Adopted, October 31, 1994
Previously Modified, October 28, Nov. 8, 1996, January 30, 1998, March 1, 1999,
April 19, 2000, and Nov. 27, 2000

DEFINITIONS AND GOALS
The University of Massachusetts Extension Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program is a systems-oriented educational program that involves an interdisciplinary approach to urban ecosystems management, crop production and pest management. This approach incorporates mechanisms for accurate estimation of both pest and beneficial insect populations, includes both economic and environmental cost and benefit assessments, and prescribes a combination of strategies for control of pest problems.

The goal of the program is to provide research-based information, education, and cost effective techniques for growers, grounds managers, and others to use in producing high yields of quality products, and to help maintain crops, landscapes, schools or other structures, in ways which reduce potential adverse effects on human health and the environment. A further goal is to enhance adoption of IPM practices by the greatest possible number of users and aid in the development of private-sector IPM services.

Back to Top

FUNDING
From 1978 through 1984, IPM program support came to UMass Extension primarily from USDA Smith-Lever 3-(d) Pest Management formula funds. In addition to earmarked Extension dollars, support for faculty research from Experiment Station (Hatch) funds and from USDA CSRS regional competitive grants also contributed to early progress in developing IPM systems.
In 1985 a true Federal-State partnership began with authorization by the Massachusetts Legislature of funding to the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture to be used for IPM programs. The Cooperative Agreement between the Department of Food and Agriculture and the University of Massachusetts Extension has worked to the benefit of both parties, and currently results in substantial IPM research and implementation. Clientele have also contributed a significant amount of funding to the program. Because funding is annual and subject to appropriation, staff numbers and program scope are obviously related to the amount of funding available. While it is obvious that the IPM program should be considered in a long-term context with implementation and success measures spanning several production periods, the funding situation puts implicit constraints on long-term planning.

Back to Top

PROGRAM DIRECTION
IPM Project Advisory Committee Composition, Roles, Responsibilities and General Operating Procedures

In accordance with USDA guidelines and the terms of the Interagency Service Agreement with MDFA, each active commodity-based IPM project shall form a Project Advisory Committee (PAC). Meetings of the PAC shall be held biannually if possible or more often if needed, and may be convened at the request of any 2 members of the advisory committee. The role of this group is to provide project staff, the IPM Coordinator, and the Statewide IPM Steering Committee with periodic input on and evaluation of project activities and directions and to insure that priority pest and crop management needs of the industry and concerns of other agencies and citizens of the Commonwealth are being met to the greatest extent possible.

In addition to a variable number of individual growers, whenever possible, the Project Advisory Committee will also have representation from private-sector IPM scouts/consultants, environmental or consumer advocacy groups, trade associations, and related businesses (e.g. Equipment dealers, agricultural chemical representatives, etc.), community organizations and at least one MDFA member. Additional individuals may be appointed upon majority vote of existing members.

Each PAC shall elect a chair who shall preside over committee meetings and represent the PAC on the IPM Steering Committee. The chair shall not be an employee of UMass or MDFA. Meeting notes which strive to represent discussion and viewpoints of all members of the PAC and project staff shall be taken of all PAC meetings. It shall be requested that a non-UMass or MDFA employee take responsibility for taking and receiving approval of minutes. If such an individual does not step forward, it shall be decided upon by the committee who from UMass or MDFA shall take minutes.

By September 1 of each year, project leaders shall provide a complete listing of advisory committee members including name, address, phone number and (if available) E-mail addresses to the IPM Coordinator. The IPM Coordinator shall forward such lists to all members of the IPM Steering Committee by September 15 of that year.

All project proposals to be submitted to the IPM Steering Committee for consideration of funding shall first be presented at a meeting of the PAC for review and input. Said meeting shall take place at such time so as to allow approved minutes of the meeting to be received by the IPM Steering Committee members at least ten working days (14 days specified in Section 4C.) prior to the meeting of the IPM Steering Committee at which the project proposal will be discussed.

