programs may require no treatments at all. Short-term costs may include IPM train-
ing, new equipment purchases, hiring an IPM coordinator, or preliminary school
building repairs. However, in contrast with chemical-intensive methods, over the long
term IPM garners savings by eliminating or reducing ongoing chemical purchases
and applications.^19
Everyone agrees that a good IPM program effectively controls pests. According to
the EPA, ‘‘preliminary indications from IPM programs in school systems suggest that
long-term costs of IPM may be less than a conventional pest control program.’’^20
Schools around the country have saved money using IPM methods.
However, costs should not be the most important consideration in evaluating the
success of IPM programs. The incalculable benefit of a healthier environment for our
children should be the dominant motivation in the minds of decision-makers.Examples of IPM Effectiveness and Cost EfficiencyPublic schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, produced cost savings and realized
better pest control when they shifted from a traditional spray program to IPM for their
buildings and landscapes. A crude comparisonof labor, equipment, and materials costs
showed savings ranging from 15 to 18 percent per year over a six-year period. Pest con-
trol costs were reduced by $111,000. The school district saved $1,800 at each school and
$30,000 at its food service warehouse. In Montgomery County, reduction of school pesti-
cide use by 90 percent and use of least-toxic pesticides when pesticides are required have
made school and work safer for 110,000 students and 12,000 employees.^21
In Monroe County, Indiana, a school IPM program decreased pest management costs
by $6,000 in two years. Pesticide use reportedly plummeted 90 percent, and all aerosol
and liquid pesticides were discontinued.^22 The IPM specialist in Monroe County stated
that ‘‘costs are dependent on the condition of the school. We were lucky in this case that
Monroe County began this project with a history of good management practices and
structurally sound school buildings. If a school isn’t in good shape maintenance wise, the
startup costs of an IPM program can be a little higher in the beginning.’’^23
In New York state, after Susquehanna schoolchildren were accidentally exposed to
pesticides and became ill in 1991, the New York Department of Environmental Con-
servation ordered the school to halt all routine pesticide applications and to imple-
ment an IPM program. Engineers and the pest control company on contract are now
pleased with improvements in the indoor environment. Prior to the IPM program,
the school was sprayed monthly for recurring ant problems. Now with monitoring,
increased sanitation, education, and the use of least-toxic baits only when needed, the
number of ant sightings has decreased substantially while costs have declined.
Pesticide applications have been discontinued altogether in Susquehanna’s outdoors
environment as the school’s engineers manage the turf and playing fields. They now
use organic fertilizer and compost twice a year on the athletic fields, aerate the soil
four times a year, and mow high and often. An engineer at the school says, ‘‘Cost will
depend somewhat on how much labor you need to get the job done. In our case, we124 | Pesticides