Proposal/Project Management System (PPMS)

For 2020 and newer grants, please go to https://grants.ipmcenters.org/

Home Current RFAs PD User Guide Projects Login

Funded Project

Funding Program: IPM Partnership Grants

Project Title: Expanding School IPM Implementation within the Northeastern United States: a Best Management Practices Approach

Project Director (PD):

Lynn Braband [1]

Lead State: NY

Lead Organization: Cornell University

Cooperating State(s): Maryland, Rhode Island

Undesignated Funding: $42,650

Start Date: Apr-01-2013

End Date: Feb-28-2014

Site/Commodity: Schools

Summary: Schools need help in adopting IPM practices. While numerous school IPM resources exist, the need exists for succinct, yet comprehensive, guidance documents and training for practitioners. This project will evaluate, incorporate, and augment existing resources in the development of a school IPM best management practices (BMP) document. We will pilot the document in train-the-trainer events in 3 states and systematically evaluate the document and training events. The project will strengthen and expand the multiplication of verifiable IPM to all schools throughout the 3 states and the Northeast by 2015.

Objectives: 1) Develop a best management practices (BMP) document for school IPM implementation..
2) Pilot the BMP document in several train-the-trainer events.
3) Evaluate the BMP document and train-the-trainer events.

Final Report:

Impacts
Our project addressed goals of the IPM Roadmap for human and environmental health impacts, economic impacts and IPM implementation impacts as outlined below. A logic model description of the project is in Appendix 7.

Safeguarding Human Health and the Environment. Our project led to improved resources and training which should increase the number of schools practicing high-level IPM, thereby safeguarding human health and the environment. Schools will be encouraged to utilize pest-prevention and pest monitoring to reduce reliance on pesticides and to select least-risk control methods to minimize risks of human exposure to pests and pesticide. IPM practicing schools are likely to have improved indoor air quality and playgrounds and athletic fields that are safer for play.

Economic Benefits. School IPM implementation is sometimes more difficult to quantify. Studies have shown that IPM can save money in the long-term. Therefore we anticipate that our project benefited schools, and thus taxpayers and communities competing for tax dollars.

Implementation of IPM. By providing a succinct, yet comprehensive, BMP tool, we enhanced collaboration among IPM practitioners, educators, school administrators, athletic directors, custodial and maintenance staff and other school staff. Increasing the capability of multipliers (i.e. change agents) to facilitate IPM adoption fits the innovation-decision model of school IPM implementation. This model of knowledge diffusion has been shown to be an effective means of changing behaviors to adopt improved practices.

Outcomes
The major vetting of our project was the systematic evaluation of the BMP website at school IPM train-the-trainer workshops in New York State (NYS), Maryland (MD), and Rhode Island (RI) and two focus groups, one each in Maryland and New York State. These events collectively spanned a five-month period; thus participants reviewed various drafts of the website. Examples of the agendas and evaluation forms are in Appendices 2 and 3. Appendix 4 contains the results of the evaluations.

The major target audiences of the train-the-trainer workshops were multipliers, such as health officials, extension educators, and IPM coordinators, who teach others about school IPM. Our partners in each state did the marketing for their respective workshop. This resulted in the actual audiences varying in size and make-up. The NYS and RI workshops each had between ten and twenty participants, while the MD workshop had almost 100. Collectively, the employment background of the participants was very diverse but was dominated by school facility staff, health and safety officials, and state regulatory agency personnel.

The two focus groups were each kept at around ten people who were specifically invited by project partners in the two states. The target audiences were people who actually implement IPM in schools and included custodial staff, pest control operators, and grounds staff. The participants in the MD focus group were from structural pest control companies, turf management businesses, school facility and custodial staff, and county parks personnel. The NYS focus group participants were pest control operators, school facilities and custodial staff, college facilities staff, and an extension educator.

At the beginning of four of the five events, we asked the participants to fill out a grid (Appendix 5) designed to assess their perspectives concerning the needs in school IPM. The grid was designed after the first event, the NYS train-the-trainer workshop, and was in response to interaction during that workshop. Twenty-three people turned in grids in the two Maryland events, five during the RI workshop, and nine from the NYS focus group. Collectively, respondents indicated that major needs concerning IPM implementation were time and financial constraints, technical knowledge, and lack of regulatory knowledge.

Participants in all three states ranked the train-the-trainer workshops as valuable and relevant to their respective roles concerning school IPM implementation (Appendix 4). The BMP was ranked in all five events according to its need, organization, accuracy, ease of use, flexibility, and utility, and scored high in all of these categories (Appendix 6). Comments from the participants (Appendix 4) provided important input in subsequent modifications of the website and its content and included the perspective that the value of the website will greatly depend on its being supported and kept up-to-date.

Participants in the train-the-trainer workshops were asked to compose brief plans-of-work on how they would reach their constituencies over the next year concerning school IPM. Along with the results of the needs grid assessments, these plans-of-work will be submitted to our state partners for their follow-up, if desired. In NYS, we plan to remind the workshop participants of their plans during the summer of 2014 and ask for specific feedback during the following fall. Collectively among all three states, these plans include developing systems and networks to implement IPM, outreach to school administrators including on the need to support turf cultural practices, and outreach to school staff including teachers and coaches. Other plans include outreach to PTA organizations and other health inspectors. Some of the plans will utilize EPAs Tools for Schools, integrate IPM into asthma prevention efforts, and provide IPM resources during other inspections (lead, radon, asbestos). Some specific action points are to write an article for the local newspaper on the schools IPM program, provide seasonal pest information sheets to constituencies, and prepare a short video for outreach to students.

Report Appendices

PDF

Close Window


Northeastern IPM Center 340 Tower Road Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 NortheastIPM.org		Developed by the Center for IPM © Copyright CIPM 2004-2026