U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 10

State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews

EPA-910-R-16-004April 2016

ii United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 2016

State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews iii

Acknowledgements

EPA thanks Roy Fillyaw, Emily Hall, Jenna Larkin, and Miriam Zakem, EPA interns from Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs, who conducted the interviews that served as the basis for this document and who provided substantial contributions to its preparation during the summer of 2015.

EPA acknowledges the following individuals for their input on this project:

� Nancy Bernard, School Environmental Health and Safety Program Manager, Washington State Department of Health

� Megan Dunn, Healthy People and Communities Program Director, Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides

� Carrie Foss, Urban IPM Director, Washington State University

� Thomas Green, Ph.D., President, IPM Institute of North America

� Dawn Gouge, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Associate Specialist – Urban Entomology, University of Arizona

� Janet Hurley, Extension Program Specialist III- School IPM, Texas A&M Agrilife Extension Service

� Marc Lame, Ph.D., Clinical Professor, Indiana University

Finally, EPA thanks each interviewee who graciously responded to questions about their state program and the impacts of their state’s school IPM or related health and safety laws.

Disclaimer

This document is informational in nature and summarizes the views and opinions of interviewees. It does not represent official EPA policy, positions, or views. EPA is not promulgating school IPM regulation and takes no stand on whether any state should, or should not, pursue school IPM legislation. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.

The document does not provide a comprehensive summary of all state school IPM legislation, information on tribal school IPM laws, or detailed information on pesticide safety regulations, such as posting, notification, and recordkeeping. While federal legislation can serve to establish minimal standards, state legislation may reflect their unique social, political, and economic climate.

iv United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 2016

vState School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews

ContentsAcknowledgements .....................................................................................................................iiiDisclaimer ....................................................................................................................................iiiPurpose ........................................................................................................................................1Background .................................................................................................................................1Interviewees ................................................................................................................................1State School IPM Legislation Components ...............................................................................2

Intent .................................................................................................................................................. 2Facilities Addressed .......................................................................................................................... 2Funding ............................................................................................................................................... 3Measuring Progress........................................................................................................................... 3Accountability ..................................................................................................................................... 4Enforcement....................................................................................................................................... 4Recordkeeping ................................................................................................................................... 5IPM Policy / Plan ................................................................................................................................ 5IPM Coordinator ................................................................................................................................. 6Training ............................................................................................................................................... 7Outreach Resources .......................................................................................................................... 7Implementation Tools ........................................................................................................................ 8

Potential Collaborations .............................................................................................................8Table 1. School IPM Legislation Components ...........................................................................9Related Health and Safety Laws in Schools ..............................................................................11

States with School Pesticide Safety Requirements ......................................................................... 11FDA Food Code .................................................................................................................................. 11Jarod’s Law ........................................................................................................................................ 12State School Green Cleaning Laws .................................................................................................. 12

Appendix A: Interview Questions and Summaries ....................................................................14Guiding Questions ............................................................................................................................. 14Arizona ................................................................................................................................................ 14California ............................................................................................................................................ 15Illinois ................................................................................................................................................. 16Tennessee .......................................................................................................................................... 17Louisiana ............................................................................................................................................ 17Maine ................................................................................................................................................. 18Massachusetts .................................................................................................................................. 19New Jersey ......................................................................................................................................... 19Oregon ................................................................................................................................................ 20Utah .................................................................................................................................................... 21

Works Cited .................................................................................................................................21

vi United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 2016

State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews 1

Purpose

EPA Region 10 (Pacific Northwest) developed this document to provide information that may be of use to states considering the development of integrated pest management (IPM) legislation as a strategy for increasing IPM implementation in schools.

Background

This document was developed primarily by EPA interns through a series of interviews with people who work on school IPM implementation within their respective states. Members of the Western Region School IPM Working Group, National School IPM Working Group, and school IPM stakeholders in Washington State identified interview candidates who work for state pesticide regulatory agencies, university extension programs, state departments of health, school districts, non-profit organizations, and EPA. Interviewees were selected because their states have a diverse set of school IPM laws including, but not limited to, laws focused on training, health inspections, and self-reporting. Interviewees selected for this project were limited by their availability and willingness to share information at the time of the project, and by EPA compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Interviewees

Interviews were conducted with the following people during the summer of 2015 using a series of guiding questions. Appendix A contains the questions and interview summaries.

� Kathy Murray, Ph.D., School IPM Coordinator, Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

� Trevor Battle, School IPM Coordinator, Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources

� Kevin Wofford, Director of Pesticides, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry

� Tom Babb, Pesticide Program Division Supervisor, California Department of Pesticide Regulation

� Lisa Estridge, Pesticide Program Division Supervisor, California Department of Pesticide Regulation

� Ron Marsden, Environmental Sanitation Program Manager, Utah Department of Health Services

� Ruth Kerzee, Executive Director, Midwest Pesticide Action Center

� Andrew Fridley, Sr., Manager of Environmental Health and Safety, Portland Public School Districts

� Karen Vail, Ph.D.,* Professor and Urban Entomologist, University of Tennessee Extension

� Dawn Gouge, Ph.D.,* Associate Professor and Associate Specialist – Urban Entomology, University of Arizona

� Marcia Anderson, Ph.D., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center of Expertise for School IPM

*Works in a state without a school IPM law; therefore, they provided information regarding the pesticide-related laws that are supportive of IPM practices in their states’ schools.

United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 20162

State School IPM Legislation Components

The following were identified as important components of state school IPM legislation:

� Intent

� Facilities Addressed

� Funding

� Measuring Progress

� Accountability

� Enforcement

� Recordkeeping

� IPM Policy/Plan

� IPM Coordinator

� Training

� Outreach

� Implementation Tools

Each component is discussed in detail in the following section along with the considerations for their inclusion in a state school IPM legislation.

