|
|
|
IPM Committee Tasks:
Evaluate Plan
Evaluating the Integrated Pest Management
Plan
| Routine
pesticide use reported in Northeastern schools |
| State |
Year of
Survey |
Schools
reporting routine pesticide use |
| CT |
1999 |
32% |
| MA |
1995 |
39% |
| MD |
1997 |
46% |
| NY |
1996 |
88% |
Pesticides are commonly applied on a routine
basis in northeastern schools. Recent surveys have shown that
from one-third of school to nearly 90% of schools apply pesticides
without prior information that pest populations warrant treatment
(see table). Applying pesticides unnecessarily exposes children
to potential health risks, but it also costs money.
It is widely accepted that a good IPM program effectively
controls bests, but what about the bottom line?
-
One Maryland school district reported
savings of $6,000 in three years after implementing IPM,
with additional savings in reduced food infestations.
-
Monroe County School District in Indiana
originally spent $1800 per school for pest control in
the 19-school district. Implementation of IPM reduced
the use of pesticides by 90%, and saves the district $6,000
per year. They note, however, that "if a school is
not in structurally good shape, the start up costs for
an IPM program can be a little higher in the beginning."
-
Susqueanna School in New York was routinely
sprayed for ants. Implementation of IPM has lead to fewer
ant sightings, fewer pesticides and decreased costs. An
outdoor IPM program has lead to healthier turf without
the use of pesticides. The school now saves $1000 on pest
control annually.
|
|
