Progress 09/01/07 to 08/31/10
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Eight objectives were listed in our project proposal. While significant progress was made on the core objectives of the project (to refine, validate and bring online the original version [V.1] of the IPM budget calculator), many of the impact objectives remain unachieved. This is mostly due to the need to largely re-program the original calculator, and the greater-than-anticipated programming challenges to meet our project standards and requirements. Following are some of our achieved objectives: OBJ 1. Improve calibration of the calculator pest risk function. In YR1 of the project (2007) the project team traveled to schools in Maine, Florida, Alabama and California collecting data for the early version of the calculator (V.1). Short interviews were conducted with key upper administrators to gain further insight into school budget writing and IPM practices. Data from these school visits were used to calibrate the calculator by comparing calculator ratings of schools to subjective ratings by experienced (expert) members of the project team. Based on modest, but unsatisfactory, correlations between the calculator and expert ratings, a decision was made to modify the model on which the calculator was based, and re-program the online calculator model (V.2). The programming process proved more difficult and sophisticated than initially envisioned, and consumed most of the final two years of the [extended] project. Much of the difficulty centered on developing a customizable questionnaire and administrative portal to the site. OBJ 2. Gather additional information on default costs for budgeting. Under the newly designed model, the decision to include default budget costs was rejected in favor of a re-envisioning of the calculator's purpose. The new calculator model has been designed to help schools assess their overall pest risk and determine what school building features contribute most to overall risk. The budgeting component of the model proved too costly to implement at this time and has been designated for inclusion in V.3 of the calculator. OBJ 3. Develop a national online database of calculator users. In YR3 of the project the calculator and database was completed. It is now available online at http://ipmcalculator.com. The calculator is currently collecting data from schools in Texas and nationally; however additional time is required to collect a truly useful national database of calculator users. OBJ 8. Assess and compare understanding and level of adoption of the IPM concept among participating states. In 2009 team members conducted follow-up calculator training in all project states. A total of 158 school IPM staff were trained in the calculator and given pre- or pre/post assessments of their IPM understanding. 69% of the trainees described themselves as familiar or very familiar with IPM. Information about the project was disseminated through two paper presentations (6th International IPM Symposium, March 2009. Portland, OR; and 2008 National Conference on Urban Entomology, Tulsa, OK) PARTICIPANTS: M. E. Merchant, B. Bennett, and J. A. Hurley are the project coordinators, Texas AgriLife Extension Service; Kathy Murray, Maine Department of Agriculture; Belinda Messenger, California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation; Lawrence Graham, Auburn University; Faith Oi and Rebecca Baldwin, University of Florida Cooperative Extension. Collaborating school districts included Maine: Portland Public Schools; Richmond Schools; Waterville Schools. Alabama: Sylacauga City Schools, Shelby County Schools, Auburn City Schools. Florida: Brevard County Schools, Manatee County Schools. California: Kern Union High School District, Palo Alto Unified School District, Folsom Cordova Unified School District. Texas: West Oso ISD, Arlington ISD, Plano ISD, Kerrville ISD. TARGET AUDIENCES: The target audience is school facility directors and managers wanting to understand more about the school building function as it relates to IPM. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: The project was partly modified from its original intent to provide a budget writing tool for schools. The calculator now functions principally as a risk estimator and heuristic training tool to help schools assess building features that need improvement in order to reduce pest risk at their campus. Part of the reason for the modification was due to the cost and difficulty encountered by our contractor in achieving this aspect of the calculator, as well as the impracticality of developing realistic default costs for building maintenance improvements. The calculator has been programmed in such a way that a budget writing tool (without default costs) can be added at a later date. We feel that the final calculator project is actually an improvement over the initial proposed project.
Impacts
Outcomes and measurable impacts of the project to date have been limited. Our project team is continuing to recruit school districts to utilize the calculator. As this occurs, the calculator will deliver entered data to a central database that can be analyzed and results reported. The usefulness of the calculator includes its ability to (1) collect demographic data about school districts and IPM budgets nationally, (2) collect information about school building features that contribute to pest risks in schools and (3) its usefulness as a heuristic (teaching) tool to help school maintenance professionals understand how features of building maintenance contribute to pest risk in a school. Information about the project. A more complete report will be delivered to the Southern IPM Center.