IPM Program Steering Committee Composition, Roles, Responsibilities and General Operating Procedures
A statewide IPM Steering Committee shall be formed consisting of industry representatives, the Commissioner of MDFA or his designee, the Pesticide Bureau Chief or other MDFA representative designated by the Commissioner, representatives of consumer and/or environmental advocacy organizations, the Chair or Chair's designate representing each Project Advisory Committee, Heads of the Departments of Entomology, Plant and Soil Sciences and Microbiology or their designee, the UMass Extension Agriculture and Landscape Program Coordinator, The UMass IPM Coordinator and the Associate Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station. Membership shall not be considered exclusive, and should be anticipated to change.

The role of the IPM Steering Committee is to provide peer review of project proposals and accomplishment reports. The Committee will meet as necessary to: (1) accept reports of accomplishments made by the Coordinator and by project Principal Investigators, (2) evaluate project proposals and approve project budgets with respect to continuing projects and new proposals, (3) consider matters of policy, procedures, and future program priorities.

The Steering Committee shall provide input and guidance to the IPM Program, engage in planning, management, and evaluation of the IPM program, create a shared vision for its future, and insure the implementation of a program which serves the identified needs of program participants and citizens of the Commonwealth. It is their responsibility, to receive the input provided by Project Advisory Committees and translate it into multi-disciplinary applied research and educational programs. This responsibility requires that the committee identify needs, determine program priorities, provide context and perspective, and assess the state of the art of IPM research and technology. It is their responsibility to assess program accomplishments and impacts, evaluate value and reliability of findings, judge the quality of program proposals, place proposals within the context of overall priorities established, make decisions regarding University personnel, and determine project funding levels.

An additional function of the Committee is to suggest additional members if needed. Meetings of the Steering Committee will be open and participatory. A specific intention of Committee meetings is to provide an opportunity for UMass members to listen and learn from private sector and environmental/consumer advocacy members.

At its first meeting after July 1 of that year, the Steering Committee shall, by majority vote of all members present, annually elect a chair who shall be charged with presiding over the meeting. The chair shall not be an employee of either UMass or MDFA.
The Committee shall meet at least twice per year at the call of the IPM Coordinator. If they deem it necessary, any other Committee member may also call a meeting. The development of the agenda for meetings shall be the responsibility of the IPM Coordinator and shall be made available to the members of the IPM Steering Committee at least one week prior to the date of the meeting. During meetings at which project proposals are discussed or voted upon, representatives of the PAC, in concert with the Project Leader, shall be given an opportunity to present the proposed plan of work and the results of stakeholder review.

Current membership of the IPM Steering Committee is:
UMass Extension IPM Program Coordinator
UMass Extension Agriculture and Landscape Program Coordinator
Massachusetts CARET Representative
One representative from each active IPM Project Advisory Committee
Environmental or consumer advocacy group representatives (3)
Agricultural industry representatives (3)
Massachusetts Farm Bureau Representative
Massachusetts Ag. Board Representative
Representative of the structural pest control industry
Associate Director, Agricultural Experiment Station
Mass. Dept. of Food and Agriculture representatives (2)
The Head/Chair U. Mass. Dept. of Entomology, or designee
The Head/Chair U. Mass. Dept. of Microbiology, or designee
The Head/Chair U. Mass. Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, or designee
Massachusetts Farm Services Agency Director or designee
Massachusetts Natural Resource Conservation Service Director, or designee
Representative of US EPA Region I

UMass Extension IPM Program Coordinator
It is the responsibility of the IPM Coordinator to provide leadership and direction for the initiation, conceptualization, and development of educational programs in integrated pest management. These responsibilities should be consistent with the objectives and goals set forth and subject to the advice and counsel, input and guidance of the IPM Steering Committee. The Coordinator will be affiliated with an appropriate academic department, and receive administrative supervision by the Department Head, and program supervision from the UMass Extension Agriculture and Landscape Program Coordinator.

