For 2020 and newer grants, please go to https://grants.ipmcenters.org/
Home       Current RFAs       PD User Guide       Projects       Login

Funded Project

Funding Program: IPM Partnership Grants

Project Title: Northeastern IPM Evaluation Working Group (2010-2011)

Project Directors (PDs): William M. Coli [1] William Miller [2]

Lead State: MA Lead Organization: University of Massachusetts

Undesignated Funding: $4,998

Start Date: May-01-2010 End Date: Apr-30-2011

No-Cost Extension Date: Jun-30-2012

Site/Commodity: residential, structural, soybeans, field crops

Area of Emphasis: evaluation

Summary: State IPM Coordinators, Extension Educators, Faculty researchers, other agency staff and others are in need of assistance planning programs whose impacts are quantifiable, and/or documenting impacts of previously conducted programs. The primary objective of the Working Group is to assist regional IPM Program professionals to better understand and utilize available techniques to document short-, intermediate-, and long-term impacts of adoption. The Working Group will continue to function as two distinct sub-groups: one focused on agricultural IPM and one on Structural IPM in multi-family housing. Agricultural sub-group participants will meet face to face to complete development of an IPM Guideline for soybeans relevant to the states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. With separate NEIPMC funding, Agricultural sub-group members will also participate in converting the completed Soybean IPM Guideline to a Dillman Method mail survey for measuring soybean grower IPM adoption levels. This separately-funded survey will be administered beginning in January, 2011. The structural group will participate in a face to face meeting to discuss developing and deploying an on-line Survey Monkey instrument for housing authorities, health departments, grantees and selected others in the Northeast with the intent to catalogue existing types of impacts data. With such data in hand, this sub-group will discuss the feasibility of acquiring external funding to deploy a large-scale assessment of IPM impacts in multi-family housing as a component of National IPM Evaluation Group (NIPMEG) activities. Overall impacts of the proposed activities will be to document IPM adoption in two very different focus areas, and to identify needs for future research and/or extension activities. Objectives: A principal objective of the project remains the completion and stakeholder review of a regionally-appropriate IPM Guideline for soybean in the mid-Atlantic region. Related to this objective is design and execution of a large-scale Dillman Method mail survey of soybean growers in Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia for which external funding has being received. A second objective is to help the urban/community pest management systems subgroup to prepare a large-scale impact assessment survey. An overall objective is to increase WG participant understanding of, and ability to use, existing program planning and evaluation tools, including how these can aid in planning/conducting program evaluation and competing more effectively for competitive grant funding from entities that increasingly demand evidence of documented impacts. Proposal

Final Report:

