A View from the Inside:

Case Studies of School IPM

Implementation in Indiana

Dr. Al Fournier

University of Arizona

Arizona Pest Management Center

Why IPM in Schools?

IPM in Schools

IPM in Schools Legislation

(2003)

Required Recommended

IPM Perspectives

Policy

makers

Adopters

?

IPM

experts

Data-driven decision making; focus on pests

Focus on reducing pesticides

Green and Breische 2003, GAO 1999

4 Case Studies

Presentation Outline

• Background: Indiana program

• Objectives and Methods

• 4 Case study “sketches”

• Cross-case analysis: major findings

• Implications for school IPM

educators

Role of the Researcher

Add photo of me teaching

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

• School IPM

Coordinator, 2000

- 2004

• IPM Pilot

Programs

• Workshops,

manual, website,

publications

• 1,600 school

personnel; 65% of

districts

Research Questions

• What factors influence the adoption and implementation of IPM in Indiana public schools?

• How is IPM practiced in the schools?

Research Questions

• What factors influence the adoption and implementation of IPM in Indiana public schools?

• How is IPM practiced in the schools?

Research Overview

• Statewide Survey

– Policy adoption and IPM practices

• Case studies

– 4 school districts

Research Overview

• Statewide Survey

– Policy adoption and IPM practices

• Case studies

– 4 school districts

Case Studies

“A case study is a method for

learning about a complex instance,

based on a comprehensive

understanding of that instance

obtained by extensive description

and analysis of that instance, taken

as a whole and in its context.”

-- GAO 1987

Case Studies

“A case study is a method for

learning about a complex instance,

based on a comprehensive

understanding of that instance

obtained by extensive description

and analysis of that instance, taken

as a whole and in its context.”

-- GAO 1987

Case Study Objectives

• Define pest management goals

• Document PM policy & practices

from multiple perspectives

• Identify factors that influenced policy

adoption & program implementation

• Compare programs to “Academic

IPM”

Case Study Methods

• Case selection (4 school districts)

• Interviews (26 subjects)

– Administrators, staff, pest control providers

– Central office and building levels

– No teachers or parents included

• Program assessments (4 schools)

– IPM inspections

– Pest management service observations

– Document analysis

Prior Conditions:

Adopter’s needs, prior

practice, innovativeness, social

context

Adoption-decision process:

Knowledge

Persuasion

Decision

Implementation

Confirmation

ImplementationProgram design, components

Actor’s roles

Practices: pest management,

pesticides

Reinvention

Theoretical Framework: Innovation Decision Process Model (Rogers 2003)

Data Source Methodological

Framework

Analytical Framework

Prior conditions

Open-ended

interviews

Naturalistic qualitative

inquiry (Patton 2002): open

ended questions about pest

management needs, prior

practices and context; IDP

model (Rogers 2003) used

to develop instrument.

Grounded theory

analysis (Strauss &

Corbin 1998)

procedures were used

to allow adopter’s views

to emerge.

IDP stages

Open-ended

interviews

IDP Model (Rogers 2003)

used to design interview

instrument: adopter traits,

needs, IPM perceptions,

communication, etc.

Grounded theory

analysis procedures

were used to allow

adopter’s views to

emerge.

Implementation

IPM inspections,

PCO service

observation,

document analysis,

open-ended

interviews

Reality-oriented inquiry

(GAO 1987, Miles &

Huberman 1994): program

evaluation using multiple

methods (document

analysis, observations,

inspections, interviews) to

describe pest management

program as it exists in the

school.

Two standards for

comparison: “Academic

IPM” adapted from the

IPMIS literature (Green

et. al 2000) and

adopters’ self-defined

goals for the program.

Qualitative Data Analysis

• Content analysis

– Review, open coding, axial coding

– Concepts and categories (162 “concepts”)

– “Assertions” based on data (13 major ones)

• Triangulation of data sources

– Multiple interviews, inspections, observations,

documents

• Limitations of case study method

– Problem with observations

– Cannot generalize conclusions

Case Study Results

• Overview

• Cases in brief

• Cross-case

analysis

• Implications

Case Comparison 1:

Monitoring & Nonchemical

School District A B C D

Policy Y Y Y Y

Includes IPM N N N N

Monitoring

Sighting logs N Y N N

Inspections Y Y Y N

Monitors/sq. ft.