Salient duties from the UMass Extension IPM Coordinator job description follow:

1. Develop and propose IPM program objectives, design delivery methods and evaluation procedures.
   
2. Develop comprehensive IPM program materials for state-wide use in educational programs.
   
3. Initiate and teach workshops and training sessions statewide.
   
4. Counsel and advise clientele and staff.
   
5. Coordinate the activities of and collaborate with other specialists and faculty.
   
6. In cooperation with other administrators, provide leadership, direction, and coordination of IPM programs with faculty and state specialist staff.
   
7. Design and conduct periodic evaluations of program effectiveness.
   
8. Maintain records and submit reports on state program activities as required by state and federal authorities, including serving as Executive Secretary for the IPM Steering Committee.
   
9. Assist in development and management of budgets for statewide program in collaboration with the IPM Steering Committee.
   
10. Participate in the development and implementation of operational procedures.
    
11. In cooperation with the Agriculture and Landscape Program Coordinator, and the IPM Steering Committee, coordinate and manage the state-wide IPM program.
    
12. Provide leadership in appropriate forms to acquire additional resource funding for the IPM program.

Consistent with terms of the ISA with MDFA, specific additional expectations of the IPM Coordinator shall include: ensuring that all current PAC members are provided with appropriate contact information (names addresses telephone numbers and, if available, E-mail addresses) for all Steering Committee members, and to ensure that all Steering Committee members are provided with appropriate contact information for all PAC members and all Steering Committee members.

Procedures to be Followed by The IPM Steering Committee in Dealing With Proposals

Depending on the availability of appropriated funds, the IPM Coordinator with the approval of the Agriculture and Landscape Coordinator, will issue a request for proposals (RFP). The RFP will define the nature of acceptable IPM proposals, including format and priority areas for work as defined by the IPM Steering Committee. A deadline will be established for submission and awards will be announced as soon as possible after that deadline. All awards are contingent upon the availability of funds. To the greatest extent possible through good faith solicitation, the IPM Program will give fair opportunity and consideration for funding to all potential IPM projects and/or activities described in the ISA with MDFA.

At a meeting, the IPM Steering Committee will review all project proposals using criteria which include technical scientific merit, capacity for performance given available resources, stated priorities of the state IPM program, and past performance of the proposer(s). The IPM Program Coordinator will present a budget recommendation for each proposed project, taking into account the availability of funds. All Committee decision-making, including funding awards, will be by majority vote. No member of the Steering Committee who has involvement in a project subject to vote shall be granted voting privileges on issues associated with that project. The IPM Program Coordinator will vote on the award of proposals and will participate fully in discussions of proposals and budget awards.

The IPM Steering Committee may suggest project modifications and budget revisions to be negotiated with the proposer(s). Limitations on available funds may require that the IPM Steering Committee prioritize the proposals, hence, all meritorious proposals may not be funded. Proposers whose projects are not selected will receive a written statement of the reason(s) for rejection. Unsuccessful proposers may appeal the decisions of the IPM Steering Committee when the decision was primarily based on technical scientific criteria. In that event, an anonymous panel of reviewers may be invited to review the proposal and offer advice with regard to the technical merit of the proposal to the IPM Steering Committee. The IPM Steering Committee reserves the right of final judgement. Funding for projects in the appeal process is contingent upon availability of funds.

Guidelines for Principal Investigators Submitting Proposals
The following general guidelines are set forth in an effort to aid in the proposal writing and funding decision process for IPM programs in Massachusetts. Some guidelines are formal restrictions put in place by funding sources, while others are operational policies implemented by the State IPM Steering Committee.