Intent

Stakeholders developing a law should have a mutual understanding of the primary intent of the law before determining its components to keep the law focused. The most common intents of the laws mentioned during the interviews were:

� intent to protect children’s health

� intent to increase education and awareness about IPM

� intent to regulate the use of pesticides and reduce the use of harmful chemicals

� right-to-know about pesticide use

IPM programs work by reducing pest conducive conditions (sources of food, water, and shelter in the school environment) to prevent pests; therefore, states should consider a declaration of intent consistent with this principle. Some of the states added amendments to their law over time to address new audiences or to expand the intent of the law (examples: Illinois, California).

Facilities Addressed

All of the states interviewed had laws that applied to public K-12 schools, but some laws also applied to private schools and/or childcare centers. The benefits to including more types of facilities include protecting more children, and, when including childcare centers, protecting a younger, more vulnerable population. However, expanding the law also requires additional resources and partners.

� In Illinois, the Department of Children and Family Services uses the adoption of IPM as a condition for licensing and childcare reference and referral agencies for outreach.

� Massachusetts works closely with the Office of Early Education to get daycares to submit an IPM plan before getting a license.

� In Arizona, different agencies are responsible for inspections- Arizona Department of Agriculture inspects schools and Arizona Department of Health inspects childcare facilities. Arizona’s law was also expanded to include commercial food preparation and medical facilities.

State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews 3

� In California, when childcare centers were added to the intended audience of the Act in 2008, additional funding was provided to include another staff member to work with the centers.

� In Oregon, the law applies to Head Start centers, private schools and community colleges. A stakeholder group provided input on what facilities should be included.

Funding

Interviewees agree that over the long term, schools will save money by implementing an IPM program. Unfortunately, most of the IPM laws discussed provided little to no funding to support the transition to IPM programs or for capital and maintenance improvements, staff or education.

School IPM laws may be hindered unless funding is made available for the following activities:

� Training: allows states to provide more education to more schools. Specifically funds could provide time and travel for extension, state employees, nonprofits, or contractors to provide IPM training to school districts.

� Enforcement costs: time and travel for the state to conduct inspections or compliance assistance specifically to schools on the law. Ideally, state inspectors would have time devoted to school visits and be engaged in compliance assistance.

� Implementation in schools: implementing structural and administrative changes like the physical work of exclusion, sanitation, etc., hiring IPM coordinators, and drafting new policies and procedures. States

could provide funding for schools that demonstrate that they are doing IPM to reward progress, as opposed to just penalizing noncompliance.

� Measuring progress: designating someone to take on the often complicated job of tracking implementation in schools through inspections, audits, surveys, or other tools.

A comprehensive study focused on the costs and benefits that arise from adopting an IPM law is needed. EPA is funding a project to assess the economics of implementing a school IPM program. However, the project will not address the costs and benefits of legislation.

Measuring Progress

The success of an IPM law can be measured in various ways including, but not limited to:

� Increased IPM education/training efforts

� Increased documentation of monitoring and pest identification

� Decreased use or changes in pesticide use patterns

� Decrease in pest complaints

� Increased understanding of IPM and how to implement it

� Reporting or submission of IPM policies and plans to the agency responsible for law oversight

However, most state contacts interviewed lacked a method to track statewide implementation and progress. There were exceptions, such as the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s School IPM surveys. They are now hoping to rely on using the pesticide use reporting component of their school IPM law to

United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 20164

analyze and compare what is working and what is not. Surveys require time and effort to design appropriate questions, obtain a high response rate, and analyze results.

In some states non-profits and universities have independently tracked and measured results. State officials should consider checking if similar efforts are happening in their own states.

Many states did not have a program, person, or funding dedicated to tracking progress, as the law did not assign or designate anyone with this duty. Some states found it difficult to measure a school’s or inspector’s efforts in using IPM strategies before choosing to use pesticides. It can also be difficult or impractical to inspect all sites, which leads to a reliance on self-reporting without oversight.

Accountability

Effective legislation should include clear roles and responsibilities for each component of the legislation including tracking and reporting. When enforcement/education/inspection duties are appointed jointly to various organizations such as Departments of Agriculture, Departments of Health, other state environmental officials, and universities, the legislation should clarify who is responsible for coordination and communication. For example, the Utah Department of Health drafted the Utah school IPM law, but the local health departments are charged with implementation.

Any funded entity or resource should be held accountable for increasing the adoption of sustainable school IPM programs. This can be done in various ways, such as directly funding training, providing model resources

and examples, and funding a person in charge of coordinating statewide efforts to report and track progress. States should consider having the entity accountable for the program’s success report to an oversight body regarding how this funding allocation is being used to accomplish the goal.

Enforcement

States face challenges in enforcing regulatory school IPM laws due to:

� Lack of funding

� Limited or lack of inspectors focused on school inspections

� Lack of, or limited, enforcement authority

� Lack of penalties for non-compliance

Most state contacts interviewed do not report financial penalties or legal ramification for school districts being out of compliance with their school IPM legislation requirements. Even though school IPM is legally mandated in some states, there may not be any enforcement action to address non-compliance, other than some state inspectors may provide technical guidance. States are generally unable to enforce a law if there are no penalties written in the legislation or if enforcement authority is provided to an agency with no resources. However, state legislation can help school custodial staff, groundskeepers and the IPM coordinator get recognition and support for their program from teachers, kitchen staff, school nurses, and the school board. This added internal peer support for implementing an IPM program leads to a stronger self-regulated program, which may make outside enforcement less necessary.

State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews 5

States should consider developing partnerships between the school IPM legislation implementers and the state lead agency responsible for the enforcement of state pesticide laws or state health laws to augment enforcement resources. All schools and licensed childcare centers are inspected by health departments who must document critical health and safety violations; therefore, states should consider collaborating with these health and safety programs as a way to determine if pest conducive conditions are being addressed in the schools. Utah, for example, is unique in that half of the local health departments are able to enforce the School IPM rule at the same time that they do routine school food safety inspections and enforcement.

