One combined project summary (identifying which project types are being proposed) is acceptable. A table showing requested funds for each project type would be helpful. For applicants addressing multiple project types, we anticipate that the total proposed budget would be higher than the funding guidelines indicated for any individual project type.

A. IPM Working Groups (IWGs)

We expect to fund IPM Working Groups for up to $20,000 each, depending on the objectives presented in the proposal. We anticipate that most IWG projects will be completed in one year, but two-year projects will be approved with adequate justification. For information on current and past Northeastern IPM Center working groups, see http://northeastipm.org/working_groups.cfm.

IWGs must be multistate and multidisciplinary, with 10-15 members (selected by IWG leaders) that include IPM stakeholders such as researchers, extension educators, IPM practitioners, government agency representatives, producers, agricultural consultants, and representatives from environmental groups or other nongovernmental organizations. Each IPM Working Group must consist of stakeholders working on or actively concerned with

• a specific activity or issue that is new or expands significantly on a previous effort; and
• an IPM setting (e.g., parks or schools) or a crop.

IPM Working Groups will not be funded from year to year unless they can demonstrate fresh initiatives. Working groups typically have the following goals, and your proposal should speak to as many of them as possible:

• Identify and prioritize specific regional IPM extension and research needs and the expected impacts if these needs could be met. Such IPM priorities guide funding decisions for Center and USDA grant programs. Examples of existing priority lists can be found at http://northeastipm.org/regu_regional.cfm.
• Represent the views of relevant stakeholder groups to the Center. IWG chairs are invited to attend Center advisory council meetings on a rotating basis.
• Represent the Center to relevant stakeholders. Working groups are encouraged to invite Center staff to working group meetings. IWG members are expected to pass information from the Center to their own organizations and peers.
• Contribute to the goals of the National IPM Roadmap and to the Northeastern IPM Center’s mission (See http://NortheastIPM.org/whatis_ipmroadmap.pdf and also http://NortheastIPM.org/abou_mission.cfm).

Groups are encouraged to outline a plan of work with outcome-based objectives and milestones. Addressing and developing priorities (see http://NortheastIPM.org/stakeholder_priorities.cfm) might entail collaborating with

• institutions or groups in other states;
• other colleges and universities, including 1890s institutions;
• representatives of private and nongovernmental agencies—including, but not limited to, grower and commodity organizations, environmental groups, and consumer groups;
• other federal and state agencies, such as NRCS; or
• additional stakeholders appropriate to the needs of the project, including underserved populations.

Working groups are expected to use their funds to complete all of the tasks outlined in their proposal (planning, meeting, creating documents, advertising, and posting items on the web) unless they have made prior arrangements with the Northeastern IPM Center. We strongly advise using a portion of working group funds to hire administrative assistance.

Members of IPM Working Groups may apply for IPM Issues funding (see IV.B, below) and are encouraged to compete for funding through external sources to meet their objectives. Working groups may also plan and conduct an IPM conference or workshop of regional interest, or they may manage an IPM educator exchange program (for an example of this type of program, see http://northeastipm.org/work_vegetable.cfm). If you choose this option, you may apply for up to $10,000 specifically for this purpose. Proposals that include conferences and educator exchanges must articulate the following:

—names and contact information of the group members responsible;
—target audience, purpose, goals, and what impacts you will achieve;
—detailed budget;
—personnel to be hired as organizers, their tasks, and a timeline;
—facilitator(s) for discussions at the conference, if appropriate;
—tasks, if any, to be completed by the Northeastern IPM Center, such as web advertising (confer with Center directors in advance of submitting your proposal).

B. IPM Priorities

We will fund extension, education, and research projects that address the priorities of IPM Working Groups (http://NortheastIPM.org/work_priorities.cfm) and other entities (see http://northeastipm.org/regu_regional.cfm) such as the Northeast Region Extension and Academic Program-IPM (NEREAP). Projects may be funded for up to $40,000 per year for up to two years. Proposals must
· address and cite at least one priority from the Center’s website;
· clearly articulate the problem and how it will be met;
· start important new work or promote innovative, effective solutions; and
· have strong potential for success.

Scientists seeking funding in excess of $40,000 per research project are encouraged to apply to the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program (see http://northeastipm.org/about_fund.cfm).