1. Project Goals - Programs are emphasized which take a systems approach to the management of both agricultural and non-agricultural pests, which are interdisciplinary in nature, and which have the potential to reduce pesticide use, improve business profitability, reduce pesticide resistance development, enhance biological control, protect groundwater or other natural resources, and reduce health risks associated with pesticidal chemicals. Moreover, programs which provide up-to-date research-based knowledge to clientele and which stimulate long-term positive changes in practices are preferred over those which offer short-term quick-fixes. Projects which have the potential to be implemented by the private sector, and ones which can generate grower fees or matching funds from other agencies as partial program support are also favored.

2. Project focus - Operational guidelines do not limit IPM activity to agriculture, but can include projects in urban IPM, structural IPM, biting fly IPM, right-of-way IPM, etc. USDA guidelines and the state IPM Steering Committee continue to emphasize implementation versus research as a focus for funding. The MDFA also shares the position that the majority of effort in IPM programs should be to deliver research-based knowledge to clientele, and enhance its adoption, rather than to answer research questions which then may not be delivered in a cohesive manner or with maximum impact. However, funds may be used to support appropriate, IPM-related research of an applied nature.
   
   Projects to be given priority consideration for funding are those which: Address commodities/industries with high pesticide use and/or exposure potential; represent large acreage and/or high cash value; have a well organized grower/industry group; can provide evidence of a well developed data base, monitoring techniques, economic or aesthetic threshold levels, and alternate control measures; provide evidence of a functioning interdisciplinary project team demonstrating good integration of research and extension and potential for an effective project; and, conform to MDFA, USDA, clientele, IPM Steering Committee, and extension priorities.

3. Project duration - All IPM projects are funded on a year-to-year basis. However, because it is difficult to demonstrate significant impact in one year, it is assumed that new projects will have up to five years in the "pilot" phase, unless interim impacts or progress are not satisfactory. New projects will be funded initially for two years, after which a review by the IPM Steering Committee will be conducted (see Periodic In-depth Reviews). If results are satisfactory, an additional three years funding will normally be guaranteed, contingent upon availability of funds, continuation of acceptable performance, and conformity to other Program guidelines.
   
   After the normal five-year pilot phase and a successful Major Review, projects may continue in a "maintenance phase", which may involve a change in emphasis from service (e.g. scouting a limited number of fields to demonstrate impacts of IPM) to education and support for the private sector (e.g., continuing IPM education to all interested growers, issuing IPM newsletters, manuals and fact sheets, ongoing adaptive research, development, and demonstration of new IPM technologies, etc.), or attempts to take the project to a higher level (e.g., more biologically-based strategies).
   For a variety of reasons, some projects may also be phased out, or consolidated with other projects.

4. Project evaluation - All proposals for IPM funding should contain clear-cut means for evaluating and reporting on project impacts. Economic and/or environmental impacts are deemed particularly important, although other impacts (knowledge gained, persons trained, acres impacted, practices adopted, productivity increased, etc.) are also desirable. Every attempt should be made to show that a need for the project exists, and that proposed activity has a reasonable expectation of having significant impacts. All project leaders are expected to assure conformity with all elements of these guidelines.

5. Proposal format - Proposals for new projects and reports on existing ones should be approached in a manner similar to other scientific proposals. Proposals should not exceed seven pages in length, and should include: A project title; a listing of staff participating either directly or indirectly in the project including the nature and extent of participation; a statement of need and justification, including how diverse stakeholders were involved in identifying or endorsing proposed activities; project goals; project objectives; a description of planned methods; a description of demonstrations, training sessions or applied research planned; a project time line and long term plan, including funding; plans for evaluation of project impacts consistent with requirements of the USDA Performance Management Framework; fleet vehicles needs; and a detailed and justified budget. Examples of previous work done by the Project Leader or other participants which bears on the project, a list of pertinent cited references may also be included. The budget should be broken into categories to be specified annually in the RFP. No IPM funds will be released without a written proposal and itemized budget.

