Welcome to the Department of Pesticide Regulation
Back to School IPM home page

Overview of Pest Management Policies, Programs and Practices
in Selected California School Districts

by Sewell E. Simmons, Timothy E. Tidwell, and Terrell A. Barry
MARCH 1996
PEST MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS AND PLANNING PROGRAM

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Pesticide Regulation
Division of Enforcement, Environmental Monitoring, and Data Management
Environmental Monitoring and Pest Management Branch
1020 N Street, Sacramento, California 95814-5624
PM 96-01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

Table of Contents

The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), in cooperation with the California Department of Education (CDE), conducted a study of pest management programs in California's public school districts. The purpose was to: (1) obtain an overview of district pest management policies, programs and practices, (2) identify policy and program constraints, and (3) identify ways that DPR can work cooperatively with CDE to assist school districts in implementing pest management programs based on the principles of integrated pest management (IPM). The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase was a mail survey sent to the 1,002 public school districts in California. Each district was asked to send to DPR a copy of its pest management policy and pest management program or to indicate that no policy and/or program was available. A total of 556 districts (55%) responded to the mail survey. A majority of the respondents (62%) did not have a pest management policy or a pest management program. Six percent of the districts had only a pest management policy and 22% had only a pest management program. Ten percent of the districts had both a pest management policy and program. There was no detectable association between district size or location and response to the mail survey. No other district variables were measured. The response to the mail survey appeared to provide a fair representation of all school districts in California despite lack of a formal sampling procedure. The first phase was completed in March 1994. The second phase consisted of personal interviews conducted in 25 school districts representing 1,275 public schools. These districts were selected based on their designation as urban, suburban, or rural; region of the state; the number of schools in the district; and in most cases, their response to the mail survey. Interviews were based on 17 questions that focused on identifying current pest control practices, on constraints to program implementation, and on technical, procedural and administrative support needed to improve pest management. The second phase was completed in June 1994. The study identified a number of DPR options for encouraging more widespread adoption of IPM policies and programs in public school districts throughout the state, and for assisting districts in dealing with constraints. The recommendations of this report represent the most viable DPR options for working cooperatively with CDE within the existing framework of CDE's administrative role and the autonomy of district school boards in setting policies and designing programs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Table of Contents

We would like to extend a special thanks to the many personnel from the California public school districts who participated in this survey for their generous contributions of information and ideas.

We would like to thank the California Department of Education for thorough cooperation and assistance with this study. We extend a special thanks to Henry Heydt, Assistant Director of the School Facilities Planning Division, and Wayne Dughi, Operations Research Specialist in the Program Evaluation and Research Division.

We would like to thank: Kathy Brunetti, Veda Federighi, Paul Gosselin, Lyn Hawkins, Tobi Jones, Elin Miller, Mark Pepple, John Sanders, David Supkoff, and John Troiano for their many helpful comments and suggestions during the study and with preparation of the report; Jennifer Douglass and Christopher Fong for their assistance with organization and summary of data; and Linda Heath Clark for graphics.

DISCLAIMER

Table of Contents

The mention of commercial products, their source or use in connection with material reported herein, is not to be construed as either an actual or implied endorsement of such product.

LIST OF FIGURES

Table of Contents
Figure No. Figure caption
Figure 1. Line-and-staff pattern of maintenance and operations of an elementary school district that operates one pre-school, two special education units, and ten schools and has an average daily attendance of 700.
Figure 2. Line-and-staff pattern of maintenance and operations for a unified school district that operates four high schools, four middle schools, and 17 elementary schools and has an average daily attendance of 16,000.
Figure 3. Line-and-staff pattern of maintenance and operations for a unified school district that operates 80 school facilities and has an average daily attendance of 45,200.
Figure 4. Line-and-staff pattern of maintenance and operations for a joint union high school district operating seven high schools with an average daily attendance of 10,000.
Figure A1-1. Regions and regional codes

LIST OF TABLES (Appendix 1)

Table of Contents
Table No. Table caption
Table A1-1. Ownership codes.
Table A1-2. Categorization of schools as urban, suburban, or rural.
Table A1-3. The number and percent of districts out of the 989 categorized that are predominantly one of three categories: urban, suburban, or rural
Table A1-4. The number and percent of districts out of the 1,002 total that have predominantly one of four types of schools: elementary, middle, high school, or other.
Table A1-5. Total number and percent of survey respondents and non-respondents and total number of school districts in California.
Table A1-6. The numbers and percent of 554 responding districts in each of four PMPO code categories.