The resources needed for an enforcement program largely depend on the number of schools and the geographic area inspectors must cover. States may have other resource constraints that make it impractical to inspect all sites. States may have to rely on self-reporting, conduct random inspections or audits, or require districts submit their IPM plans to the overseeing agency to minimize the need for enforcement-related site visits. Massachusetts requires IPM plans to be available online to the public, which enables the local communities to fulfill the oversight role.

Regardless of who does the oversight, inspection protocols should be consistent across the state so that it is easy to measure progress. States should implement standard protocols to compare inspections from year to year, which enables the identification of areas for improvement.

States must make sure that their inspection findings can determine whether a school has an IPM program in place and if their plan/policy is being followed. Inspectors may

have to rely on recordkeeping requirements in order to make a determination if a school district is monitoring for pest activity and pest conducive conditions. Inspection results and general pest or pesticide use reporting to a state wide department or university can also provide important annual usage and trend information.

Recordkeeping

Monitoring for pest activity and pest conducive conditions is an essential component of an IPM program. Maine requires schools to keep a pest management activity log that includes pest sighting, monitoring, IPM steps taken, and pesticide use. States should consider including recordkeeping requirements in School IPM legislation as a way for inspectors and implementers to monitor the performance of an IPM program. However, states should also consider the burden of these reporting requirements.

IPM Policy / Plan

An IPM Policy sets out district IPM goals and requirements, while an IPM Plan determines actions that ensure the goals and requirements set out in the policy will be met. Plans are site-specific and comprehensive in nature. An IPM plan can, for example, address and detail the components of the district policy, discuss the decision-making process for any pest mitigation effort, include methods for monitoring for pest activity and pest conducive conditions, reporting pest sightings, action levels for the use of pesticides, or list approved low hazard/toxicity products and methods by pest.

United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 20166

Some interviewees reported that their state had district policy requirements and some had requirements for district plans with specific components. For example:

� Illinois requires a written plan with a policy statement.

� Maine requires that the school(s) policy be school board-approved.

� Massachusetts requires school districts to have both an indoor and outdoor IPM plan

States can help schools overcome challenges in implementing effective programs. For example, states can provide templates or forms that schools can fill out to be in compliance. There is a risk that a school would use the pre-made form without actually taking action or modifying the example so it works for their unique setting. Adding fillable spaces in plans could prevent schools from simply copying and pasting examples (see the California and Oregon examples below). Massachusetts has an online interactive tool for school districts to create their plans. States can also consider creating different model plans for different audiences to better meet their needs. For example, Oregon differentiated between small and large schools districts by creating two unique model plans and California provides a model plan specifically for childcare centers.

States should be aware that a school may submit a written plan to the state but due to a variety of reasons, the plan may not actually be implemented at the school. States should consider how to monitor and enforce whether a required school IPM plan or policy is implemented and what the reasonable consequences for noncompliance should be.

Below are example/model IPM policies and plans, including some from states in which they are required:

� EPA Model School IPM Policy

� Maine Sample IPM Policy

� New Jersey Model School IPM Policy

� California Model IPM Plan for Schools

� California Model IPM Plan for Childcare Centers

� Oregon Model School IPM Plan for Small Districts

� Oregon Model School IPM Plan for Large Districts

� Louisiana Sample IPM Plan

� Arizona Cooperative Extension IPM Template

IPM Coordinator

The majority of interviewed states with an IPM law required that each school district have a designated IPM coordinator. An IPM coordinator is seen as a critical component of an IPM program in a school because that person takes ownership of the school’s pest management program. Duties could include:

� Keeping records of complaints, monitoring and applications

� Being familiar with pest threats, pest conducive conditions; as well as Pest Vulnerable Areas (PVAs) of the school

� Interacting with a pest management professional before, during, or after their visit

� Deciding when and where pesticides will be applied

� Responding to staff or parent questions on IPM

State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews 7

To prevent undocumented pesticide use, Maine requires IPM coordinators to authorize and sign for every non-exempted pesticide application. The majority of interviewed states also require that the coordinator is trained. Mandatory training is discussed in the following section. In addition to an IPM Coordinator, school districts could be required to have an IPM committee, risk management team, sustainability committee, or other similar committee that would provide guidance, education, and support for the program. Massachusetts, for example, requires schools to include the name and contact information of the school’s IPM committee in their IPM plan.

Training

The interviewees mentioned the following components for an effective training or education program:

� Designated/appropriated funding

� Dedicated trainers/coordinators

� Appropriate training models for the situation of the state

� Content with an emphasis on school IPM (not just pesticide safety) and unique conditions of schools and topic of children’s health

� Engaging walkthroughs—hands-on experiences that pull people in

� Training that provides Continuing Education Units (CEUs)

� Minimum number of required training hours

An IPM training program needs to provide schools with information on how to prevent pests by reducing pest conducive conditions,

one of the main tenets of IPM. As a possible model, states can look at training already provided to environmental health and safety staff who visit schools; the National Environmental Health Association, for example, offers IPM-specific CEUs. States also should carefully consider the pros and cons of trainings that are not in person. In-person, hands-on training is most effective, but states should consider providing online training events that are accessible to schools without resources for travel, such as in remote, rural schools. States have to weigh tradeoffs of effectiveness and accessibility when considering mandatory training as part of their school IPM legislation. Through an EPA grant, on-line and in-class Stop School Pests education materials will be available for all school community members; the education materials will be available in 2016.

Outreach Resources

States should devote resources to conduct outreach to schools and other stakeholders, such as IPM contractors, pest management professionals, and landscapers, regarding the need for the law, how it works, and the problems it addresses. Messages communicated through outreach should address where the law is housed and how schools can access resources. California, for example, developed a video about the requirements of their state’s school IPM law, part of their online school IPM video series. This series also introduces remote school districts to IPM and reduced risk pest management.