(x10-3)

8.48 3.5 5.0 0

Non-chemical

Sanitation excellent excellent excellent excellent

Exclusion good poor poor excellent

Maintenance good fair good excellent

Case Comparison 2:

Pesticide use & satisfaction

School District A B C D

Insecticides

Baits Y Y Y N

Routine use N N 2/yr N

Remedial use N N Y Y

Staff use N N N custodian

Unauthorized use Y N Y N

After hours only Y Y Y N

IPM Success

Expectations Mixed Low Low High

Academic IPM High Medium Low Low

“Guidance” School District

(A)

• Site-based management with “guiding management style”

• Education & active roles engaged staff (reminding & reinforcement)

• PMP’s personal beliefs, motivations & communication skills contributed to program success

• Mostly perceived as a successful program

“Mandate” School District (B)

• IPM was an administrative mandate

• Dichotomous management structure

(operations versus academic depts.)

• Custodians struggled with new

responsibilities and lacked authority

and knowledge to implement IPM

• Incomplete buy-in & low program

satisfaction

“Ignore” School District (C)

• Lack of central office involvement or

communication

• PMP-designed “informal IPM”

program lacked key elements of IPM

– No education, minimal communication,

poor record keeping

• Low levels of program satisfaction

“Control” School District (D)

• Centralized management

• Central administrator’s goals shaped

the program (save $)

• Staff education, sanitation, exclusion

were emphasized

• No routine inspections or monitoring

• Custodial pesticide use (last resort)

• High level of program satisfaction

Cross-Case Analysis

• Factors affecting IPM

implementation

• Implications for IPM educators

Factors Affecting IPM

Implementation

• Buy-in

• Organizational structure

– Separate chains-of-command

• PMP communication (local v. central)

• PMP influence often most important

• Individual perceptions

• Education

Factors Affecting IPM

Implementation

• Buy-in

• Organizational structure

– Separate chains-of-command

• PMP communication (local v. central)

• PMP influence often most important

• Individual perceptions

• Education

Personal Perceptions:

positive impact on IPM

• Personal beliefs & perceptions

influenced actions related to the

success of IPM

– “Low pest tolerance”

– “Pest-clean connection”

– Action: rigorous cleaning as a

response to pests

Personal Perceptions:

negative impact on IPM

• Acceptance of non-chemical methods was negatively affected by pesticide-based expectations

– “Low pest tolerance”

– “Pesticide mentality”

– Lack of “PM satisfaction”

– Actions: covert pesticide use, product substitution, future IPM discontinuation?

Education Facilitated

IPM

• Active staff involvement raised IPM

awareness and increased buy-in

– Custodians versus teachers

• Staff behaviors were changed through

involvement, education, reminding, and

“PM exchange” (bartering)

• Demonstration and explaining why

– PM provider often played a key role

Implications for

IPM Educators

• Understanding adopters needs

• IPM adoption IPM implementation

(evaluate!)

• Perceptions shape the program

– Low pest tolerance, pesticide mentality

• Education is critical

– Close the “IPM gap”

– Demonstration and explaining why

– Reaching the teachers!

The Human Factor

“Insects can be managed, but

management is people-oriented, and

successful pest management depends

largely on influencing the people who

control the pest.”

-- Metcalf and Luckmann 1975

Thanks!

Photo credits: Jerry Jochim, University of Florida, U.S. EPA,

Texas A&M University, USDA

Thanks!

• Dr. Chris Oseto, Dr. Tim Gibb

• Dr. Donna Enersen, Dr. Bob O’Neil,

Dr. Allen Talbert, Dr. Tom Turpin

• Dr. Marc Lame

• Study participants

• EPA and IDEM for financial support