C. Regional IPM Publications

We support the development of multistate and regional IPM publications. Proposals may request up to $20,000 and the duration is usually one year (or slightly longer, if justified).

Funds may be used to plan, develop, or print IPM-related documents with multistate or regional applicability. Up to 10% of your budget may be used for distribution. Printed publications are strongly encouraged, but other media such as websites, videos, and educational exhibits are acceptable. Preference will be given to projects that (1) address priorities identified by IPM stakeholders in the region; (2) fill important existing gaps; (3) have wide applicability within the northeastern region; (4) facilitate and promote interstate collaboration; and (5) might otherwise be undertaken by two or more state programs.

We welcome proposals that tailor IPM success stories to public officials or that develop IPM information for the general public. We also encourage applicants to consider working with the Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service on their regional publications (http://www.nraes.org/nra_index.taf).

Content and design of all products must meet standards delineated in the Northeastern IPM Center Guidelines for Center-Funded Communications Projects, available online at http://NortheastIPM.org/pubs_guide.cfm.

D. IPM Planning and Assessment Documents: Tactics Surveys, Crop Profiles, Pest Management Strategic Plans (PMSPs), and IPM Guidelines

Various documents help agencies and IPM practitioners assess the status of pest management for a given crop or setting. Past awards for developing these documents have ranged from $4,000 to $30,000, depending on the complexity of the task and the number of states involved. Typically, the maximum is about $12,000. Projects are usually funded for one year.

The Center is particularly interested in the development of “IPM Guidelines” (also called IPM elements, protocols, checklists, definitions, and standards), which describe practices that growers and others can follow to implement IPM. These lists typically include point values for each practice, which are “earned” if the grower implements the practice. For examples, see http://northeastipm.org/ipm_guidelines.cfm. Some IPM guidelines use point system weighting to indicate which practices are most critical to a successful IPM program; that is, priority practices earn more points. Guidelines help growers and private consultants to identify ways of managing pests that pose the fewest risks to human health, economics, and the environment. When followed and documented, they indicate that a grower has implemented specific practices. The creation of IPM Guidelines should involve, at minimum, land grant IPM specialists, private consultants, and growers.

The following three types of IPM documents are often progressive (i.e., one leads to the next).

Tactics Surveys, typically sent to growers or other audiences, gather information about the pest management methods being used in a region on a particular crop or setting.

Crop Profiles identify the current status of the methods used to manage pests in a given crop. They gained their importance in the 1990s when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began reassessing tolerances for organophosphates, carbamates, and possible carcinogens. Prepared from a variety of sources, including tactics surveys, these begin to identify gaps and help us to better understand where future research efforts should lead. Crop profiles catalog production information, insect pests, diseases, weeds, and the methods used to manage these. For examples of northeastern crop profiles, see http://northeastipm.org/rese_profbycrop.cfm.

Pest Management Strategic Plans—the most comprehensive of all three—build on crop profiles by prioritizing the research, education, and regulatory needs required to properly manage pests. PMSPs may also be written for nonagricultural settings, such as municipal buildings and healthcare facilities. For examples of PMSPs: http://northeastipm.org/rese_pmspbystate.cfm.

Successful Crop Profile and PMSP applicants will be guided by the information found at http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/index.cfm and http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/. You may propose to revise an outdated document or to develop a new one. Instructions on how to prepare crop profiles and PMSPs can be found at http://NortheastIPM.org/rese_profiles.cfm; funded documents must conform to the Northeastern IPM Center’s standards for content, format, and distribution. Documents are not considered complete until they are approved by Northeastern IPM Center leadership and are included in the National IPM Centers’ database.

E. State Network Projects (SNPs)

The fundamental purpose of State Network Projects is to serve as the primary information source for federal regulatory agencies (such as the EPA and the USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy) regarding the use of pesticides and other IPM tactics in a state. As such, an SNP must be well connected to extension personnel throughout the state and able to adeptly answer queries about pesticides and other pest management methods in the grower community by tapping into this network. Links to existing SNPs can be found online (http://NortheastIPM.org/about.cfm#program).

The Center can support up to 12 State Network Projects (one per state). The maximum to be awarded to a single SNP in 2008 will be $5,000. SNPs need to have fully met all criteria in the previous granting cycle and show promise of meeting two criteria in 2008, as shown below. Please note that in 2008 SNPs will not be required to convene an advisory council or maintain and update a website. These activities will be at their discretion.