Employee turnover at schools was repeatedly identified as a major challenge. Providing outreach to all levels of school staff, including grounds, administration,

United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 20168

and schools nurses, can encourage multiple champions within a district. Schools often request on-site technical assistance from University Extension programs; however, University Extension is generally not funded for these services. Funding non-profits to provide outreach can also be a cost-effective way to educate schools and childcare centers. For accountability purposes, the law should identify who is responsible for conducting outreach and provide funding to ensure those efforts are implemented.

Implementation Tools

School districts need tools to support the implementation of school IPM legislation. States should consider identifying an organization responsible for offering tools for implementers. The tools required would depend on the components of the state law, but may include model plans, record keeping tools, and lists of approved low-impact chemicals. Recordkeeping tools can help schools track and evaluate their programs and make recordkeeping worthwhile and auditable.

States should consider how to help schools manage contracts with pest management professionals (PMPs) in the context of the school IPM legislation. States should also consider if there are tools needed that would help PMPs and those enforcing pesticide use regulations in schools. PMP practices are regulated by state and federal pesticide safety laws (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act). States should consider if the school IPM legislation will add requirements for PMPs.

Potential Collaborations

In addition, or as an alternative to an IPM law, states can encourage IPM by working with environmental health partners. Suggestions include collaborating with the fire marshal, food safety inspectors, building code enforcement, school insurance providers, school employee unions, and school architects to design pest resistant buildings. As mentioned in the enforcement section, all schools and licensed childcare centers are inspected by health departments who must document critical health and safety violations. States should consider collaborating with these health and safety programs to determine if pest conducive conditions are being addressed in the schools.

Many state organizations can also help promote school IPM including state associations / agencies of school business officials, school administrators, social services, childcare reference and referral, public health, waste management, indoor air quality, county extension and entities that provide continuing education at the county level. These organizations are also potential partners in drafting IPM legislation.

9State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews

Table 1. School IPM Legislation Components

Component Design Options Benefits Costs Comments

Intent N/A Mutual understanding of the primary intent of the law

Time to negotiate with stakeholders.

Common intents: right-to-know about pesticide use, protect children’s health, increase education and awareness about IPM, regulate the use of pesticides and reduce the use of harmful chemicals. States should consider a declaration of intent consistent with the principle that IPM programs prevent pests by reducing pest conducive conditions.

Facilities Addressed

K-12 public/private schools and/or childcare centers

Expanding universe will protect more children and/or younger population

Expanding universe will require additional resources and partners

Many state laws apply to both schools and childcare centers (ex: Arizona, Illinois, California, Oregon); Many state laws apply to both public and private schools (ex: Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon)

Funding Designate funding for any of the components of the law

Resources to ensure law is executed effectively

Costs associated with activities and materials

Measuring progress Designating an agency to use surveys or inspections to measure success; determining what will be measured.

Evaluating effectiveness of the law

Surveys and inspections are resource intensive

Measures of success may include, but not be limited to:

Increased IPM education efforts

Increased documentation of pest monitoring

Decreased pesticide use

Decreased pest complaints

Increased understanding of IPM and its implementation

Reporting or submission of IPM policies and plans to oversight agency

Accountability Legislative language should be specific regarding who is accountable for specific activities.

Ensuring that the funded entity or resource is truly working to increase the adoption of verifiably sustainable school IPM programs

Assumption that if one party is designated to do a particular task, others may not need to be involved.

Lack of accountability and enforcement was repeatedly voiced as a challenge for school IPM implementers.

Enforcement Designating the individual/position accountable for enforcement; having a penalty written in the legislation; providing fiscal resources to support the state enforcement inspections

Ensuring compliance

Time and travel for the state to conduct inspections and/or compliance assistance

Lack of accountability and enforcement was repeatedly voiced as a challenge for school IPM implementers.

10 United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 2016

Component Design Options Benefits Costs Comments

Recordkeeping Requiring a school district to keep pest monitoring records

Allows inspectors to ensure monitoring is occurring and that pesticide applications are made in response to a documented pest problem.

Additional time and reporting burden for schools.

Maine requires pest management activity records (pest sighting logs, pest monitoring records and pest management action logs) be kept for two years. These records must be made available for review by inspectors.

IPM policy / plan Directing the development of a model plan or policy; providing required elements in a plan or policy

Institutionalizes program in schools; directs facilities to have site-specific plans.

Districts do not always have the time or resources to fully implement their policy/ plan.

Some districts may use a model policy but not modify for their district. Having a policy or plan does not guarantee compliance or ensure IPM implementation. Also policies and plans serve different purposes.

IPM Coordinator Require the coordinator to: Interact with a pest control professional before, during or after their visit;

Keep records of complaints, monitoring and applications and respond to complaints;

Be familiar with pest threats and pressures; as well as Pest Vulnerable Areas (PVAs) of the facility;

Decide when and where pesticides will be applied;

Require the coordinator to be trained;

Require the coordinator to be reported to an overseeing agency

Ensures someone is taking ownership of the IPM program in the district.

None. Almost every state interviewed with an IPM law had a requirement that each district have an IPM coordinator designated. Most also had a requirement that the coordinator was trained. Another option may be requiring an IPM committee.

