In February 2006, the Northeastern IPM Center participated in a midterm review of the Regional IPM Centers Program. USDAs Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) has released a report presenting conclusions of this review, and these conclusions are summarized below. The complete report can be viewed at http://www.ipmcenters.org/IPMCenterReview2-06.pdf .
Purpose and Format of the Review. The purpose of the review was to assess the Regional IPM Centers configuration, performance, and engagement with other programs. All four regional Centers were reviewed by one panel under the leadership of CSREES. The review teams work was based on written materials and presentations provided by CSREES and each of the four Regional IPM Centers. Reviewers also heard presentations from a variety of government and university organizations, received input from Center stakeholders via conference calls and surveys, and met individually with the leadership of each IPM Center. This review process has been viewed as an opportunity to identify and build on successes and to implement corrective initiatives where necessary.
Broad Conclusions. Overall, the review team determined that the IPM Centers have been successful individually and as a network. They found the Centers to be synergistic and to increase efficiency, communication, and connections with stakeholders, engaging a wide spectrum of nontraditional partners and reinforcing established IPM networks in ways that facilitate IPM adoption across the nation. The team advised CSREES to continue funding the Regional IPM Centers on an equal distribution basis and to consider the Centers success as a model for other future CSREES programs.
Strengths Identified. The review team determined that Centers have been especially effective in meeting the following goals: -- promoting interdisciplinary and multiorganizational collaboration; -- facilitating the development of knowledge, information, technology, communication, and education to enhance IPM for the benefit of regional stakeholders and the environment; -- serving as a focal point for interactive communication; -- involving stakeholders in identifying needs and priorities for IPM in serving agriculture, food, and natural resource systems; -- organizing responses to emerging regional issues; -- managing resources to facilitate regional IPM programs and activities, showing impressive use of limited resources to maximize output of projects; and -- promoting collaboration to minimize duplication of effort among states and regions.
Recommendations for Improvement. The review team identified some areas for improvement and offered the following recommendations: -- Centers need to expand their efforts to establish positive relationships with other federal agencies, a process that has begun but has not reached its full potential. -- Centers could benefit from additional support in Washington. -- Centers should make strong efforts to secure external funds to leverage the funds received from CSREES and to help support additional program efforts. -- Centers should develop and widely distribute user-friendly, informative annual reports to highlight accomplishments and successes. Reviewers also recommended that Centers continue to encourage full participation of state IPM coordinators in Center activities, to partner with each other to use resources efficiently, and to expand partnerships with other organizations to create greater awareness of and benefits for the Centers.
Centers Impact on States. Reviewers gave special consideration to the Centers impact on states and multistate collaboration, asking whether coordination of IPM efforts across states has led to efficiencies that help to compensate for shrinking resources at the state level. They concluded that Centers have created and continue to build a sound foundation for multistate collaboration through the broad representation within their structures, the collaborative requirements of their grants programs, and their role in facilitating communication between knowledgeable stakeholders in the states and federal decisionmakers. Reviewers noted that many of the stakeholders participating in the review process said the IPM Centers have had a positive impact on multistate collaboration and communication.
Focus on the Northeastern IPM Center. Some of the review team's comments were targeted specifically toward the Northeastern IPM Center. Reviewers praised broad initiatives such as Northeast Regional Community and Urban IPM Conference, the website framework developed by the Northeast and now shared by all Centers, and the engagement of environmental and nonagricultural organizations. The panel recommended that the Northeastern IPM Center assist other regions in adapting its model for community IPM. Reviewers were also impressed by the Northeastern IPM Centers Strategic Plan and recommended that we provide guidance to other Centers on strategic planning.
For more information contact Liz Myers
Email: ebm24@cornell.edu
http://northeastipm.org