Putting IPM To Work: It's Up To You

The Entomology Society of America met this past year in Nashville. As always there were too many papers and meetings for one person to attend. There were, however, a conspicuous number of papers and even formal sessions and symposia concerning IPM. Two of particular interest to the urban pest control arena concerned a symposia on IPM in public schools, and the formal conference analyzing academic concepts, legislative actions and, most importantly, field implementation of IPM programs.

IPM IN SCHOOLS. The session covering IPM in schools mainly discussed the implementation of one such IPM program into one school system. The pilot program was initiated through funding from the EPA.

This program was well-planned and successful, however, it had many intricacies and, unfortunately, from my point of view, the information did not include a practical discussion on the real costs of IPM programs. The school district that served as the focus of the session claimed to have saved money on implementing an IPM program. Their main savings, however, came from firing the current pest control companies under contract. The companies were “not needed,” because the district developed an in-house pest control position at a substantial savings. This program needs to analyze the additional costs of some rather labor-intensive services. In addition, much of the support for this program was generated through the EPA grant. Implementing such a program from “scratch” could have increased the costs considerably.

The program developed considered all aspects of an idealized IPM program. But while it appeared to be fiscally well-managed, many U.S. school districts could not afford such changes.

Representatives from other states also presented the initiatives they’ve taken regarding IPM in schools. They discussed their experiences with implementing programs in schools, as well as the development of Internet informational centers for those needing guidance in developing such programs. A representative from the EPA who also spoke at the meeting emphasized the Agency’s goal to reduce pesticide risks. It’s true that new application methods and formulations can reduce risk, but the easiest way is to affect the number of applications directly.

The point is, schools from around the nation are looking at IPM because of influences that come from many segments of society. If pest control companies continue to ignore the movement in this area, they will, like the other PCOs discussed above, “not be needed.”

A POLITICAL HOT SPOT. Pest control in schools is a politically charged area. Activists have made substantial headway in convincing people of the need to reduce the application of pesticides around children. The legislative actions that have taken place can dictate specifically what a PCO has to do, how it has to be done and what has to be used. But these are non-funded mandates. The hook that gets school administrators is three-pronged. First, it appears to be cheaper. Second, there is less liability (insurance is always a factor), and finally, the parents are saying they don’t want pesticides used around their children. These are strong arguments, and only the notion of lower cost can be questioned. In most cases, an ideal IPM program is not cheaper. Needless to say, these mandates have to consider all types of educational systems. Most school systems within our country are under tremendous strain to accomplish even the most basic tasks. A full-blown IPM program is beyond the scope of most schools’ budgets.

However, IPM has evolved to include the reduced application of pesticides, notification, posting and communication. As a service industry offering services in a vital segment of the community, we should and must adjust to this concern, as well as make ourselves available to assist in these programs.

A LITTLE HELP FROM OUR FRIENDS? PCOs must make themselves available to help schools with IPM programs. This was the point of the second ESA conference. During the discussion of the field implementation of IPM, it was obvious that educating the consumer is an extremely difficult task. It means explaining to customers why we are killing bugs, how long it will take, why we use certain products and what other options are available. We must send out technicians who think about what they’re doing, rather than reproducing the same service, no matter who the customer is. Furthermore, we are woefully unprepared from the academic side of this equation. We have few urban entomologists interacting with the public. The extension service in many areas has been decimated in recent years.

IPM will continue to be the buzzword used in discussing pest control in public buildings. Don’t get upset when other people get the job. It is not because they sold out, but instead because they saw an opportunity, a niche that has grown and is growing significantly. A niche that adds to their bottom line.

Dr. George Rambo is president of George Rambo Consulting Services based in Herndon, Va. He is a former technical director of the National Pest Control Association. To contact Dr. Rambo, call 703/709-6364.