Applicants for State Network Projects are expected to:

• Answer queries posed by federal regulatory agencies (such as the EPA and the USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy) regarding the use of pesticides and other IPM tactics throughout their state. Respond in a timely fashion to requests for information from these agencies, copy the appropriate individuals (as indicated on the query), record responses, and document all responses in year-end reports to the Center.
• Help process, when necessary, subcontracts between the Northeastern IPM Center and other entities of the SNP leader’s institution to minimize total indirect costs; SNP leaders are expected to pass funds from the Center to any programs or individuals of the same institution that have contracts with the Center.

  In addition, any SNP that received funding in 2007 is required to submit a separate, detailed progress report with their proposal. For project reporting guidelines, see http://northeastipm.org/reporting_guidelines.cfm. A project director who plans to apply for only SNP funds (and no other project type) may shorten the Project Description part of the proposal (described in Part VI.D.4.a-d), to a 2-3 page statement of work.

  Nonetheless, SNP leaders are strongly encouraged to apply for funding for additional project types, as outlined in this RFA. Supplemental funding could enable them to use their expertise and state contacts to further the acceptance and adoption of IPM, develop IPM documents, and participate in IPM symposia and other meetings.

F. IPM Minigrants

Project directors with requests of $1,000 to $8,000 may apply for an IPM minigrant (include overhead of up to 25% of Total Direct Costs). The purpose of these minigrants is to provide funds for brief IPM tasks and projects that have a sense of urgency, fit the mission of the Center, and could otherwise not be accomplished without these funds. For example, appropriate minigrant proposals would be

• writing, editing, and printing a Pest Alert on a topic of importance to the region;
• planning and hosting a meeting to revise IPM priorities for a northeastern crop or setting;
• conducting lab testing or soil testing to gather information on a new pest or condition;
• traveling to a site where novel IPM research or extension is being conducted, then sharing that knowledge with others;
• developing timely IPM responses to critical pest issues.
  

1. Advantages of Minigrants

The application process is simpler than for other project types in this RFA (see below). For example, the brief Statement of Work replaces the more complex Project Description required for the other IPM Partnership project types. Multistate collaboration is not necessary (although you must show benefit to the region), and a citation of stakeholder need is not required. Proposals may be submitted almost year-round, and funding decisions are made quickly.

2. Application Requirements for Minigrants

Minigrant application requirements differ from the application requirements for all other project types in this RFA, which are described in Part VI, Proposal Preparation, below.

Minigrant proposals may be submitted either on December 7 or any time from April to October 2008. Minigrant proposals must consist of the following (obtain USDA/CSREES forms from http://www.northeastipm.org/grants/partnership/2007/Partnership_application_form.doc by downloading the MS Word file):

• Proposal cover page (form CSREES-2002).
• Statement of work: One to two pages telling us why you need the funds, what you will do, how, when, and the expected impacts). Your project may involve only one state but you must tell how it will benefit other states in the Northeast. Follow the formatting requirements in Part VI.A.
• Two-page curriculum vitae (CV) of the project director.
• Letter(s) of support from collaborator(s)—optional but recommended.
• Budget page (form CSREES-2004). Include indirect costs (25% of Total Direct Costs).
• Budget narrative that follows the same order as the budget page.
• Current and pending support form (CSREES-2005) for the PD (and collaborators, if they will receive funds).
• Conflict of interest form (CSREES-2007) for the PD (and collaborators, if they will receive funds).
  

3. Submission and Funding of Minigrant Proposals

If submitting by December 7, 2007, follow the instructions in Part IX of this RFA. Your proposal will be evaluated by the IPM Partnership grants panel.

If submitting between April 1 and October 31, 2008, email your entire proposal in one MS Word or Rich Text (RTF) file to John Ayers and Carrie Koplinka-Loehr (jea@psu.edu and ckk3@cornell.edu) and simultaneously send, through U.S. mail, a signed cover page from your institution to John Ayers. You will receive confirmation of receipt and an answer as soon as a decision can be made.

Funding of qualified proposals will be based on the availability of funds at the time of submission. Approximately $40,000 will be apportioned each year for minigrants.

