1. Regional IPM Centers Survey A Preliminary Summary Carol Pilcher Department of Entomology Iowa State University

2. Where Are We In the Process? Methodology Preliminary Results Questions For You Questions For Me

3. Where We Are In the Process Summary Document Sent to Dick Stuckey (January 18, 2006) –He will review summary document and develop the final report for the IPM Center Mid-Term Review –Please note the results presented here are the preliminary results

4. Methodology

5. Data Collection November 7, 2005 (during week) –Pre-notification email November 15, 2005 –First notification (cover letter, directed to web site) December 5, 2005 –Second notification (follow-up to non-respondents December 22, 2005 –Third notification (follow-up to non-respondents, thank you to respondents)

6. Response Rate 135 individuals 97 individuals responded to survey 71.8% response rate

7. Preliminary Results National Level Analyses Regional Level Analyses Center Affiliation Analyses a a Center affiliation analyses was not conducted because most respondents listed multiple roles with the Regional IPM Centers. Also, I am concerned about preserving anonymity of respondents—I had several individuals contact me about this concern.

8. National Level Analyses

9. National Level Analyses Frequencies of Stakeholder Response to Centers’ Objectives IPM Center ObjectiveResponse Set Percentage (n = 97) Strongly Agree NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree The center in your region has engaged stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing regional IPM needs. 40.2% (39) 41.2% (40) 12.4% (12) 4.1% (4) 2.1% (2) The center in your region has organized multi- state communication networks. 39.2% (38) 40.2% (39) 13.4% (13) 6.2% (6) 1.0% (1) The center in your region has implemented linkages with other related regional and national entities. 35.1% (34) 37.1% (36) 21.6% (21) 6.2% (6) -- (0) The center in your region has organized and coordinated responses to emerging regional issues. 35.1% (34) 42.3% (41) 12.4% (12) 6.2% (6) 4.1% (4) The center in your region has enhanced IPM through the management of grants programs. 40.2% (39) 39.2% (38) 9.3% (9) 4.1% (4) 7.2% (7)

10. National Level Analyses Means and Standard Deviations of Stakeholder Response to Centers’ Objectives IPM Center ObjectiveMeanSD The center in your region has engaged stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing regional IPM needs. 4.130.93 The center in your region has organized multi-state communication networks. 4.100.93 The center in your region has implemented linkages with other related regional and national entities. 4.010.91 The center in your region has organized and coordinated responses to emerging regional issues. 3.981.05 The center in your region has enhanced IPM through the management of grants programs. 4.011.15 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

11. Regional Level Analyses

12. IPM Center ObjectiveResponse Set Percentage (n = 16) Strongly Agree AgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree The center in your region has engaged stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing regional IPM needs. 18.8% (3) 43.8% (7) 18.8% (3) 12.5% (2) 6.3% (1) The center in your region has organized multi-state communication networks. 31.3% (5) 31.3% (5) 25.0% (4) 12.5% (2) -- (0) The center in your region has implemented linkages with other related regional and national entities. 18.8% (3) 37.5% (6) 25.0% (4) 18.8% (3) -- (0) The center in your region has organized and coordinated responses to emerging regional issues. 25.0% (4) 50.0% (8) 12.5% (2) 12.5% (2) -- (0) The center in your region has enhanced IPM through the management of grants programs. 31.3% (5) 31.3% (5) 12.5% (2) 18.8% (3) 6.3% (1) Frequencies of North Central Region Stakeholder Response to Centers’ Objectives

13. IPM Center ObjectiveResponse Set Percentage (n = 31) Strongly Agree AgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree The center in your region has engaged stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing regional IPM needs. 51.6% (16) 32.3% (10) 9.7% (3) 3.2% (1) 3.2% (1) The center in your region has organized multi-state communication networks. 54.8% (17) 22.6% (7) 12.9% (4) 6.5% (2) 3.2% (1) The center in your region has implemented linkages with other related regional and national entities. 45.2% (14) 32.3% (10) 19.4% (6) 3.2% (1) -- (0) The center in your region has organized and coordinated responses to emerging regional issues. 38.7% (12) 29.0% (9) 16.1% (5) 12.9% (4) 3.2% (1) The center in your region has enhanced IPM through the management of grants programs. 45.2% (14) 32.3% (10) 6.5% (2) 3.2% (1) 12.9% (4) Frequencies of Northeastern Region Stakeholder Response to Centers’ Objectives

14. IPM Center ObjectiveResponse Set Percentage (n = 29) Strongly Agree AgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree The center in your region has engaged stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing regional IPM needs. 27.6% (8) 58.6% (17) 10.3% (3) 3.4% (1) -- (0) The center in your region has organized multi-state communication networks. 17.2% (5) 65.5% (19) 10.3% (3) 6.9% (2) -- (0) The center in your region has implemented linkages with other related regional and national entities. 27.6% (8) 44.8% (13) 20.7% (6) 6.9% (2) -- (0) The center in your region has organized and coordinated responses to emerging regional issues. 37.9% (11) 51.7% (15) 6.9% (2) -- (0) 3.4% (1) The center in your region has enhanced IPM through the management of grants programs. 37.9% (11) 48.3% (14) 6.9% (2) -- (0) 6.9% (2) Frequencies of Southern Region Stakeholder Response to Centers’ Objectives