Publications
- Merchant, M. B. Bennett & J. Hurley. 2009. New Tool to Help Schools Calculate the Costs of IPM. 6th International IPM Symposium, Portland, OR
|
Progress 09/01/08 to 08/31/09
Outputs
OUTPUTS: 1. Evaluate user satisfaction with the budget calculator. Output - When schools were introduced to the calculator they all felt that this would be a worthy tool. However, the larger problem was getting this group of individuals to feel comfortable with using an Excel spreadsheet and inputting the data. Most of the individuals we worked with were not familiar with conducting facility inspections on their school campuses. Our first objective was to conduct a facility inspection as a team, pointing out areas that could lead to future pest problems. In the majority of the cases, the schools were in good standing, but if there was an outbreak of a pest problem, several schools would have been affected. We used the cost calculator as a teaching tool, therefore our evaluations ended up being based on the education that was given at the time of the demonstration. 2Test a new model of school IPM diffusion Output - Conducted training in Maine, Florida and California. Texas is still in progress and Alabama will be held in early 2010. In Maine, the Dept of Maine offered two one-day workshops on school IPM. The first day was held in the northern part of the state in Bangor and the second day was in the southern part of the state in Portland. The class consisted of basic IPM principles for the state of Maine, an introduction to IPM best management practices and a facility inspection using the cost calculator inspection checklist. In Florida, the training was held in conjunction with their summer annual school IPM workgroup meeting. A presentation was made on the cost calculator and how it is designed to assist schools with the budgeting and accountability of the IPM program. The California meeting was held in conjunction with the California School Employees Association (CSEA) 2nd Annual Maintenance and Operations Skills Development Academy. This conference offers day long certification classes similar to TASBO and other professional organizations as well as break out sessions. The school IPM session was classified as a 3-hour class. I was given two sessions, one morning, and afternoon session. While the turnout was smaller than expected, California's school IPM program is still somewhat voluntary, not mandatory. The Texas trainings are being conducted in association with our two-day school IPM coordinator training. 3.Assess and compare understanding and level of adoption of the IPM concept among participating states. Outcome - Of the districts we interviewed, the majority of the coordinators were mostly familiar with IPM practices; however, the majority of them did not see building repairs as part of the IPM program. Many coordinators think that IPM is only about pest control, this project allowed us to educate those interviewed about the various aspects of IPM. PARTICIPANTS: M. E. Merchant, B. Bennett, J. A. Hurley, are the project coordinators. They represent Texas AgriLife Extension Service K. Murray represents Maine Dept. of Agriculture B. Messenger and S. Simmons represent California Dept of Pesticide Regulation L. Graham represents Auburn University F. Oi and R. Baldwin represent University of Florida Cooperative Extension program. Collaborating school districts were: Maine: Portland Public Schools, Portland; Richmond Schools, Richmond; Waterville Schools, Waterville, Training - Portland Schools and Bangor Schools Alabama: Sylacauga City Schools, Columbiana; Shelby county School System, Chelsea; Auburn City Schools, Auburn. same schools were used for re-inspections Florida: Brevard County, Cocoa; Manatee County Schools, Bradenton - Brevard schools were re-inspected on two problem campuses California Schools: Kern Union High school District, Bakersfield; Palo Alto Unified School District, Palo Alto; and Folsom Cordova Unified School District, Folsom - Re-visited Palo Alto schools Texas Schools: West Oso ISD, Corpus Christi; Arlington ISD, Arlington; Plano ISD, Plano, Kerrville ISD, Kerrville, TX - Have also intorduced this program to Klien and Lubbock ISDs. TARGET AUDIENCES: The target audience is IPM Coordinators and Budget Administrators. We have not been able to determine if we changed the budget administrator's behavior, but at the coordinator level we could tell. At the sites we were able to revisit for reinspection, we saw improvement on several school campuses. In Sylacauga City Schools the kitchen staff improved their food service inspections by the state by 20 points. They had several months of perfect scores of 100. For Arlington ISD this program allowed for significant improvements. Arlington High school had a severe rodent problem. with the use of the cost calculator we did a complete building inspection. The IPM cost calculator was used for analysis of this school. The following items were implemented as a result of this inspection. Repaired/replaced weather-stripping on all exterior doors; Repaired thresholds; Recaulked exterior windows; Re-sealed exterior electrical & plumbing penetrations; Repaired/cleaned gutter downspouts & gutters We were able to save this district several thousands of dollars in call backs to the pest control company and keep them off the evening news. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts
1.Evaluate user satisfaction with the budget calculator to determine ways to improve understandability, ease of use and perception of usefulness. This assessment will be conducted immediately after training with pilot school IPM coordinators. Outcome - Due to the fact the Excel version of the calculator was so hard for users to use, we have opted to change the way the web version will be used. Each section of the cost calculator has a limited number of questions with help buttons for each question, so that the individual inputting the data will understand the importance of each section. To find the calculator you can go to http://ipmcalculator.com 2.Test a new model of school IPM diffusion by educating core group of school IPM opinion leaders from participating states in IPM principles and use of the IPM Cost Calculator. Outcome - A pre and posttest was given to both groups and those results will be combined with the information obtained from Maine, Alabama, Florida, and Texas and reported in the calculator final report. The class participants that I spoke with stated that they learned a lot of good information that they can use back in their schools. They stated that this presentation helped them understand that IPM is more about the people who are involved in the school campus, than just about pest control. 3.Assess and compare understanding and level of adoption of the IPM concept among participating states. Output - Evaluations have been collected, will not be tallied until the end of the grant period to ensure we have complete sets of data.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|