Recipients of minigrants will be asked to submit brief reports, according to the schedule in Part VIII, regarding how funds were used and impacts achieved.

back to table of contents

V. FUNDS

Successful applicants will be funded via a subcontract from The Pennsylvania State University. The Center usually issues only one subcontract per institution to minimize overall indirect costs to the project. PDs of successful proposals will be contacted to work out the funding mechanism. Applicants must follow the instructions that accompany the required budget form (CSREES-2004). Download the forms at http://www.northeastipm.org/grants/partnership/2007/Partnership_application_form.doc.

Matching funds are not required for this proposal; however, preference may be given to proposals with matching funds.

back to table of contents

VI. PROPOSAL PREPARATION

These instructions apply for project types A, B, C, D, and E, described in Part IV. For minigrant proposal requirements, see Part IV.F, above.

A. Format

Proposals should be

• printed double-sided to conserve paper (single-sided printing will be accepted, however);
• formatted on 8.5" x 11" paper using a 12-point font and 1-inch margins;
• page-numbered (project description only), beginning with the Table of Contents (hand-numbering is acceptable);
• single-spaced text with two returns (one blank line) between paragraphs.
  

B. Order of Sections

Sections should be organized in the sequence outlined below. Obtain the USDA/CSREES forms mentioned by downloading the MS Word file http://www.northeastipm.org/grants/partnership/2007/Partnership_application_form.doc.

1. Proposal Cover Page (form CSREES-2002)
2. Project Summary (form CSREES-2003), including project type as described in Part IV
3. Table of Contents
4. Project Description (including references cited)
5. Cooperation and Institutional Units Involved
6. Key Personnel description, including CVs for project directors
7. Collaborative Arrangements and Letters of Support
8. Budget (form CSREES-2004)
9. Budget Narrative
10. Attachments:

• Current and Pending Support for each project director and co-project director (form CSREES-2005)
• National Environmental Policy Act Exclusions Form for each person (CSREES-2006)
• Conflict of Interest List (CSREES-2007)
• Assurance Statement[s] (form CSREES-2008), if required (see Part VI.D.10, below).
  

C. Page Limits

Limit your project description (Part VI.D.4) to eight pages. If you seek funding for multiple project types, your description may expand to eight pages per project type, but we strongly encourage you to be concise. For minigrants, the Statement of Work should be one to two pages.

D. Description of Sections

1. Proposal Cover Page

One copy of the Proposal Cover Page (form CSREES-2002) must contain the pen-and-ink signature(s) of the PDs and co-PDs. Appropriate institutional representatives must sign also. The title should be no longer than 100 characters (letters, punctuation, and spaces between words).

2. Project Summary

The Project Summary (use form CSREES-2003) should begin with the type of project being proposed (e.g., “B. IPM Issues”). Provide a brief description of the problem or opportunity; the project objectives; a description of your approach in simple terms that can be understood by the general public, university personnel, private organizations, and budget staff; and the anticipated impact of your project. Place the Project Summary immediately after the Proposal Cover Page and do not number.

3. Table of Contents

Place the Table of Contents after the Project Summary and begin page numbering with this page (hand numbering is acceptable).

4. Project Description

In this section you should describe the need for your project; expected impacts and how you will achieve them; and how you (and the Northeastern IPM Center) will know you have succeeded.

a. Problem, Background and Justification

• Describe, in simple terms, the problem or challenge. Consider including the importance of the pest(s), the economic ramifications, and the reason for your study.
• Address the specific need(s) identified by growers or other stakeholders in the northeastern region. Demonstrate that you are engaged with constituents on some level and that your project addresses their needs. Authors of IPM Issues proposals should cite at least one IPM stakeholder priority used to formulate the project (see http://NortheastIPM.org/regu_regional.cfm).
• Specify who stands to benefit from your project. Consider environmental, health, or economic benefits or how the project indirectly can feed into these objectives. If it strengthens your case, choose one or two specific members of your target audience as examples and describe their predicament.
• Review ongoing or completed work (local/regional/national) that is relevant to your project, and include references. If relevant, describe how previous work funded by the Northeastern IPM Center or other sources might contribute to the proposed project.
• If possible, tell us about the potential applicability of the proposed approach to other regions.
  

b. Objectives and Anticipated Impacts.