6. Special projects - Projects such as manuals, fact sheets, videotapes, etc., are highly desirable as a component of an off campus educational effort. However, P.I.'s are required to try to obtain outside funding prior to beginning work on projects approved by the IPM Steering Committee.

7. Miscellaneous Guidelines - Investigators are encouraged to secure outside, matching funds to partially support projects whenever possible. Use of IPM funds for faculty summer salaries is normally not allowed.

Funding Administration
As soon as project funding levels have been decided, the IPM Coordinator will notify project leaders of the budget award in writing, and will specify any conditions associated with the award, any line items not funded, and any modifications to the project that may be required.

All purchase requisitions, travel vouchers, personnel actions, etc. using IPM funds (Federal, State, Activity accounts, etc.) should be initiated by the appropriate Project Participant and bear the name of the project. Purchase Requisition Forms should be signed by the Project Principal investigator's department head, and initialed by the Project Principal Investigator. At this time the P.R. may be entered onto the electronic purchasing system by the initiating department. After this, hard copy of paperwork should be sent to the IPM Coordinator, for signature, for electronic authorization, and for central bookkeeping records. No paperwork drawing on IPM finds will be processed by the business office unless the initials of the IPM Coordinator are present, so that cooperation with established procedures will speed up the processing of requests. All University procurement and accounting procedures must be followed.

Back to Top

REVIEWS OF PROGRESS
Project reports and description of documented impacts are required to be submitted annually to ES-USDA as a condition for continued funding. Further evaluation and accountability is required by the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture in order to renew the annual Interagency Service Agreement between UMass Extension and the Department. Project Leaders for projects funded through the IPM program will be required to make annual reports of progress to the IPM Steering Committee. These reports may be both in written and oral form as determined by the IPM Steering Committee. A special meeting of the IPM Steering Committee will provide the forum for these reports. The full membership of the state IPM Steering Committee will be invited to attend this meeting and receive these reports.

1. Annual project reports - Reports on existing programs may be up to 10 pages in length and detail specific accomplishments which match those proposed to the IPM Steering Committee the previous year. Impacts should be described as discussed in section 4 above. Tables, graphs, charts, report forms, etc., may be included as appendices. Since original or summarized reports may be made available to clientele and other interested persons, references to specific clientele should not be included in order to protect confidentiality.
   
   In addition to optional executive summary/abstract and introductory/background materials, all reports should include sections describing project activity, project results and impacts, and project participants and staff. Examples of fact sheets, newsletters, newspaper clippings mentioning the project or other information that might be of interest to the Steering Committee may be included in appendices if desired.
   
   Reports will be due on a date which allows timely filing of required reports to USDA, MDFA, etc. Information such as: numbers of farms (or businesses) and number of farmers (or business owners) participating; number of farms (or businesses) and number of farmers (or business owners) adopting new practices; number of acres or other managed areas directly scouted by Extension; number of acres or other managed areas directly scouted by the private sector; number of private sector IPM businesses established and/or operating; number of newsletters, fact sheets, manuals, etc. produced and/or sold; number of paid subscriptions to newsletters sold; pesticide or other input use reduction demonstrated; dollar savings, yield increases, crop quality improvements, or other benefits achieved; clientele fees for scouting or other services; voluntary clientele support; external grants acquired; farmer or other applicator attendance at IPM training; calls to IPM code-a-phone(s) received, should be included whenever possible to facilitated required reporting.
   
   Detailed descriptions of methods used, pest or beneficial population data, etc., may be included if the project team feels this is desirable. Where specific research projects have been funded, a detailed summary of project results should be included in annual reports.

2. Periodic in-depth review reports - In order to more fully evaluate project accomplishments toward achieving stated objectives, and to assess program "maturity" status, all projects will undergo periodic, in- depth reviews. These will normally consist of either a Two Year Review (TYR), after completion of 2 years of project activity, or a Major Review (MR), normally carried out after 5 years of activity. Projects undergoing in-depth reviews are expected to submit all data required for an annual report. In addition to a face-to-face meeting with the IPM Steering Committee in the Fall, a key aspect of in-depth reviews will be a field/site visit conducted by project staff for members of the Steering Committee.
   