Training Directing an organization(s) to offer online training; in-classroom training for school staff; train-the-trainer

Training ensures IPM coordinator/contractor understands what IPM is and how to implement

Time and cost to provide trainings

Consider how Pest Management Professionals (PMPs) and contractors will be reached; Consider schools in remote areas

Outreach Resources

Directing an organization(s) to provide outreach materials; on-site technical assistance

encourage champions within a district/community

Time and cost to provide outreach

Consider how PMPs and contractors will be reached; Consider schools in remote areas

Tools for Implementers

Directing an organization(s) to offer tools for implementers; Examples include: List of low-risk pesticide products, model plans and/or policies, recordkeeping tools (e.g. database)

Increase ease to comply with law and have an effective IPM program

Someone needs to develop tools and ensure that tools are useful/ adaptable to the district’s needs

Portland (Oregon) Public Schools District developed own database tool for recordkeeping purposes; Consider tools for PMPs and inspectors as well

State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews 11

Related Health and Safety Laws in Schools

States with School Pesticide Safety Requirements

Pesticide posting, notification, and use recordkeeping requirements fulfill the right-to-know philosophy on pesticide use in schools. Some states require pesticide use records to be submitted to a state agency to understand what pesticides are being used, as well as when and where they are applied. Some interviewees mentioned that providing exemptions to reporting requirements for least-risk pesticides may be an important tool for encouraging their use over other pesticides. This is especially relevant to states without an IPM law but with other pesticide safety requirements.

Some interviewees also emphasized the importance of only allowing certified applicators to apply pesticides in schools and on school grounds to ensure proper pesticide safety practices are followed and to decrease pesticide-related liabilities. However, none of the interviewees from states with this requirement provided funding for schools to hire a pest management professional (PMP) or to receive pesticide applicator licensing. For a comprehensive summary and discussion of school pesticide safety requirements, see Regulating Pesticide Use in United States Schools (Hurley 2014).

FDA Food Code

The 2013 FDA Food Code applies to retail food business which include restaurants, retail stores, and institutions (schools). The food code includes regulations relevant to IPM and pesticide safety including

regulations on sanitation, food storage, controlling pests, removing pests, and using toxic materials. Specifically, the following sections may apply:

� 6-501.111 Controlling Pests. The presence of insects, rodents, and other pests shall be controlled to minimize their presence on the premises by:

� Routinely inspecting incoming shipments of food and supplies;

� Routinely inspecting the premises for evidence of pests;

� Using methods, if pests are found, such as trapping devices or other means of pest control as specified under §§ 7-202.12, 7-206.12, and 7-206.13; and

� Eliminating harborage conditions

� 6-501.112 Removing Dead or Trapped Birds, Insects, Rodents, and Other Pests. Dead or trapped birds, insects, rodents, and other pests shall be removed from control devices and the premises at a frequency that prevents their accumulation, decomposition, or the attraction of pests.

� 7-101.11 Identifying Information, Prominence. Containers of poisonous or toxic materials and personal care items shall bear a legible manufacturer’s label.

� 7-201.11 Separation poisonous and toxic materials shall be stored so they cannot contaminate food, equipment, utensils, linens, and single-service and single-use articles.

� 7-202.12 Conditions of Use Poisonous or toxic materials shall be used according to: (1) law and this Code, (2) Manufacturer’s use directions included in labeling, and, for a pesticide, manufacturer’s label instructions that

United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 201612

state that use is allowed in a food establishment, (3) The conditions of certification, if certification is required, for use of the pest control materials, and (4) Additional conditions that may be established by the regulatory authority; and Applied so that: (1) A hazard to Employees or other persons is not constituted, and (2) Contamination including toxic residues due to drip, drain, fog, splash or spray on food, equipment, utensils, linens, and single-service and single-use articles is prevented, and for a restricted use pesticide, this is achieved by: (a) Removing the items, (b) Covering the items with impermeable covers, or (c) Taking other appropriate preventive actions, and (d) Cleaning and sanitizing equipment and utensils after the application. (C) A restricted use pesticide shall be applied only by an applicator certified as defined in 7 USC 136(e) Certified Applicator, of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or a person under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.

� 7-206.13 Tracking Powders, Pest Control and Monitoring. (A) A tracking powder pesticide may not be used in a food establishment. (B) If used, a nontoxic tracking powder such as talcum or flour may not contaminate food, equipment, utensils, linens, and single-service and single-use articles.

� 7-206.12 Rodent Bait Stations. Rodent bait shall be contained in a covered, tamper-resistant bait station.

In the absence of a school IPM law, states, particularly food safety inspectors, may choose use the FDA Food Code to emphasize the importance of IPM and pesticide safety practices in schools.

Jarod’s Law

Jarod’s Law is a health and school safety law that was created in 2005, in response to the death of a young boy in a school in Lebanon, Ohio. The Ohio Department of Health drew up an exhaustive set of rules for school inspections that set a standard that many schools struggled to reach. The law was repealed in 2009, due to budget cuts and its high implementation cost. However, many of the requirements in the law were closely related to school IPM and addressed the waste, water and human activity issues that can provide pest conducive conditions. Jarod’s Law is an example of how a law that protects the health and safety of children at school can also limit the amount of pests and pesticides used in schools through a focus on pest prevention.

State School Green Cleaning Laws

The Center for Green Schools recently released a study analyzing green cleaning laws. Green cleaning generally refers to using cleaning products and procedures that are less harmful to human health and the environment. Since 2005, green cleaning laws have been adopted by 10 states and the District of Columbia. The paper, Perspectives on Implementation and Effectiveness of School Green Cleaning Laws (Arnold 2015), intended to determine the effectiveness of the implementation of these laws. The common attributes, similarities, and differences were all analyzed in the review of each law. The results found that the laws perceived as most effective included reporting requirements and mandates instead of simply encouraging the implementation of green cleaning. The most frequent challenges cited were

State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews 13

a lack of resources and support staff. Additionally, it was clear that in order to increase effectiveness, school-focused educational outreach must be used to create a broader awareness among school boards, administration, faculty, building maintenance staff, and school community.

United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 201614

Appendix A: Interview Questions and Summaries

Guiding Questions

� What are all the components of your state’s school IPM law?

� What was the original intent of the law?

