1. Regional IPM Centers Survey A Summary Adapted from a presentation by Carol Pilcher Department of Entomology Iowa State University

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

3. National Level Analyses Table 1. 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)

4. 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

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

6. 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

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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.)