Urban IPM /
Public Health

Evaluations

Hosted by the Michigan Department of Agriculture
Grand Rapids, Michigan

May 4-8, 2009

WAS THE AGENDA FOR THIS COURSE ADEQUATE AND DID IT MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS?

bullet Yes; the class/program was very valuable in providing the knowledge and tools and contacts for initiating an IPM program of the scale I am interested in.
bullet The agenda for the course was perfect. Each delivery followed the previous in an order where on presentation logically followed with sense to the previous. Every presentation was IPM related and the course was by far the most rewarding meeting I have attended.
bullet Absolutely! Exceeded.
bullet Very Good course! If / when IPM becomes regulated in my state I have some very good information to work with…and some very good contacts to get more help if needed.
bullet A little long, this could easily be a 4 day course.
bullet Yes, it was very good. Provided a good balance between IPM and health issues. Gave some good basic and ground level information for new individuals. As always state reports are very interesting and helpful. It met my expectations.
bullet The agenda was overly ambitious.
bullet Absolutely. Quite a few (almost all) of the topics directly relate to my job or would possibly apply in the future.
bullet As a FIFRA inspector I gained knowledge about illegal pesticides, things to watch for that I was not aware of before with Pest Control officers as well as many other aspects in the industry. I learned new places for FIFRA inspectors and new things to look for.
bullet More than I expected. Urban IPM / Public Health is something new for us but there was so much quality in the presentations from experienced people in these workshops.
bullet The topics were timely for me and will assist in getting my job accomplished.
bullet Yes! It provided a lot of information, and many thoughts to take home and initiate!
bullet The agenda was thoughtful and meaningful for our group. The course exceeded my expectations!
bullet The Urban IPM/Public Health course exceeded my overall expectations. The most beneficial aspects of this course dealt with the emerging issues of bedbugs and potential misuse of pesticide products to remediate bedbugs.
bullet Yes, there was a variety of topics discussed specific to the overall IPM/Public Health issues. The speakers were all well qualified and typically had good presentations.
bullet Yes. It showed many different directions of enforcement and different party’s opinions. Important stresses like the need to “farm” and develop stakeholders.
bullet Quite adequate! I didn’t come in with specific expectations, but learned a lot of new information or, for topics I was already familiar with, received a great review. Great variety of topics, great speakers.
bullet Yes, some areas were brand-new to me after 10 years on the job.
bullet Yes, although at times somewhat basic for those of us who have lived and breathed those topics for years.
bullet Yes, very adequate and comprehensive. Great selection of speakers. Especially liked the individual state reports. Especially good to have MI host the PREP as they are a leader in Community IPM.
bullet Yes. Very well planned, extremely well organized—Thank you! Great speakers, great contributions from MI Department of Agriculture! Thanks. Great to have opportunity to meet others and network and learn what other states are doing.
bullet Yes. I learned quite a bit about the problems/difficulties in implementing a sustainable IPM program. There was a lot of very knowledgeable people with great experience working in IPM areas that added value to my experience in this PREP course.

 

WHAT COULD THE PREP PLANNERS HAVE DONE TO MAKE THIS COURSE MORE USEFUL TO YOU?

bullet Probably, may take away Don Baumgartner’s coffee to get him to slow down a bit; all in jest.
bullet Every moment was a learning moment: dinner, breakfast, hospitality time, and all presentations as well as the genuine delivery by all those involved. I’m going home with other’s work to share and borrow. The states now have to be responsible for implementation and continued dialogue and ask for help. EPA wants to help, I think.
bullet Discuss funding opportunities.
bullet Demonstration of actual/or setup of bedbug inspection and treatment. In the school or at the college, show IPM techniques for an existing pest problem.
bullet Lots of talk about the definition of IPM, but no talk about what an IPM program consists of. Have the states report on what they either require or suggest what an IPM program consists of.
bullet I thought it was very good.
bullet Provide more concrete information as to how to provide IPM info to PCOs, schools, etc. Provide more information as to what to provide, preach to PCOs, homeowners, schools.
bullet Include a section on pigeon IPM (Jack Spencer USDA Wildlife Services)
bullet Allow more time for state reports—in instructions it talks about the value of the reports and how they are highlights.
bullet It was good. After the last PREP I attended (100th) Dea was able to update us on new issues. The session might be a bit too long—make it 4 days with the audience in technology, a lot of other information can be through email such as updates for HQs. Ex: Sector 25(b) issues.
bullet I can’t think of anything.
bullet Do not exceed 2 hours between “official” breaks; day 2 had a 3 hour morning session without a break! Shorten this course to 4 days. The same information and sessions could be covered, but each presentation could be shortened by 10-15 minutes. The mind can only absorb what the seat can endure!
bullet Everything with the PREP course was useful and informative. The only aspect I would change would be for the allowance of a little more time for state/tribal presentations if possible (15 minutes) for Q&A.
bullet Not sure, I felt the course was well rounded.
bullet Nothing offhand.
bullet Ask in advance if there are specific topics of concern for states.
bullet Fieldtrip was good, but we could have used a better inspection list.
bullet A second ½ day Fieldtrip would have been nice.
bullet More fieldtrips; more interactive sessions; more small group sessions; limit to 4 days, not five; longer breaks to network.
bullet The final discussion from 4:30-5:00 was too short.