� Did the law have funding attached? y More specifically, what attributes

are funded: education, staff time, travel, capital improvement? What departments receive funding?

� How is the law enforced? y Any timeline would be helpful. If

on-site inspections are conducted or required, how often?

y Are state lead agencies (IE agricultural agencies) mandated by state legislation to inspect?

� Is someone trying to measure progress in your state? If so, how?

y Are they able to determine whether schools are implementing IPM?

� How has the law been successful?

� What have been the challenges of the law?

� What are some of the unforeseen costs and/or consequences of the law?

� How could the law be improved in your opinion?

� Does the law ‘sunset’ or have an ending date?

� Do you have suggestions for someone else we should contact?

� Are you aware of other school environmental health work happening in your state that could have IPM components, such as food safety inspections or building code inspections?

y Does your work ever overlap?

Arizona

Interviewee: Dawn Gouge, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Associate Specialist – Urban Entomology, University of Arizona.

Arizona discussion focused on their school/childcare pesticide notification law (not a school IPM law):

Law: Senate Bill 1350; pesticide use posting and notification requirements with exemptions, pesticides only applied by licensed applicators, records of pesticide applications, expanded to include commercial food preparation areas and medical facilities.

Intent: provides information to parents and staff regarding what pesticides are being used in the school/childcare environment.

Funding: Arizona Department of Agriculture have two inspectors to provide compliance assistance to schools. Department of Agriculture communicates with Gouge if school IPM outreach is needed. Arizona Department of Health is responsible for inspecting childcare facilities but do not receive dedicated funding for inspectors.

Measuring Progress: The University school IPM team uses a school district survey every 2-3 years to track requirements as well as IPM implementation (not required). The IPM Institute of North America also collected survey data from states.

Successes: Helps school districts who look at legal compliance seriously, aware of what IPM resources are available to them.

Challenges: No budget outside of Department of Agriculture’s two compliance assistance staff. People request on-site training from Extension, not just fact

State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews 15

sheets, but there is no funding within the law for these efforts. Lack of education about the need for the law, how it works, and the problems it addresses is the biggest challenge to the success of the law. Lack of training regarding appropriate IPM practices.

California

Interviewees: Tom Babb, Pesticide Program Division Supervisor, California Department of Pesticide Regulation; Lisa Estridge, Pesticide Program Division Supervisor, California Department of Pesticide Regulation

Law: Healthy Schools Act; K-12 public schools and all licensed childcare centers must have a trained IPM coordinator (in 2016 IPM training will be required for anyone using a pesticide at a school), an IPM plan, list of pesticides expected to be used (DPR has a prohibited pesticide list), notification registry, warning signs posted, recordkeeping and reporting of pesticide applications, exemptions exist (least hazardous products)

Intent: right-to-know law for when pesticides are used at schools or child care centers

Funding: Originally, in 2000, the Healthy Schools Act provided CDPR with funding for three staff to implement the part of the law associated with outreach and education. Funding was also provided for contracted practitioners to provide hands on school IPM training. When childcare centers were added to the intended audience of the Act in 2008, additional funding was provided to include another staff member to work with childcare centers. In 2014 CDPR funds for

online training. Overall, some of the funds for this Act come in an on-going basis and some were just start-up funds.

Enforcement: No one is doing inspections. Pesticide safety requirements for schools (notification, posting, record keeping) are listed in the California education code, so DPR has no authority to enforce the education code. California Department of Education does not have an enforcement branch. If CDPR gets a compliant, they will follow-up with the school district and provide outreach and training as needed.

Measuring progress: CDPR does surveys. They have trained 68% of the school districts and roughly 70-80% have an IPM program in place. Also CDPR is using pesticide use reports to do comparisons. Eventually, CDPR plan to start own school IPM innovator program. Anecdotally, CDPR sees that there is an increase in IPM practices, such as use of caulking for exclusion.

Successes: law made schools aware of what IPM is and increased practical IPM measures through hands-on training. Training professionals make school IPM coordinators caulk cracks, set traps, etc. so really teaching by doing. UC IPM is doing specialized hands-on workshops for CDPR on turfgrass management and vertebrate pest management. Use online tools to reach remote schools and districts and provide tools for train-the-trainer approach. Finding that one person in the district who can be a change agent is critical, so outreach needs to reach out to all levels of the schools’ hierarchy.

Challenges: limited school budgets with district maintenance staff having competing priorities. CDPR lacks enforcement authority. California is a large state with a

United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 201616

lot of districts to cover. Turnover of trained staff has been a challenge. Also getting school staff to change behavior to things that may be more labor intensive (pulling weeds by hand as an example).

Collaborations: In California, childcare staff within CDPR have worked with Department of Public Health on a work-related asthma program to do outreach to school custodial staff on IPM. CalRecycle has a program for schools dealing with waste management which could be a potential way to promote IPM. Air Resources Board’s IAQ program—could be IPM component in that. Would like to incorporate these types of things into outreach and training. Schools often think of this as small percentage of what they do, but there is a bigger picture of maintaining healthy learning environments.

Illinois

Interviewee: Ruth Kerzee, Executive Director, Midwest Pesticide Action Center

Law: Structural Pest Control Act; Components- when economically feasible, public schools and licensed childcare centers must designate a staff “IPM Coordinator,” adopt, implement, and keep a written IPM Plan at the facility. Public schools and licensed day care centers are required to notify all parents/guardians and facility staff prior to pesticide applications or keep an updated registry of those that want to be notified.

Intent: educate schools about IPM and move them toward implementing.

Resources: The Illinois Department of Public Health has developed an IPM in Schools and Childcares Guide. Midwest Pesticide Action Center (MPAC) has additional resources including a Resource

Guide for IPM in Schools and Childcares. In addition, the Illinois Network of Child Care Resource and Referral Agency is providing continuing education credits to members that complete the MPAC created Integrated Pest Management in Child Care Facilities online training module through the Gateways Online Learning system.

