Regional IPM Centers SurveyA Summary

Adapted from a presentation by Carol PilcherDepartment of Entomology

Iowa State University

Response Rate

• 135 individuals• 97 individuals responded to survey• 71.8% response rate

National Level Analyses Table 1. Frequencies of Stakeholder Response to

Centers’ ObjectivesIPM Center Objective Response Set

Percentage(n = 97)

StronglyAgree

Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree

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)

National Level AnalysesMeans and Standard Deviations of Stakeholder

Response to Centers’ Objectives

IPM Center Objective Mean SD

The center in your region has engaged stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing regional IPM needs.

4.13 0.93

The center in your region has organized multi-state communication networks.

4.10 0.93

The center in your region has implemented linkages with other related regional and national entities.

4.01 0.91

The center in your region has organized and coordinated responses to emerging regional issues.

3.98 1.05

The center in your region has enhanced IPM through the management of grants programs.

4.01 1.15

1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

IPM Center Objective Response SetPercentage

(n = 31)

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 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)

Table 2. Frequencies of Northeastern Region Stakeholder Response to Centers’ Objectives

Region

North Central Northeastern Southern Western

IPM Center Objective Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

The center in your region has engaged stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing regional IPM needs.

3.56 1.15 4.26 1.00 4.10 0.72 4.45 0.76

The center in your region has organized multi-state communication networks.

3.81 1.05 4.19 1.11 3.93 0.75 4.45 0.69

The center in your region has implemented linkages with other related regional and national entities.

3.56 1.03 4.19 0.87 3.93 0.88 4.15 0.81

The center in your region has organized and coordinated responses to emerging regional issues.

3.88 0.96 3.87 1.18 4.21 0.86 3.90 1.21

The center in your region has enhanced IPM through the management of grants programs.

3.62 1.31 3.94 1.36 4.10 1.05 4.35 0.67

Means and Standard Deviations of Stakeholder Response (by Region) to Centers’ Objectives

1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

Are there any activities, programs, approaches or

practices that the Regional IPM Centers should consider

implementing?

• 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

• 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

• 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.)