1890 Responses

1862 Responses

What do you have to offer in a collaboration with your partner 1862 institution?

• Outreach staff working with underserved communities
• Small vegetable and livestock IPM projects
• Research staff for farmer training
• Release time for research IPM
• Expertise that can complement other niches
• Diverse audiences
• Organic expertise
• Geographic coverage
• Strong risk assessment team
• Complementary faculty – HPR
• Alternative and niche (nontraditional ag)
• Regional approach
• Funding sources – 1890s should be lead capacity building
• Funding partnerships
• Land resources

• What do you have to offer the collaboration?
• IPM Research and Extension expertise, experience and organization.
• Connections, networking/IPM R&E Infrastructure
• More Extensive County Extension system (every county)
• Network of 1862 agents
• Institutional Resources
• Advocacy
• S-L-3(d) $$ available for joint projects
• IPM Centers provide a mechanism for encouraging joint projects, provide $$ to 1890’s and 1994’s
• Connections to different audiences (e.g. traditional agricultural, row crops, etc.)
• Have stronger political connections (some 1862’s)
• Stronger connections to EPA, OTHER Federal Agencies and programs (e.g. IR-4)
• More expertise in grants game.
  

What do I need from the 1862s to make my programs better?

• Commitment from administration
• Same access to funding opportunities (IE3(D))
• Involvement with 1890s from beginning of project planning
• Joint planning
• Sharing resources equally and respectfully
• Desire for collaboration
• IPM expertise
• Communication
• Share credit when story is covered by news
• Geographical coverage – statewide
• Joint IPM program in extension (broad or component)

What do I need from the 1890s to make my programs better?

• Access to different audience’s e.g. Under-served, organic farmers.
• Expertise in different areas
• Plans outlining goals, objectives and measurements (regional)
• Commitment to Collaboration.
• Willingness to collaborate
• Institutional framework to foster collaboration
• Bigger pool of IPM expertise/energy
• Help in getting the state institutions engaged in IPM
• Increase competitiveness for funding
• Need to ID a clientele and program area that both can address
• Cooperation and synergy
• Strengthen connection to “the people”
• Improve image of 1862, increase diversity

What are challenges / barriers to collaboration? If not collaborating, why not?

• Lack of administrative support
• Coordination mechanisms
• Where’s the money?
• Show more willingness to support collaboration
• Never got started – lack of awareness
• Didn’t have staff (no IPM coordinator for a while)
• IPM coordinator needs to reach out more
• Lack of understanding of 1890s
• Retirements / transitions
• Programs not appropriate for clientele
• Lack of programmatic match with other institution

• What are the barriers to greater collaboration?
• Lack of institutional support and framework that is supportive of IPM. Upper administration doesn’t know what it is.
• Need for general recognition of IPM – where it fits
• Limited resources, -- $, time – IPM 3(d) tied up in salaries
• No new $$ - don’t want to take away from existing programs.
• Lack of recognition (P&T) for collaborative efforts – results in cynicism
• Differences in administrative and managerial styles
• Lack of experience in Grant Writing
• Lack of awareness of other institutions & programs
• Fewer applied R&E faculty
• Land-Grants are no longer the top dog in some states – 1890 & 1862 need to band together to compete.