National School IPM Working Group Joint Steering and Advisory Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, December 2nd at 11:30am CDT
1. Roll: Carol Westinghouse, Dawn Gouge, Deb Young, Fudd Graham, Gregg Smith, Herb
Bolton, Janet Hurley, Jim Vankirk, Katie Howard, Lynn Braband, Mariel Snyder, Marcia
Duke, Michael Herring, Michael Page, Sherry Glick, Tim Stock, Tom Green
2. Additional agenda item: Review Steering Committee members, ex: Kathy Seikel is
retired.
3. Strategic Plan
Administration review to update pesticide products, hyperlinks, contact lists, etc.
Review by Steering Committee: Priorities need to be kept current because they are a key
part of our strategic plan which helps funders identify what stakeholders have identified
as worth funding. Goals, objectives and tactics need refreshing. 2015 is only two years
away and we will most likely not be at high level IPM implementation by then, that goal
will need to be revised.
The process of updating priorities: consolidate current regional priorities (as soon as
NE update completed, expected shortly), route consolidated list via regional working
groups for additions/revisions, route final list through regional groups for ranking; decide
whether to post a truncated list with lower priorities dropped vs. all priorities.
Tom suggested creating a website where we can access current School IPM 2015
priorities, with links to regional priorities from that page.
-
-
-
Suggested strategies/objectives
Incorporate current objectives from recently completed/in-progress/pending projects in
strategic plan.
New potential funders. E.g., foundations, NIH.
o Difficulty in securing ongoing funding to sustain network and proven strategies
including demonstrations/coalitions.
o Need additional funding to address unfunded mandates in states, e.g., core
funding to support training, education, compliance assistance.
More trained, experienced IPM coordinators.
o To address day-to-day implementation of IPM policy.
o To provide oversight on in-house staff and contractors.
o Educated point of contact for our outreach.
Variability in states
o Target low adoption states for special initiatives?
o Immense challenge without dedicated FTE critical
o EPA leadership to initiate a meeting of all key stakeholders? Needs, opportunities,
identification/recruitment of champions?
-
-
-
Congressional hearing on school IPM?
o NPMA involvement key.
IPest Manager
o Beta version 2 nearly complete, trial planned for Salt Lake City schools.
o Janet’s grant includes creating a mobile app.
o Concern about how to develop sustainable model for broader adoption; need for
school district IT help.
o SchoolDude easier to use initially, IPest Manager more information but more
challenging initially.
Cooperative Educational Services Agency model, Wisconsin
o What can we learn from this EPA-funded project; agency that provides broad
services to school districts added IPM to their offerings.
o CESA-like orgs exist in other states; is the model exportable?
Road Map has been updated, should we expand our reach outside of schools?
o www.ipmcenters.org/ipmroadmap.pdf
Accomplishments
Committee should review what we learned so far, including what we have learned
through the surveys. Our overarching strategy about collaborating and coordinating has
been working; there is much less duplication of efforts. This was apparent through the
state level survey completed summer 2012. There is a strong indication that having this
core network is working and helping us be more effective with increasing
activity/advanced activity in more states.
Room for growth
The school district survey numbers suggest that we are at about a 20% adoption rate of
credible IPM programs on paper. About 50% of respondents indicated they had an IPM
coordinator, plan, policy, pre-approved list of pesticides and that routine applications
were not being made. Taking into consideration the strong bias of individuals who
completed the survey having an active IPM program to begin with, there is somewhere
between 15-25% adoption rate, at least on paper. Important to focus on what are our key
strategy is to to get those numbers up; IPM coordinator role and how important that role
is. Specific objectives to include in the strategic plan are to increase the number of
districts with a trained IPM coordinator.
Next Steps
Please review the ATTACHED outline for accuracy which we will discuss on our next
call, January 6th at 11:30am (CDT).
4. Regional updates
a. North Central
We have some exciting news; Dawn Gouge had received funding to assist with the
Standard Certification training modules and exams. This will be extremely helpful and
speed the entire process. We will be reorganizing the committees that work on the project
moving forward. There will be a development committee and a review committee. The
development committee will be a small group that works closely with the PI’s of both
grants to contribute and create the actual module and exams. The review committee will
be large and consist of individuals from a variety of backgrounds that will provide helpful
suggestions and feedback on how to improve the training material. If you are interested in
joining the review committee please join us for a conference call on December 9th at
10:00am central time to learn more about how you can be a part of this project. Call
information will be sent out this week.
Jennifer Everhart will be leaving CESA 10; Jessica Schroeder will be taking over her
grant reporting duties
b. North Eastern: not successful with EPA grant fund.
c. Southern
Janet: The southern region put out a social network analysis of the working group,
if you were sent that email please fill it out even if you are not part of the southern
working group. The survey will show our collaboration.
Dawn suggested a self-analysis of our own steering/advisory committees
regarding demographics
5. IPM and PPDC group updates will be discussed on the next call.
Next call: Monday, January 6th at 11:30am CDT
There will not be a guest speaker; we will discuss our Strategic Plan