Provide clear, concise, and logically numbered statement(s) of the specific aims of the proposed effort. Your objectives should tie directly to the goals of the appropriate project type, as outlined in Part IV of this RFA (you may also want to consult Part VII, Selection Criteria, to understand how the review panels will assess objectives).

Then describe the anticipated impacts that could be associated with the fulfillment of your objectives (you may do this in list or table format). Your impacts should connect to the goals of the Northeastern IPM Program: encouraging science-based pest management that safeguards human health and the environment; promoting economic benefits; and furthering the implementation of IPM. (We encourage applicants to review the National IPM Roadmap, available at http://NortheastIPM.org/whatis_ipmroadmap.pdf, and to briefly discuss how their proposed project will address any or all of the goals outlined in the roadmap.) Ideally, the stated project impacts will refer to measurable changes that can be substantiated by data analysis, as indicated in Part VI.D.4.d, Your Evaluation Plans, below. Your plan for verifying that these impacts have been achieved will significantly strengthen your application.

The following table poses questions that may help you identify appropriate types of impacts.

Type of Impact	Questions to Help Identify Potential Impacts
Safeguarding human health and the environment	a. Could new IPM practices be adopted as a direct result of your project? Could your project lead to an increase in the total number of acres (or homes, schools, greenhouses, nurseries) on which these practices could be implemented? b. Could the project reduce risk by changing the use of pesticides on farms, or in homes, schools, etc.? For example, could it result in fewer sprays per season or a switch to lower-risk pesticides? (Since there is no unanimous definition of high and low risk, investigators selecting this indicator are asked to categorize given pesticides as high or low risk according to the particular situation, such as lower risk to natural enemies). c. Might there be public value to your project, that is, value to audiences that may not directly benefit from your extension or research?
Economic benefits	a. What could be the economic benefit (e.g., dollars saved) for clientele who adopt the IPM strategies and systems you studied? Do you envision potential commercialization or mass production of these systems? b. How many IPM personnel might be employed as a result of your work (e.g., private consulting services, nursery operators, food service growers)? c. How many clients do you anticipate would be satisfied with IPM results (e.g., due to improved yield, quality of yield, reduced pest populations, more effective pest control, greater preservation of non-pest species)? d. Are there other financial benefits—public or private—that might be realized as a result of your project?
Implementation of IPM	a. How many IPM strategies and systems will be validated through this project (e.g., through on-farm trials, large plot tests, or other methods used to confirm efficacy)? b. How many educational materials will be delivered? To whom? c. How many growers/personnel will be trained? d. For a website, what volume of traffic and type of use will the site experience (e.g., # visitors per day/month; # page views; # of unique user sessions; change in volume during growing season; average viewing time)? e. How many more people might adopt IPM practices as a direct result of your project, or how many people might adopt new IPM practices? What might the ripple effect be? f. Are there other ways in which your work will result in improved use or increased implementation of IPM strategies in your region or across the Northeast? g. How could your project or study enhance collaboration among stakeholders interested in the development and implementation of improved IPM strategies and systems (e.g., number of growers or other types of stakeholders that have participated in advisory committees, surveys)?

c. Approach and Procedures.

Describe how each of the stated objectives will be reached, in the same order as listed above in Part VI.D.4.b, Objectives and Anticipated Impacts. These descriptions should outline the essential working plans and methods that will be used to attain each objective. You should show that the proposed work has the potential of providing data and information that will permit accomplishing the objectives. Construct a timetable for the start and completion of each phase of the project (e.g., Objective / Phase / Tasks / Complete by...). For multiorganizational or multistate projects, describe how the project will be managed, i.e., who will coordinate the different organizations and states, and how.

d. Your Evaluation Plans.

In this section, briefly describe how you will verify that your project objectives have been met and how you will measure the extent to which any associated impacts have occurred. For example, if you are authoring an IPM Extension and Research proposal, indicate how you will determine whether the anticipated impacts stated above have been achieved. If measurement of these anticipated impacts will not be possible in the context of the proposed project, describe how the tactic or system you studied, once developed, might be incorporated into an IPM setting. Evaluation plans that include surveys should indicate survey expertise of investigators and/or describe the survey methodology that will be used.

5. Cooperation and Institutional Units Involved

Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the lead institution and each institutional unit or stakeholder group contributing to the project. If multi-institutional teams are cooperating on a proposal, a single budget should be submitted for that proposal.