Funding: originally there was funding for a state IPM coordinator and training for schools and childcares, however responsibility has been moved to a full time state entomologist and funding earmarked for education has been eliminated.

Enforcement: schools self-report if they are implementing IPM and must attend 8 hours of training every 5 years if not. The Illinois Department of Public Health sends out letters to assess compliance. Currently, there is no follow up to inspect or verify compliance.

Measuring progress: IPM coordinator tracks number of schools and childcares reporting compliance and attendance at mandatory training events. No other metrics are collected.

Successes: requires notification of families and staff so elevates level of education for entire school and childcare community.

Challenges: lack of funding for training schools and childcares, turnover of trained people, anyone can apply pesticides (do not need to be licensed), law requires developed IPM plan but no enforcement. State lacks the funds and commitment to fully implement and enforce the requirements of the law.

Collaborations: Association of School Business Officials, Association of School Administrators, Social Services, childcare reference and referral agencies, anyone that provides continuing education, pest

State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews 17

control industry. Illinois has nonprofits and University-based services within the state with the expertise to provide a cost effective technical assistance and training to schools and childcares. Collaborations between government and non-profits to provide needed service for IPM implementation should be considered.

Tennessee

Interviewee: Karen Vail, Ph.D., Professor and Urban Entomologist, University of Tennessee

Tennessee does not have an IPM law, but does have pesticide use requirements.

Laws: Pesticides in Food Preparation and Lodging Law; anyone who applies pesticides must be under the direct supervision of a person licensed to apply pesticides. Tennessee Code Annotated 49-2-121 encourages school districts to have an indoor air quality program to reduce use of products, such as adhesives, floor-care products, and pesticides, that require ventilation during use.

Discussion:

� Guidelines for schools adopting IPM on Web site (schoolipm.utk.edu); similar manual exists for child care centers

� Guidelines encourage schools to have an IPM policy, but nothing is mandated.

� University of Tennessee offers school IPM training to pest management professionals, facilities managers and other stakeholders and provides demonstrations to show schools how to implement IPM

� Enforcement of pesticide safety law is complaint driven through the Tennessee Department of Agriculture

� Funding: Vail has received funding from USDA and EPA (TDA) to promote voluntary adoption of school IPM

� Measuring Progress: A school district phone survey is conducted every other year to determine pest management practices. Survey results can be found at http://schoolipm.utk.edu/success_results.html.

� Successes: The first 10 schools in which we conducted demonstrations averaged an 85% reduction in monthly pyrethroid volume sprayed.

� Challenges: IPM not seen as a high priority during the current challenges to education.

Louisiana

Interviewee: Kevin Wofford, Director of Pesticides, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry

Law: Louisiana School Pesticide Safety Law; Public and private K-12 schools must have an IPM plan that includes all pesticides used and non-chemical options for control, all applicators must be certified, recordkeeping requirements for monitoring and applications, pesticide sensitive registry required

Intent: Original intent was to make sure that trained people were applying pesticides in schools, and then expanded from there.

Funding: No funding designated.

Enforcement/ Measuring progress: IPM plans are sent in to the Department of Agriculture and Forestry. Approximately 65% of schools get inspected.

United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 201618

Successes: Education has been critical so that people understand the effects of pesticides and what the law requires.

Challenges: Turnover in schools and limited funding for staff to do inspections

Maine

Interviewee: Kathy Murray, School IPM Program Coordinator, Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry

Law: Maine School IPM Law; all K-12 schools (public and private) must have a trained IPM coordinator, adopt a school board-approved IPM policy, only allow individuals with a license to apply pesticides, may only use pesticides as part of an IPM program, and have notification, posting, and recordkeeping practices with pesticide use.

Intent: Protect children’s health by minimizing the risk of exposure to pests and pesticides on school property.

Funding: The IPM law in Maine does not have any funding attached. Before the law, a survey showed that unlicensed school staff were applying pesticides (in violation of existing pesticide regulations) and that pesticides were being used on a scheduled basis in some instances. . However, since enactment of the law many schools now contract with a PMP for pest monitoring and management services. Anecdotally, Maine schools have reported no change or some savings in pest management costs since implementing IPM, in part due to reduced complaints and staff time.

Enforcement: The state has a pesticide inspection program that conducts approximately 100 school inspections (representing about 25% of schools) per year.

Measuring progress/Successes: Surveys and periodic assessment of inspections reports. Five pesticide inspectors in Maine, however not focused solely on schools and focused on pesticide use regulations rather than providing technical assistance on IPM. Surveys have shown that illegal pesticide use is down. School IPM coordinators must now receive training and schools are required to provide the name and contact information of their coordinator to the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry or to the Maine Department of Education (an amendment to the law) to ensure that IPM coordinators stay informed of training opportunities, new tools and resources. Approximately 90% of schools in Maine have appointed an IPM coordinator. Since a mandatory training requirement was adopted in 2013, 60% of public school IPM coordinators and 23% of those with private schools have received the training. The Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry School IPM Program plans to continue offering the training annually.

Challenges: Inspections sometimes show evidence of undocumented pesticide use in a school. To address this problem, the amended regulations now require the IPM coordinator to authorize and sign for every non-exempted (baits and crack/crevice applications) pesticide application. Another challenge is the difficulty in determining to what extent a school has actually used IPM before resorting to applying pesticides. Although inspectors use a standardized inspection form, it is used primarily to interview the IPM coordinator and review

State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews 19

the Pest Management Logbook. In general, inspectors do not inspect the building or grounds to evaluate IPM implementation or to look for evidence of pesticide use or misuse except in response to a complaint. Enhanced inspections that include inspecting kitchen, break rooms, custodial closets and utility rooms could help to identify and improve compliance with school IPM requirements. In addition, a pesticide-use or pesticide-records inspection to compare records and reports at a school with those provided by the contracted service provider could help to identify compliance problems. Providing an opportunity for inspectors to develop a standardized inspection method that includes a facilities inspection and comparison with PMP records would make it easier to compare inspections from year to year and see potential improvements or concerns.

