1. Environmental Health Surveillance Report: Pesticides and Schools

2. Overview  Background  Project description  Data and analysis  Communication and dissemination  Timeline/Next steps  Question/Discussion

3. Background

4.  CDC requires descriptive analyses of tracking data to  assess spatial and temporal trends  examine state and local environmental health issues  inform public health activities and policy  CEHTP proposed annual State of Environmental Health report  Decision to focus on single topic 4

5. Project Description

6. 6  Assess poundage and types of agricultural pesticides applied near schools  implications for pesticide buffers near schools  demonstrate linkage utilizing portal data  Increase resolution using school boundaries, not geocoded points  Release in coordination with partner groups near back-to-school time

7. Partners  Californians for Pesticide Reform  Pesticide Action Network  Center for Environmental Health 7

8. Data and Analysis

9. County selection 9  Top quartile of counties by total agricultural pesticides applied for 2010  Top 15 counties  85% of total agricultural pesticides applied statewide (using chemical pounds) County Lbs chemical applied Rank FRESNO27,777,5001 KERN21,454,1172 TULARE8,867,7563 SAN JOAQUIN8,687,8224 MADERA8,582,8235 MONTEREY8,203,7116 MERCED7,180,6417 VENTURA6,495,2358 KINGS6,105,7529 STANISLAUS5,072,40310 IMPERIAL4,163,59611 SANTA BARBARA4,109,95812 SACRAMENTO3,291,91513 SAN LUIS OBISPO2,570,65114 YOLO2,496,13915

10. School boundaries 10  Using boundaries increases accuracy & resolution of where kids learn and play  Geocoded points are occasionally erroneous  Parcel boundaries incorporate buildings, playgrounds, and fields 1.2 miles Geocoded point

11. Demographic data 11  Report demographic data for top exposed schools & perform disparity analysis  Department of Education has data on ethnicity by school  Data on free/reduced price lunch eligibility as a proxy for income  Compare to county and statewide school profiles for ethnicity and lunch eligibility

12. Pesticide groupings  Pesticides grouped based on type of pesticides  6 categories/groupings  Prop 65 “Known to Cause Reproductive Toxicity”  US EPA B2 Carcinogens OR on the State’s Prop 65 “Known to Cause Cancer”  Cholinesterase Inhibiting Pesticides  Toxic Air Contaminants  Fumigants  Emerging pesticides of concern 12

13. Data Linkage  Buffer schools at ¼, ½, & 1 mile  Using pesticide tool, link 2010 agricultural applications by chemical poundage to school buffers  For each pesticide grouping, report on top schools  By pounds applied  By county 13

14. Communication and Dissemination

15. Report  Organize by pesticide group  Background on pesticide group  Top 5 counties with highest percentage of schools exposed  Top 10-20 schools by poundage for those counties  Compare students populations from exposed/non-exposed schools  Highlights Time trends by month Crops Specific location or region Specific schools  Links to  Methods description on CEHTP website  Information about pesticides, prevention, initiatives on partner websites 15

16. Dissemination  Online report, limited printed copies  Executive summary, press releases in Spanish  Work with CDPH Office of Public Affairs  Partner activities  Press releases  Integration into ongoing activities  Outreach to communities 16

17. Timeline/Next Steps

18. Timeline  March: data cleaning and analysis  April: complete analysis  May: interpret results, develop first draft of report  June: complete final report draft  July: report approved, plan dissemination strategy  August: dissemination 18

19. Potential future projects  Web-based query  Search by school, district, county  Complete school boundary layer for entire State  Would be time intensive, but very powerful data set  No funding for these projects 19

20. Questions and Discussion

21. Discussion Questions 21  What are policy implications for this work?  Are there ways to report the data to increase its utility?  Do you have other ideas for topical environmental health surveillance reports?