Review of the Evidence Linkages between Livelihood, Food Security
StateSchoolIPMLegislationConsiderations
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
State School
IPM Legislation
Considerations
Findings from Key
Informant Interviews
EPA-910-R-16-004
April 2016
3. State School IPM Legislation Considerations
Findings 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.
7. State School IPM Legislation Considerations
Findings 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.
8. United States Environmental Protection Agency
April 2016
2
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.
9. State School IPM Legislation Considerations
Findings 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
10. United States Environmental Protection Agency
April 2016
4
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.
11. State School IPM Legislation Considerations
Findings 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.
12. United States Environmental Protection Agency
April 2016
6
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
13. State School IPM Legislation Considerations
Findings 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,
14. United States Environmental Protection Agency
April 2016
8
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.
15. 9
State School IPM Legislation Considerations
Findings 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.
16. 10
United States Environmental Protection Agency
April 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
17. State School IPM Legislation Considerations
Findings 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
18. United States Environmental Protection Agency
April 2016
12
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
19. State School IPM Legislation Considerations
Findings 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.
20. United States Environmental Protection Agency
April 2016
14
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?
yy More specifically, what attributes
are funded: education, staff time,
travel, capital improvement? What
departments receive funding?
„„ How is the law enforced?
yy Any timeline would be helpful. If
on-site inspections are conducted or
required, how often?
yy 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?
yy 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?
yy 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
21. State School IPM Legislation Considerations
Findings 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
22. United States Environmental Protection Agency
April 2016
16
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
23. State School IPM Legislation Considerations
Findings 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.
24. United States Environmental Protection Agency
April 2016
18
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
25. State School IPM Legislation Considerations
Findings 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)
26. United States Environmental Protection Agency
April 2016
20
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.
27. State School IPM Legislation Considerations
Findings 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.
