National IPM Evaluation Group

The National IPM Evaluation Group’s (NIPMEG) mission is to facilitate and harmonize IPM impact assessment and program evaluation. The bulk of this group’s work is carried out by two committees: evaluation and reporting. Committee and supplemental activities have historically been linked by overlapping membership and an annual face to face meeting. However, at the 2007 Dallas meeting, a planning committee was formed for general NIPMEG facilitation and a communications committee was formed to promote NIPMEG and IPM program activities.

Detailed minutes of the 2007 Dallas NIPMEG Meeting of the NIPMEG are available here.Information on these four committees and a summary of their upcoming actionsare summarized below.

Planning Committee

Charge: Track progress of the NIPMEG, plan the content and execute the logistics of the annual NIPMEG meeting, and help maintain the momentum of the group.

Progress: Newly formed

Key Contacts: Bill Hoffman and Regina Langton

Current action items: Based on the 2006 Dallas meeting and subsequent activity, the group will:

  • Post NIPMEG meeting minutes and action items on www.ipm.gov.

     

  • Develop the agenda and oversee the logistics for the NIPMEG meeting

     

  • In cooperation with communications group, outline strategies to encourage improved key player participation in NIPMEG (NRCS, SARE, Canadian IPM)

     

  • Develop an maintain an ongoing acronym list to be posted on www.ipm.gov

     

  • Draft a two year plan for the NIPMEG

     

  • Develop a National IPM Evaluation Award for presentation by 1/2008

     

  • Serve as a central clearinghouse and distribution center for periodic committee progress reports

     

Evaluation Committee (Macro-Logic & Micro-IPM Systems Model Development)

Charge: Develop macro-level LOGIC models to provide greater definition to the national IPM roadmap and develop micro-level models that help to demonstrate the impact of existing IPM activities.

Progress: LOGIC models are currently under development and Bill Coli is exploring models demonstrate the impact of IPM activities.

Key contacts: Carol Pilcher, Barbara VanTill and Bill Coli

Current action items: Based on the 2006 Dallas meeting and subsequent activity, the group will:

  • Pull in OPP regulatory experience investigate using FQPA risk assessments as a tool for helping set “Baseline” label risk analysis by 4/2007

     

  • Develop LOGIC models for the National IPM Roadmap, including impact indicators

     

  • Ensure that impact indicators are reviewed and commented upon by 1/30/2007

     

  • Work with the communications committee to identify the subjects of national level commodity studies that show the positive impacts of IPM

     

  • Work with the reporting group to suggest standardized reporting fields that work in concert with developed LOGIC models

     

  • Develop definitions of success for IPM programs and explore data sources to communicate national level successes

     

  • Compare notes with Great American West measures, NRCS, and USFS on macro-level IPM evaluation data sharing

     

  • Provide a progress report to he planning committee by March 1, 2007

     

Reporting (Analysis, Design, Development, & Implementation)

Charge: Analyze current project level reporting systems. Suggest improvements to standardize existing reporting, design and develop a system that has the potential to harmonize and aggregate outputs and outcomes from these projects, and champion implementation of these improvements.

Progress: A multi-program template is nearing completion.

Key contacts: Liz Thomas, Ron Stinner

Current action items: Based on the 2006 Dallas meeting and subsequent activity, the group will:

  • Complete the reporting database template by end of 2006

     

  • Facilitate NIPMEG review and concurrence on template by the end of 2007

     

  • Harmonize definitions between groups for database

     

  • Draft a 1-2 page document describing potential audiences and uses for the database

     

  • Work with the communications group to develop grantee guidance to improve reporting

     

  • Arrange meetings with EPA and USDA to explore funding options for ultimate growth of the system

     

  • Provide an interim progress report to the planning committee by March 1st, 2007

     

Communication (NIPMEG Product Development & Communication of Activities)

Charge: Develop products based on NIPMEG activities and use these products to publicize NIPMEG activities and the impact of IPM programs in general

Progress: Newly formed

Key contacts: Fred Moore

Current action items: Based on the 2006 Dallas meeting and subsequent activity, the group will:

  • Create a NIPMEG pamphlet and/or two pager which includes the mission statement, summary of current activities, and future goals

     

  • Develop an overreaching communications strategy by May, 2007, which includes a communication plan for IPM success stories and designate individual communications responsibilities

     

  • Make a presentation to the FIPMCC regarding NIPMEG activities

     

  • Acting upon guidance from the evaluation committee, draft six short and two comprehensive commodity based success stories that reflect “so what” outcomes/impacts (for review at the Fall 2007 meeting)

     

  • Work with the communication committee to publicize general national level IPM impacts (beyond commodity specific projects)

     

  • Provide an interim progress report to the planning committee by March 1st, 2007