 

IF THIS COURSE WAS TO BE HELD AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, CAN YOU SUGGEST FACULTY WHO COULD SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVE THE AGENDA?

bullet This is an excellent facility and Grand Rapids is a nice tour. The change of rooms from where the CC class was last summer was a marked improvement. So much easier to hear!
bullet I would like to better understand the “Extension” aspect of cooperation. The land grant universities seem to be where the greatest potential could lie for outreach and teaching the higher education audience of the public and to assist state agencies to expand the programs relate to the IPM discussion.
bullet Laurel Hansen - Carpenter Ants, WA; Rick Vetter – Spiders, CA; Jerome Goddard - Med Entomology, MS.
bullet Specifics are lacking. I understand IPM is good—what I don’t know is: IPM definition, how to push forward and what to preach.
bullet Jack Spencer USDA Wildlife Services—Reno, Nevada.
bullet It would all depend on the topics—emerging public health issues. Ex. Bedbugs is great to hear about, especially new information from researchers (entertaining speakers bring messages home in ways we’ll remember).
bullet I will be taking IPM home with me. Tribal Schools, Colleges and Housing Authorities (HUD) have very large organizations with professionals and meet annually, nationally. They may provide input, I will find out if they discuss IPM.
bullet Ms. Marcy Katzin of Region IX is great in several areas: a. collaboration between states/tenants and region officers and other programs, b. record keeping and cooperation agreement compliance.
bullet I would be interested in presenting a workshop (Comment from: Ellis M. Jones).
bullet Replace Deborah Millette for CDC perspective on IPM.
bullet Dr. Godfrey Nalyanya, NC State, school IPM and Dr. Mike Waldvogel (NC State/Extension, structural IPM)
bullet Greg Bauman with NPMA “green” buildings.
bullet Dr. John Stier, University of Wisconsin—turf/landscape IPM perspective.
bullet Substantially improve? I don’t know, but Rick Cooper from NJ is very involved in cutting edge bedbug control.
bullet I’d have to think about it…let me know which topic (Comment from: Nita Davidson). Urban Landscape IPM—Cheryl Wilen UCCE San Diego.
bullet Invite some advocates next time. Many of the faculty were appropriate.
bullet Bobby Corrigan, Austin Frishman, Rich Cooper
bullet Janet Harley, Texas Agrilife; Dr. Faith Oi, UF (IPM Southern Region Workgroup)
bullet Public Housing people who are in the trenches. Public school people who are in the trenches.

 

ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?

bullet Keep up the good work, I appreciate it as I am sure all the others do.
bullet Larry Swain said it best: IPM takes heart! This was a fabulous experience and what a beautiful collection of individuals with shared interest! I am so proud to be in Grand Rapids and grateful to have been accepted into the course! I wish my whole agency could have been exposed to all this information and passion. It should be a traveling show!
bullet Very good course.
bullet Possibly shorten talks by a few minutes and give an extra break in morning and afternoon. Congratulations to Suzanne, Dea, and all others for an excellent training session.
bullet Even though it was an excellent course it is long and should be cut back to 4 days.
bullet 5 days is a day long.
bullet PREP courses are just too long. A four day program with travel days on Sunday and Friday would be more than adequate.
bullet Make effort to hear from participants who haven’t spoken yet.
bullet I met many professionals and gathered contacts that I will use to implement IPM on Ft. Besthold as well as finding possible threatening situations to schools, Public and Private housing, playgrounds, parks, etc. that I will visit with agencies about while trying to sell the IPM planning process.
bullet It was great! Great job by Suzanne and staff, especially for working with issues to revise that are requested. It was great to have industry be part of the workshop.
bullet Great presentations and speakers. It was obvious that Suzanne and Dea and the working group put lots of time and effort into making this a great PREP offering!
bullet Shorten course to 4-4.5 days.
bullet The slew of speakers from state and federal agencies as well as industry representatives brought in broad perspectives and information.
bullet Thank you for this opportunity for this course. I feel I will be able to take this information to educate, inform, and regulate our license, applicators, and general public.
bullet More microphones needed!
bullet I feel this was an excellent opportunity to get in touch with what others are doing. I think the value of this course will unfold over time as relationships grow and get stronger.
bullet This was a good, excellent course. Sometimes a bit of a challenge for me to follow some of the regulatory discussion since I am not directly involved much, but good for me to be exposed to this.
bullet I think it’s important to increase the time allotted for breaks in a “progressive” manner. Specifically, much of the value of this PREP came from meeting and talking to my state counterparts, especially when discussing difficulties and challenges we face. Increasing breaks after the last day or day and a half would provide us more time to talk to our state counterparts and share information. The breaks don’t need to be too long, perhaps an additional 5-10 minutes or so, then once our state presentations have been given and toward the end of the PREP you could go back to the 15 min breaks.