Meeting Notes - Day 2

On September 12, participants had two assignments: first, to form three groups that mixed 1862s and 1890s and discuss prominent barriers and ways they could be overcome; and second, to write a note indicating what they needed from IPM administrators, 1890 administrators, CSREES, SRIPMC, coordinators from the other institution, and what they could do themselves to start collaborating. The notes below are the results of those exercises.

Group 1: Steve Hopkins facilitating

A note about numbering: In all lists below, numbers do NOT indicate order. We use numbers only to facilitate discussion.

Barriers

1. No incentive or internal administrative support for collaboration
2. No new resources from external sources
3. Lack of knowledge of what the other institution does
4. Lack of staff—no one to collaborate with

Other Barriers

We had a long discussion about the difference in needs between small farms and large farms. 1862s typically work with the larger farms that can afford an IPM program. The 1890s typically work with small farms that do not have the equipment or technical understanding to implement IPM. A couple of people in our group said that it would be difficult to collaborate with their counterparts because their constituents had very little in common.

Solutions

No incentive or internal administrative support for collaboration

1. Get something from CSREES to deans mandating or strongly encouraging collaborations between 1862 and 1890
2. Attendees of this meeting backbrief leadership and ask them to buy into recommendations of this meeting

No new resources from external sources

1. Show there is an issue that is not currently being addressed that could be addressed through collaboration between 1890 and 1862
2. Identify funding sources (e.g., SARE) that support collaboration between those institutions

Lack of knowledge of what the other institution does

1. Call other contact and try to get to know that person
2. CSREES pay for representatives of either 1862 or 1890 school to visit representatives from the other institution in each state
3. Southern Region IPM Center could create a Web page with information about each school and provide bio information for each

Group 2: Jim VanKirk facilitating

Barriers

1. Institutional frameworks—joint planning, networking, coordination, connect the networks
2. Funding competitiveness and opportunities
3. Institution support, recognition, respect

Other Barriers

1. Human capital—sharing human resources (4)
2. Working with diverse audiences (2)
3. Institutional resources (capacity building) (2)
4. Funding competitiveness and opportunities (5)
5. Multidisciplinary approach—alternative and niche areas (clientele, market coverage) (4)
6. Institutional (admin) support and recognition and respect (mutual) (3)
7. Grant writing expertise – grant-vetting procedures (local) (1)
8. Institutional frameworks – joint planning, networking and coordination. Connect the networks (7)
9. Communication (1)
10. Willingness to collaborate (2)
11. Lack of understanding about 1890s programs (2)
12. Relevant and appropriate tailoring (2)
13. Understaffed, limited funding for IPM (1)

Solutions

Institutional frameworks—joint planning, networking, coordination, connect the networks

1. A person responsible for networking (facilitator)
2. SRIPMC involve 1890s more (AC, SC) and have direct contact with a specialist
3. “Annual meeting” along
4. Encourage in-state and cross-state cross institution partnerships

Funding competitiveness and opportunities

1. Encourage joint proposals. Planning will lead to modify or emphasize RFA criteria
2. Look at other centers—SARE, Risk Management—with tighter 1890 contacts
3. Distribution of info—meeting participants start contact list
4. Grant writing training, either online or in-person

Institution support, recognition, respect

1. SRIPMC should contact administrator, paper, visit (teams)
2. 1890 and 1862 admin meeting present joint news, procedures, make sure news gives credit to each institution
3. 1890 extension and research director present program to 1862
4. 1862 director present IPM program to 1890
5. joint appointments – both institutions committees (graduate program) planning
6. travel support—funding to travel to other institution
7. CSREES addition of 1890 to database (proposal review)

Group 3: Mike Fitzner leading

Barriers

1. Lack of (absence of) a land grant (1862 & 1890 & 1994) IPM program in each state
2. Lack of administrative support
3. Lack of joint planning / partnering

Lack of (absence of) a land grant (1862 & 1890 & 1994) IPM program in each state

1. Define roles of IPM coordinator for directors / administrators
2. Directors / administrators set expectations

Lack of administrative support

1. CSREES meeting with ECOP representatives

Lack of joint planning / partnering

1. Increase awareness of colleagues (counterparts) at sister university
2. Expand two-way communication

What We Should Do activity

1890 Administrators should…

• 1862 administrators will consider a state-level IPM coordinator to serve all land grants (1862, 1890, and 1994 (Native American))
• 1862/1890 administrators should provide:
• Institutional support
• Incentives
• Funding priority
• My 1890 administrator should hire an extension specialist who can devote some real time to IPM
• My 1890 program administrator should make IPM part of my annual evaluation

1862 Administrators should…

• 1862 administrators will consider a state-level IPM coordinator to serve all land grants (1862, 1890, and 1994 (Native American))
• State IPM coordinators should hold a meeting with representatives from sister institutions (1890 / 1994) and review the program
• SERA 03 administrators should consider allowing 1890 contacts to join the group
• 1862s should involve 1890s in planning process for IPM programs
• 1862 schools in each state with an 1890 or 1994 counterpart should take a day and go visit (the IPM Center should sponsor)
• Each state IPM coordinator should present the state IPM program to counterparts in the state at the start of each year
• IPM coordinator should reach out to 1890 contact person for collaboration
• The 1862 IPM coordinator should reach out to the 1890 IPM representative
• Consider incorporating 1890 IPM contacts into official information exchange group

