxicity: US EPA Pesticide Product Information System (PPIS). www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/ppisdata/index.html MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) and pesticide labels www.cdms.net/manuf/manuf.asp Environmental Health News Daily news on environmental health issues from media outlets around the world. www.environmentalhealthnews.org Collaborative on Health & Environment Discussion of the latest peer-reviewed science on environmental relationships to human health. www.protectingourhealth.org Rachel s Environmental Health Weekly Weekly essays on environmental health topics; searchable archives. www.rachel.org National Center for Environmental Health Centers for Disease Control Basic information on a wide range of environmental health topics; some available in Spanish. www.cdc.gov/nceh Pesticide Action Network Rich, searchable database of pesticide information. www.pesticideinfo.org ExToxNet The Extension Toxicology Network Toxicological fact sheets for pesticides and other environmental contaminants. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/ Safer Pest Management for Schools School Pesticide Reform Coalition Washington, DC (202) 543-5450 Resources for schools and parents around the US interested in IPM. www.toxicfreeschools.org IPM Institute of North America Madison, WI (608) 232-1528 Technical information for IPM practicioners and IPM certification for schools. www.ipminstitute.org Healthy Schools Pesticide Action Kit Washington Toxics Coaliton; Seattle, WA (206) 632-1545 Resources for parents and teachers interested in moving their schools to IPM. www.watoxics.org US Environmental Protection Agency Federal regulatory information related to IPM. www.epa.gov/pesticides/ipm/index.htm Kids Environmental Health Organizations Asthma Alliance of NC Raleigh, NC (919) 715-3960 Association of county-based asthma coalitions. www.lungnc.koz.com/lungnc/ncasthma Center for Health, Environment & Justice Falls Church, VA (703) 237-2249 Environmental health tools for students at all grade levels. www.greenflagschools.org Resources for Alternatives to Pesticides Beyond Pesticides Toxicological and environmental fact sheets on pesticides, news, and special reports on pesticide issues. www.beyondpesticides.org Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides In-depth toxicological and environmental profiles of specific pesticides; detailed articles on alternatives. www.pesticide.org Bio-Integral Resource Center Publications on pesticide alternatives for IPM practicioners. www.birc.org

Clean Schools, Safe Kids a survey and report by: Agricultural Resources Center & Pesticide Education Project Toxic-Free Schools Project November 2003 To order additional copies of this report: free in North Carolina $5.00 out of state Agricultural Resources Center 206 New Bern Place, Raleigh NC 27601 (919) 833-1123 www.pested.org