6. Key Personnel

Applicants must identify key personnel and their specific roles in the proposed project. Attach for each PD and co-PD a two-page CV that lists education, experience, and relevant publications.

7. Collaborative Arrangements and Letters of Support

If the project includes consulting, collaborative, or subcontractual arrangements, such arrangements should be fully explained and justified in the budget and budget narrative. In addition, you should provide evidence (e.g., a letter of support or statement of work) that the collaborators involved, even if unpaid, have agreed to render these services.

Letters of support can strengthen your proposal. All such letters should be addressed to the PD and should show the name and affiliation of the sender (letterhead is preferred), the level of commitment or scope of work, and the individual’s signature. Original, faxed, and electronically signed letters are acceptable. All letters of support must be included in this section and not sent separately to the grants manager.

8. Budget

Each proposal must include a detailed budget form (CSREES-2004) for each year of requested support and a budget form that summarizes total project costs for the duration of the project. Follow the instructions accompanying the form. Indirect costs of up to 20% of the total funds awarded (equivalent to 25% of Total Direct Costs) can be requested.

If you are applying for more than one project type in a combined proposal, submit one budget form for each project and a summary budget form. A table would also be helpful.

9. Budget Narrative

Include a detailed, self-explanatory Budget Narrative. If you are applying for more than one project type, write separate Budget Narratives for each project type. Separate each year, and within each year, follow the order of the budget form (CSREES-2004). Show the sum of each category, copied from the budget form; describe costs; and indicate breakdowns (e.g., hourly wages, printing estimates, travel expenses).

If consulting, collaborative, or subcontractual arrangements are included in the proposal, these arrangements should be fully explained and justified. Clearly identify the lead institution, all collaborators, and the role of each in your Budget Narrative.

For collaborative arrangements, the transfer of substantive programmatic work, or the provision of financial assistance to a third party, provide letters of intent or other evidence that collaborators have agreed to render these services (such as a proposed statement of work and a simple budget for each arrangement).

10. Attachments

Complete and include the following forms for each project director and co-project director: CSREES-2005 (Current and Pending Support), CSREES-2006 (National Environmental Policy Act Exclusions Form), and CSREES-2007 (Conflict of Interest List). Form CSREES-2008 (Assurance Statement) is required if the answer in Box 20 of CSREES-2002 is “Yes.” Find forms at http://www.northeastipm.org/grants/partnership/2007/Partnership_application_form.doc.
Other relevant items, such as reprints or brief reports, may also be attached.

back to table of contents

VII. SELECTION CRITERIA

We will acknowledge the receipt of your proposal and will make funding decisions by the end of March 2008. One review panel, consisting of professionals from inside and outside the region, will judge the merits and technical qualities of the proposals. Selection will be based on the criteria in the rating chart below.

 