Collaborations: Kathy Murray works with the Maine School Management Association (MSMA) which conducts on-site visits to its member schools to provide health and safety outreach including pesticide use/misuse. MSMA provides liability insurance to its member schools. She also works closely with other state agencies and the statewide professional association of school facilities managers. She suggested fire marshals, municipal code-enforcement officers, and other school insurance providers as additional potential collaborators to support school IPM adoption and compliance.

Massachusetts

Interviewee: Trevor Battle, School IPM Coordinator, Massachusetts Department of Agriculture

Law: Children’s and Families Protection Act; public and private K-12 schools and child care centers must have submitted both an indoor and outdoor IPM plan, only have licensed applicators apply pesticides, pesticides used is limited, and written notification requirement.

Intent: (language from law) “promote the implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Techniques and to establish those standards, requirements and procedures necessary to minimize the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment regarding the use of pesticides within a school, daycare center or school age child care program facility.”

Funding: No funding attached.

Enforcement: Department of Agriculture performs routine and periodic inspections of schools & daycare programs.

Measuring progress: Measure IPM plans submission requirement. Currently, IPM plans submission compliance near or above 95%.

Challenges: Competing priorities, some schools have more resources for things such as door sweeps, no funding for inspectors that focus specifically on schools.

Collaborations: State works closely with the Office of Early Education to get daycares to submit an IPM plan before getting a license. This has been effective for getting a high compliance rate.

New Jersey

Interviewee: Marcia Anderson, EPA Center of Expertise for School IPM (formerly with EPA Region 2)

United States Environmental Protection AgencyApril 201620

Law: New Jersey School IPM Act; applies to public and private k-12 schools, districts must have an IPM policy, there must be an IPM contract/coordinator, recordkeeping, reentry and notice requirements, applicators must be trained/licensed. There is also the Child Safe Playing Fields Act that restricts the use of pesticides on lawns and rec areas of schools during business hours.

Intent: To protect children health and provide IPM training to schools

Funding: Some funding for training through NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)

Enforcement: EPA does visits in coordination with NJDEP, targeting environmental justice areas. If EPA sees a violation, they inform the state DEP, who follows up. EPA always discusses their findings in writing along with suggestions for change with at least one of the school administrators.

Measuring progress: EPA and NJDEP communicate regarding what schools need work.

Successes: Provides legal authority when doing visits, areas that have outside champions (ex. PTAs) are more likely to have a plan in place.

Challenges: Funding for travel, getting into schools can be a challenge sometimes, some schools are resistant to working with the federal government, confusion regarding where the law is housed and how to get access to resources.

Oregon

Interviewee: Andrew Fridley, Sr., Manager of Environmental Health and Safety Portland Public Schools District

Law: Oregon School IPM Law; every district needs to have a trained coordinator and an IPM plan, a list of low-impact pesticides, all pesticide applications by a licensed applicator, posting, notification, and recordkeeping requirements

Intent: Reduce potential exposure of children to pesticides.

Funding: No funding for schools. Not sure if state provides funding to OSU. Training is free or low-cost to attend. Money spent on IPM contractor is equivalent to 1 FTE high school level custodian with salary and benefits.

Enforcement: ODA responds to complaints but do not schedule inspections. ODA, OSU, and NCAP audited some of the schools to track progress and provide technical assistance (not citing).

Measuring progress: The district tracks pest complaints and responses, as well as training to staff and staff feedback.

Successes: IPM program already in place in Portland district but law provided coordinator with authority to be more effective in his role, OSU list of “low-impact” approved chemicals has been helpful.

Challenges: The communication between IPM contractor and school staff needs to be continually emphasized (overall it’s good). The biggest challenge with the new law is recordkeeping, looking for software but ended up having to develop their own tracking system to capture the information.

State School IPM Legislation ConsiderationsFindings from Key Informant Interviews 21

Utah

Interviewee: Ron Marsden, Environmental Sanitation Program Manager, Utah Department of Health (DOH)

Law: Utah R392-200 School Rule requires schools to have a written plan in place or hire a contractor to write a plan.

Intent: Reduce the use of pesticides in schools because of children’s health

Funding: No funding attached to the rule.

Enforcement: Local government is given statutory authority to enforce. Half of local health departments do regular inspections of schools, other half just respond to complaints.

Measuring progress: DOH has limited staff and doesn’t have funding for measuring progress or tracking implementation of the law. So far DOH at the state level hasn’t received any complaints regarding the law.

Successes: The state DOH injury prevention program has done training to school districts and with local DOH agencies through grant funding.

Challenges: The language in the law isn’t specific regarding who is accountable for tracking and reporting. Although DOH drafted the law, implementation is done locally. Each local health department can implement the law differently, which may result in inconsistencies in how the law is enforced.

Works Cited

Arnold, E and E Beardsley. 2015. “Perspectives on Implementation and Effectiveness of School Green Cleaning Laws.” U.S. Green Building Council. July 29. Accessed February 26, 2016. http://www.centerforgreenschools.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/Perspectives-on-Implementation-Effectiveness-School-Green-Cleaning-Laws.pdf.

Hurley, J, T Green., D Gouge, Z Bruns., T Stock, L Braband, K Murray, C Westinghouse, S Ratcliffe, D Pehlman, L Crane. 2014. “Regulating Pesticide Use in United States Schools.” American Entomologist 60 (2): 105-114. Accessed 02 26, 2016. http://www.maine.gov/dacf/php/integrated_pest_management/school/resources/documents/AE_SUMMER14-Hurley.pdf.

Region 101200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900Seattle, WA 98101-1128