Outcomes After deciding in Year 1 to do so, the Working Group members (See Appendix A) continued to be organized as two distinct sub-groups: one focused on agricultural IPM and one with a non-agricultural focus (i.e., Structural IPM in multi-family housing). Two such distinct foci resulted in some success (Agricultural focus) and some non-success (Multi-family housing). Initial membership of this latter self-selected group had very different and diverse interests ranging from home horticulture and golf course turf to multi-family housing. Further, after the multi-family housing sub-group initially decided to conduct business exclusively by conference call, the conveners ultimately regretted that decision. Although generally considered a convenient and inexpensive way to meet, participation via conference call has a very different dynamic than F2F meetings, and, in general, attendance and participation was lower than hoped for. We never succeeded in generating critical mass among the housing sub group, and some persons who had initially expressed willingness to participate later retracted their offer because of other commitments. From conference calls, it became clear that, unlike with the soybean group, there was no need to develop additional structural IPM Guidelines, as several already exist. Efforts to stimulate interest on the part of multi-family housing specialists to agree on a common set of impact indicators to be used to measure IPM impacts were unsuccessful, in spite of the efforts and support of Allie Taisey. We have had indications from Dawn Gouge (Arizona State) that an effort may be made to approach such an idea on a national, rather than a regional level, perhaps through the ESA. Be that as it may, the conveners did not succeed in achieving one of our stated objectives, namely, to help the urban/community pest management systems subgroup prepare a large-scale impact assessment survey. However, given the fact that many of the working group members participated in a training webinar Miller and Coli presented (organized in cooperation with the North Central IPM Center), we believe that one of our stated overall objectives (to increase WG participant understanding of, and ability to use, existing program planning and evaluation tools, including how these can aid in planning/conducting program evaluation and competing more effectively for competitive grant funding) was achieved. In furtherance of this objective, Coli and Miller give a presentation on impact assessment to over 70 UConn Extension staff at the suggestion of Dr. Ana Legrande. The Agricultural sub-group was quite diverse, consisting of soybean IPM specialists representing the four appropriate Land Grant Universities (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia), as well as two private consultants servicing soybean growers, a representative of the Delaware USDA NRCS, and a representative of an important soybean industry trade group. Although diverse, the group was united in their focus on soybean IPM and in agreement about the value of completing the IPM Protocol/Guideline, and subsequently developing an IPM Adoption survey. Participants reached consensus that a compilation such as this can be used for a number of purposes, including grower education and self assessment, determining the current extent of IPM adoption in the region and whether there are unmet research and/or extension needs on the part of the regions soybean growers. Hence, we subsequently applied for and received an additional Partnership Grant (Reported on in detail elsewhere) to enable the WG to finalize the Protocol/Guideline and carry out a large-scale survey. Deliverables for the project include the Mid-Atlantic Soybean IPM Protocol (Appendix B), and the Mid-Atlantic Soybean IPM Survey (Appendix C). Numerous email exchanges, telephone conversations and face-to-face meetings resulted in completion of a Draft Mid-Atlantic Soybean IPM Protocol based initially on one previously developed at Ohio State University (Appendix B). The protocol represents the current understanding of specialists in soybean culture of the research-based pest management and cultural practices currently available for soybeans. We believe the Protocol constitutes a general working definition of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) on soybeans grown in the region. Despite the groups level of commitment, it became evident that there were significant barriers to agreement on how to finalize the Protocol document in order to develop the survey. In particular, the group could not agree as to whether individual IPM practices should be associated with points, and whether these points should be weighted in some way (i.e., higher points for practices that were either more difficult to implement, or more important to a true IPM system, etc.). In addition, the group had not reached agreement on the extent of detail the protocol should incorporate. In order to help resolve remaining issues, the convenors organized and lead a face-to-face meeting on July 27, 2010 at Annapolis, Maryland. To facilitate participation, reimbursement for travel costs were offered to attendees, and all meeting/hotel costs were also covered by the NEIPMC grant. Attendees were: Joanne Whalen (UDE), Ames Herbert (UVA), John Timmons (USDA/NRCS), Bill Angstadt (DE/MD Ag. Business Assoc.), Tom Coleman (Private Consultant), and Luke McConnell (Private Consultant), and Bill Coli. Cerruti Hooks and Rakesh Chandran were unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts. In summary, the group thoroughly discussed issues associated with a point system and agreed to use a checklist format rather than a point system. In addition, after reviewing previously executed surveys, the group developed a better understanding of the need for more detail in the protocol and resolved to continue to modify the working draft in that direction. There was general agreement that the seasonal aspect of the protocol should remain as this is the way in which farmers approach their decision making. After the meeting, Coli reviewed documents provided by attendees and to flesh out more detail in a subsequent draft. Finalizing the next drafts of the Protocol and of the resulting survey was done via email/conference call.

Impacts As reported on in more detail elsewhere, the principal impact of the Agricultural IPM sub-group is an improved understanding of the extent to which Mid-Atlantic soybean growers have adopted elements of IPM. For example, survey results indicated that the overwhelming majority (83%) of responding growers utilize some sort of field monitoring and 56% use action thresholds to make their pest management decisions. . A further impact of the survey is an improved understanding of which pests are considered important in the soybean system, and the areas that growers feel need more research. These and other findings constitute a baseline of soybean IPM adoption that can be used in future years to determine trends in adoption, especially as new IPM tactics are developed and implemented Based on our collaboration, the conveners believe that WG participant understanding of, and ability to use existing program planning and evaluation tools, is improved.

Report Appendices Appendix A Evaluation Working Group contact list [PDF] Appendix B Mid-Atlantic Soybean IPM Protocol [PDF] Appendix C Mid-Atlantic Soybean IPM Survey [PDF]

Close Window

Northeastern IPM Center 340 Tower Road Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 NortheastIPM.org		Developed by the Center for IPM © Copyright CIPM 2004-2026