Inside

Spotlight on Connecticut IPM

Massachusetts IPM budget cut

Highlights from other states:
* Maine potato IPM game
* New York honeybee research
* Vermont apple website
* West Virginia weather stations

Managing house flies on Delaware dairy farms

For more information on IPM in the Northeast, visit our website at northeastipm.org or contact regional IPM facilitator, Jim VanKirk (315.787.2378; jrv1@cornell.edu), or information specialist Liz Thomas (315.787.2626; egt3@cornell.edu) NYS IPM Program Office, NYSAES, 630 W. North Street, Geneva, NY 14456. Publication supported by CSREES, USDA, special project number 99-34103-7391. Writing and design: Elizabeth Myers (315-787-2624; ebm24@cornell.edu).

Maintaining a solid foundation

Federal base funding for state IPM programs

As the country’s political and economic landscapes shift, state IPM programs must develop strategies to sustain their strength and innovative ability over the long term. IPM programs in the Northeast owe their origins to federal support, which has been a steady source of funding since the late 1970s. The relative importance of this support and the ongoing need for the stability it provides are the focus of this issue of Northeast IPM News.

The state IPM programs were initiated with federal base funding, first allocated in 1978 with section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act. Some states have built heavily on this foundation, developing robust, comprehensive programs with the help of grants and state funding in addition to federal dollars. Other states’ programs do not receive additional financial support and must work creatively to make the most of a limited funding base.

Federal base funding for IPM is distributed to state programs according to a formula based on USDA statistics for pesticide sales in 1971. The formula itself has not changed since the inception of Smith-Lever 3(d), but Congress has authorized periodic increases in the money that feeds into the formula. The most recent funding boost came in 1995, when each state received a uniform $25,000 increase. In 2001, northeastern states received federal base funding in total amounts ranging from $67,600 to $145,800.

In recent years, the USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education Service has worked to boost federal IPM base funding. Although several presidential budgets have included increases, Congress has not authorized an expansion. Instead, federal decision-makers have considered shifting funds from base programs toward competitive grants.

Base funding serves a critical function for stateprograms, and reductions could threaten the overall stability and flexibility of state IPM programs.
Base funding gives IPM programs a sound structure, offering the benefits of an experienced staff and a focal point from which to launch state IPM efforts.

This source of stability is especially important for programs that don’t receive state funding. Programs can use their strength and stability as leverage to successfully pursue competitive grants, thus enhancing their ability to offer comprehensive IPM research and extension strategies.

An IPM program’s longevity and stability can offer another significant advantage: because experienced staff are keenly attuned to the ever-changing needs of stakeholders, they are prepared to shift priorities swiftly in response to critical needs within their regions. Competitive grants complement base funds by allowing IPM programs to expand their research and extension efforts. But nothing can replace the importance of solid relationships that enable programs to offer direct, timely service to stakeholders.