15. IPM Center ObjectiveResponse Set Percentage (n = 20) Strongly Agree AgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree The center in your region has engaged stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing regional IPM needs. 60.0% (12) 25.0% (5) 15.0% (3) -- (0) -- (0) The center in your region has organized multi-state communication networks. 55.0% (11) 35.0% (7) 10.0% (2) -- (0) -- (0) The center in your region has implemented linkages with other related regional and national entities. 40.0% (8) 35.0% (7) 25.0% (5) -- (0) -- (0) The center in your region has organized and coordinated responses to emerging regional issues. 35.0% (7) 40.0% (8) 15.0% (3) -- (0) 10.0% (2) The center in your region has enhanced IPM through the management of grants programs. 45.0% (9) 45.0% (9) 10.0% (12) -- (0) -- (0) Frequencies of Western Region Stakeholder Response to Centers’ Objectives

16. Region North CentralNortheasternSouthernWestern IPM Center ObjectiveMeanSDMeanSDMeanSDMeanSD The center in your region has engaged stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing regional IPM needs. 3.561.154.261.004.100.724.450.76 The center in your region has organized multi-state communication networks. 3.811.054.191.113.930.754.450.69 The center in your region has implemented linkages with other related regional and national entities. 3.561.034.190.873.930.884.150.81 The center in your region has organized and coordinated responses to emerging regional issues. 3.880.963.871.184.210.863.901.21 The center in your region has enhanced IPM through the management of grants programs. 3.621.313.941.364.101.054.350.67 Means and Standard Deviations of Stakeholder Response (by Region) to Centers’ Objectives 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

17. National Level Analyses Select Responses from Open-ended Questions For questions 1-5, I have provided one slide with positive comments and one slide with areas for improvement

18. Has the Center in your region engaged stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing regional IPM needs?

19. Advisory committees and steering committees are composed of diverse groups of stakeholders through the region. (21 total responses) The IPM Center has made strong efforts at completing PMSPs and getting stakeholders involved with IPM efforts. (7 total responses) Center has established priorities for grant programs. (4 total responses)

20. Need more interaction between IPM Centers and stakeholders. (5 total responses) Need more diversity with stakeholders… (4 total responses)

21. Has the Center in your region organized multi-state communication networks?

22. IPM Centers have implemented web-based communication. (15 total responses) IPM Centers have sponsored multi-state networks to share information. (10 total responses) Excellent communication between states and Center and other regional and national agencies. (8 total responses)

23. …I do not feel there is open lines of communication between the state IPM coordinators and the Centers. (2 total responses) Multi-state communication has improved, but could be enhanced. (2 total responses)

24. Has the Center in your region implemented linkages with other related regional and national entities?

25. Connected with EPA (9 total responses) Connected with other Regional Centers (6 total responses) Connected with NRCS (7 total responses) Connected with IR-4 Program (4 total responses) Connected with Plant Diagnostic Network (4 total responses) Connected with State Agencies (4 total responses) Connected with PSEP Program (3 total responses) Connected with CSREES National Program Leader/Staff (3 total responses) Connected with Land Grant University, 1890 Schools (3 total responses) Connected with Non-Profit Organizations (3 total responses)

26. Any regional or national linkages already existed before the centers. The centers did not add anything to implementing IPM except for adding another layer of bureaucracy. (3 total responses) No improvement, few linkages, no coordination of program plans. (3 total responses)

27. Has the Center in your region organized and coordinated responses to emerging regional issues?

28. There has been improved responsiveness to USDA and EPA requests for information…Centers working with states to gather information. (7 total responses) Grant programs focus on emerging issues. (5 total responses) Pest alert bulletins (4 total responses) Specific examples: Asian soybean rust (19 responses) ; Pink hibiscus mealybug (6 responses) ; etc.

29. Yes, there have been pest alerts written…however each state needs to respond with management information pertinent to their state. I would like to see the Center “farm-out” activities to the state programs, both tap and highlight the expertise of individuals within state programs. Centers work hard to develop coordinated response, but coordination is always challenged.

30. Has the Center in your region enhanced IPM approaches and systems through the management of grants programs?

31. Centralizing the regional grants efforts along clearly stated priorities provides focus to the overall IPM goal ; aligned with the IPM Roadmap. (9 total responses) Center is responsible for many of the region’s IPM grant programs. (9 total responses) Grants require multi-state collaboration and stakeholder involvement…addressing priority needs while eliminating redundancy… (8 total responses)

32. Funding of IPM programs has been solid, but inadequate. (4 total responses) All grant programs could benefit from more objectively measured, outcome related results; stronger emphasis on performance measures and outcomes. (4 responses) IPM regional grants program already existed and the names only changed…decreased efficiency of proven process. (4 responses)

33. Are there any activities, programs, approaches or practices that the Regional IPM Centers should consider implementing?

34. Areas of Focus (integrate these areas into the Center Programs) –Organic pest management into program –Non-agricultural issues –Invasive species Conference/Workshop –One major regional conference with major theme Cross Regional Efforts –Work on issues that bridge regional boundaries Demonstration Projects –Greater use of “demonstration” projects

35. Evaluation/Measuring Impacts –Greater emphasis on environmental, health and economic impacts –Performance measures Leadership –Center take more active approach to driving IPM policy and adoption –Center take lead role in national IPM decision support system Outreach –Work closely to engage more stakeholders

36. Outreach/Marketing –IPM Centers need to do a better job of marketing themselves as a good source of IPM information –Brief reports to concisely summarize goals of program, research results of grant funding, progress towards goals, etc. Support State Contact/State Coordinator –Fully fund one position per state to conduct activities of state contact (crop profiles, PMSP activities, etc.)

37. Questions for You How will results be made available to participants? –IPM Center web site? Can I attend the Mid-Term Review? –I would like to be there if there are any questions about the survey –I would like to see a discussion on future evaluation efforts…something that was mentioned several times throughout the survey…

38. Questions for Me Let me know if you have any questions or concerns csimmons@iastate.edu Thank you