The 1890 program reps should…

• 1890s reps should plan and accomplish a joint project with 1862 IPM reps
• 1890s and 1862s should provide administrative and funding support to IPM
• 1890s will identify institutional IPM contacts and maintain a network by means of an official facilitator
• 1890 IPM reps should provide contact info of interested collaborating 1890 personnel to 1862 IPM coordinators to distribute to 1862 faculty and staff

CSREES should…

• CSREES or appropriate federal contact should approach private foundation (Gates, other) about providing support for 1862 / 1890 collaboration
• CSREES will provide funding for a regional 1890 IPM facilitator
• CSREES will work with ECOP to develop job expectations for EIPM coordinators
• USDA should make it mandatory to involve 1890s in IPM programs
• CSREES should have a special IPM RFA that requires joint 1890 and 1862 submission
• CSREES should encourage deans of 1862 and 1890s to collaborate
• CSREES / IPM / SARE / Risk Management program leaders will discuss joint opportunities for IPM projects
• CSREES should add more 1890 expertise to the pool of NRI project reviewers and other grant project reviewers
• Mike Fitzner, CSREES should discuss IPM land grant programs with ECOP
• CSREES should:
• provide new funding sources
• Contact deans in 1862/1890 institutions to promote IPM collaboration
• Fund 1890 facilitator
• CSREES / IPM Centers should make clear the relative priority of interstate collaboration and 1862 / 1890 collaboration on grant decisions
• CSREES should emphasize the importance of 1862 – 1890 collaborations to appropriate college administrators

EPA should…

• Include language in RFAs to specifically encourage joint LGU participation (i.e., joint proposals for 1890/1862 LGUs)
• Someone should propose to analyze whether the risks of (legal) pesticide use on small farms represents a greater risk than from large operations and a significant risk to health and environment

The IPM Centers should…

• The regional IPM centers should include 1890s reps in the IPM structure
• Susan should contact KB and keep him informed of IPM activities and funding in the North Central region
• The Southern IPM Center should promote a joint extension project
• SRIPMC should provide:
• New funding sources
• Revise RFP to encourage collaboration
• SRIPMC should serve as an interface between the 1862s and 1890s by providing a Web site for pertinent information
• SRIPMC should follow up through e-mail to all IPM reps and coordinators of any new changes from this meeting
• SRIPMC will lead development of an IPM “Roadshow” to be presented to the 1890-1862 land grant administrators
• SRIPMC should encourage / require evidence of collaboration of state coordinator with representative from sister institution
• SRIPMC will send information to each identified IPM contact and 1890 and 1862 (not administrators)
• Research directors and deans should be educated on the importance of joint IPM programs (1890 and 1862 through presentations or visits by the SRIPMC

I will…

• I will put on SR PLN ANR program to discuss joint opportunities, sharing of time and funds, release time for staff to share
• Obadiah Njue will contact the state coordinator and start collaborative efforts
• Sandy Sardanelli, Maryland IPM, will foster total inclusion of Maryland 1890 IPM activities into the Maryland IPM program
• I will contact the state IPM coordinator at the 1862 to look into more joint program planning
• I will continue to strengthen working relationships with my 1890 IPM contact
• Pat Parkman will attempt to initiate communication between U of Tennessee and Tennessee State University IPM personnel by posting info for interested parties
• KB should set up a meeting with the University of Maryland IPM coordinator and discuss joint activities
• I should contact a counterpart at my 1890 institution
• Participants should brief administrators about this meeting
• The Maryland IPM coordinator will introduce 1890 inclusion for NEREAP multi-state project
• I want funding for IPM programs at 1890 institutions
• I will provide IPM expertise and coordination in Alabama
• I will invite my state IPM coordinator to learn about the pest management issues of my 1890 clientele
• KB will inform / brief my dean about this meeting
• I will work with my 1890 representative to develop a collaborative effort
• Susan should contact KB and keep him informed of IPM activities and funding in the NCR
• I will initiate joint IPM projects for CBG funding for 2007 (Louis J)
• I should brief EPA leadership on the issues raised by this group and suggest that the IPM Centers may be in a position to collaborate with us on a project aimed at environmental justice issues

Summary:

SRIPMC: Communications (Jim, Rosemary)
Website, meeting report, e-mail

CSREES (Mike Fitzner)
IPM coordinator / facilitator description

1862 IPM Coordinators (Sandy, Norm and Henry)
Engagement discussion, provide bios

1890 Administrators (LWL)
Include IPM in evaluation / IPM “working group”

1890 Reps
Provide bios, identify appropriate personnel / contact

Notes Day 1 - Evaluations - 1890 Home