IPM PARTNERSHIP GRANTS PROGRAM—2007 RATING SHEET	Possible Points
1. Proposal Preparation All components are included and the proposal is properly assembled. Information is presented clearly and adheres to the format described in this RFA; the project description does not exceed 8 pages per project type. In proposals that combine project types, each project type contains its own subtitle, project description, budget, and budget narrative. Letters of support from collaborators are attached, if applicable.	5
2. Problem and Justification (Minigrant proposals need only a Statement of Work) The problem is important to the Northeast and its residents. The proposal addresses specific stakeholder priorities (IPM Issues projects should cite specific priorities from the Center’s website, http://NortheastIPM.org/regu_regional.cfm). The proposal ties to or builds on existing work in the region. Project directors tackle the “So what?” question of whether their project will make a difference.	15
3. Objectives and Anticipated Impacts The proposal is innovative (10 points) and furthers the mission of the Northeastern IPM Center (10 points). Specifically, the objectives will establish IPM priorities; OR develop multidisciplinary IPM methods that minimize pesticide use; OR help people to adopt IPM.	20
Objectives tie directly to the goals of the appropriate project category, as follows: A. IPM Working Groups: ( ) The proposed activity or issue is either new or expands significantly on a previous effort. ( ) The composition of the working group adheres to the guidelines in the RFA (e.g., members are from as many states in the region as possible); ( ) The proposal includes the infrastructure necessary for success, such as hiring administrative support. B. IPM Issues (formerly IPM Priorities) ( ) The project either starts important new work or promotes innovative and effective solutions; ( ) The proposal clearly addresses a priority defined by northeastern IPM stakeholders (see http://northeastipm.org/regu_regional.cfm); ( ) If the proposal addresses a critical or emerging issue, it articulates the urgency of the problem. C. Regional IPM Publications: ( ) The project will fill important existing gaps; ( ) The project has wide applicability within the northeastern region; ( ) It facilitates and promotes interstate collaboration; ( ) A distribution plan is articulated. D. IPM Planning and Assessment Documents—Tactics Surveys, Crop Profiles, Pest Management Strategic Plans and IPM Guidelines: ( ) The importance of the setting or crop to the region is explained; ( ) The priority for a new or revised document is demonstrated; ( ) PDs coordinating multistate efforts have defined areas of common interests; ( ) The planning process and involvement of stakeholders in identifying the necessity for and prioritization of crop profiles and/or PMSPs is demonstrated. E. State Network Projects: ( ) The SNP has the capacity and intent to respond to all queries. If previously funded, SNP staff have responded successfully in the past and have documented their responsiveness; ( ) The SNP leader is willing to process subcontracts in his/her state. ( ) A complete progress report is submitted with the proposal. The report shows how the SNP has fully met the expectations set out in the corresponding RFA and reporting guidelines (see http://northeastipm.org/reporting_guidelines.cfm). F. IPM Minigrants ( ) The project will benefit more than one state. ( ) The topic has a sense of urgency; ( ) The IPM task or project could otherwise not be completed without the minigrant.	15
Anticipated impacts show potential to be measurable outcomes—not merely accomplishments—that will benefit the northeastern region.	10
4. Approach, Procedures, and Evaluation The approach builds bridges to at least one of these entities in the northeast: a state with a population under 9 million (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, MD, NJ, DE, or WV) or Washington, DC; an underserved urban population; an 1890 land-grant institution (http://www.1890aea.org/mainpages/about_us.asp); an environmental group or nongovernmental organization; or the Natural Resources Conservation Service.	5
The proposal design involves stakeholders from more than one state (minigrant applications are excepted) The work plan addresses appropriate objectives, and the time table is realistic The procedures are appropriate for the specified outcomes.	10
The evaluation plan will effectively indicate when the anticipated impacts have occurred in the target audience—that is, when the project has succeeded.	5
5. Professional Competency of the Project Director and Team The CV(s) indicate that the PD and team have the expertise needed to carry out the project; There is evidence of the team’s willingness to partner (e.g., letters of support, statements of work).	5
6. Budget The budget is well defined, reasonable for the proposed project, and within the project funding limits described in this RFA. It follows guidelines described in the RFA and on the USDA-CSREES form. The budget narrative follows the order of the budget form and fully explains any assumptions in the budget. Combined proposals have separate budgets and budget narratives for each project type.	10
TOTAL POINTS	100

back to table of contents

VIII. FINAL REPORTS AND PROGRESS REPORTS

You will be asked to submit a final report, due 60 days after the termination date of the contract. For multiple-year projects, a brief annual progress report will be required one year from the beginning of the contract. SNPs report prior to the end of the funding year. Report formats and instructions are available on our website, http://northeastipm.org/reporting_guidelines.cfm.

IX. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Regular proposals must be received by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 7, 2007 (minigrant proposals may also be submitted from April 1 to October 31, 2008, as described in Part IV.F.3). Faxed copies are not acceptable. You must submit both of these ways:

1. Mail the original and fourteen (14) paper copies of each proposal to:

   Dr. John E. Ayers
   Northeastern IPM Center
   The Pennsylvania State University
   114 Buckhout Laboratory
   University Park, PA 16802
   Phone: 814-865-7776

2. Attach one complete electronic copy of the entire proposal, in Microsoft Word or Rich Text Format (RTF), in an email to John Ayers and Carrie Koplinka-Loehr (jea@psu.edu and ckk3@cornell.edu) by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 7, 2007 (minigrant proposals may also be submitted from April 1 to October 31, 2008, as described in Part IV.F.3). Place the last name of the PD and the words “Partnership Proposal” in the subject line.
   
   

back to table of contents

Sponsored by the Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service This site is developed and managed by the Northeastern IPM Center Have feedback? Contact us.