   Expectations of accomplishment will normally be lesser for a TYR than for a MR. However, both types of review reports are expected to address the elements described in Appendix 1, Criteria For In-depth Evaluation.

Back to Top

ROLE OF PROJECT LEADERS
IPM Projects may have either a commodity (e.g. apple, cranberry, greenhouse, etc.) or a disciplinary basis (e.g. weed science, arthropod biological control, etc.). The Project Leader (or co-leaders) has (have) ultimate responsibility for all aspects of the funded project. A project leader may be either a member of the UMass faculty or professional staff. In order for a project to receive initial funding or to continue to be funded, it is the responsibility of the Project Leader(s) to demonstrate that an interdisciplinary team composed of appropriate faculty and professional staff will collaborate on the design and execution of research and extension activities of the project.

Project leaders are responsible for compiling periodic reports on project activity in written and oral form. Other examples of Project Leader functions include, but are not limited to: Contacting grower cooperators; training and supervising scouts, especially regarding pesticide exposure in scouted fields; working with IPM bookkeepers to insure that project spending is appropriate and within budget; seeing to it that fleet vehicles assigned to the project are properly maintained; insuring that employees of the project conform to all operative laws, policies and regulations, etc.

Back to Top

ROLE OF INTERNAL GRANT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
From time to time, the IPM Steering Committee may conduct an internal competitive grant program if sufficient funds are available. The Principal Investigator (P.I.) of internal competitive grants has primary responsibility for all aspects of the funded research. All paperwork in support of the research shall be initiated in the P.I.'s department, and be checked for accuracy and signed by the P.I. prior to being forwarded to the IPM Coordinator for further processing. P.I.'s should insure that all appropriate University policies are adhered to, and that required reports are submitted on time. P.I.'s may occasionally be asked to give short presentations about the research at field days, grower meetings or other events.

Back to Top

PROCESS FOR MODIFYING THIS DOCUMENT
As needed, this document will be periodically reviewed, and may be amended by a majority vote of the IPM Steering Committee.

Back to Top

APPENDIX 1, CRITERIA FOR IN-DEPTH EVALUATION

JUSTIFICATION
Project goals statement
Dollar value of crop or industry
Acreage of crop or industry
Pesticide resistance problems
Expressed clientele need
Unique UMASS strength to carry out an effective project
Environmental impact of current practices
Conformity with established MDFA, Extension and Clientele priorities

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SUCCESS
Interdisciplinary group formed in state or regionally
Extent of identification of key pests and key natural enemies
Extent of understanding of key pest/natural enemy biology
Availability of appropriate monitoring techniques
Availability of aesthetic/economic thresholds
Valid pre-project baselines for comparison
Input use reduction or other project impacts documented
Input use reduction or other project impacts possible
Applicability of project to other states
Applicability of project to other crops
Selective Chemical controls determined
Alternative (non-chemical) management options available
Project advisory group formed and active
Training materials (Manuals, fact sheets, slide sets, etc.) developed
Newsletter, workshop evaluations conducted
Evaluation by growers
Evaluation by other agencies, consultants
Linkage to resident education
Exposure of project (media coverage, publications, information requests)

LONG TERM OBJECTIVES
Long term project plan
     Research
     Extension
     Information delivery systems for the future
Regionalization plan
Privatization plan
Private sector scout/consultants
Grower implementation training plan
Funding plan
Internal support needed
External financial support acquired or available

Back to Top

Selected Articles:
Univeristy of Massachusetts Extension Integrated Pest Management Program Purposes, Policies, Procedures
Steering Committee
Vigorous Farms in a Safe Environment
Project Advisory Committees