IPM Planning and Evaluation

About This Site

Our Approach to Developing the Examples on This Site

Project Background
Documenting IPM adoption and impacts became increasingly important with the announcement of USDA goal of having 75% of U.S. crop acreage utilizing IPM systems by the year 2000. Subsequently, a 2001 report by U.S. GAO noted that "lack of a method to measure the environmental or economic results of IPM implementation" was a shortcoming of the federal IPM initiative. Increasing need for accountability led to development of the National Roadmap for Integrated Pest Management in 2004, a strategic foundational document for research, implementation and measurement of IPM nationally.

However, until relatively recently, no systematic attempt had been made to develop a standardized set of impact indicators and related measures that could be consistently applied by IPM specialists to identify "the environmental, health, and economic impacts associated with adoption of IPM practices in the areas of production agriculture, natural resource/recreational environments, and residential/public areas" (The IPM Matrix, Hoffman and Ortman 2004).

National IPM Evaluation Group (NIPMEG)
In response to the need to assess progress toward National Roadmap goals, NIFA, SARE, NRCS, ARS, ERS/NASS and USEPA Strategic Agricultural Initiative (SAI) collaborated to form the multi-agency National IPM Evaluation Group (NIPMEG), and charged it with a mission of facilitating and harmonizing impact assessment and program evaluation for IPM Nationally. One of the first significant NIPMEG activities was a performance measures workshop held in Burlington, VT, October 17-18, 2004. Results of that meeting included formation of subcommittees on Goals and Objectives, Reporting, Evaluation and NRCS/595, and setting a number of action items for later follow-up. NIPMEG met again via teleconference and as a group in Portland, Oregon, August 29-30, 2005, to hear results of subcommittee work and plan further actions.

NIPMEG Evaluation Subcommittee
The Logic Model (University of Wisconsin-Extension 2004) and the IPM Matrix formed the theoretical framework for work of the National IPM Evaluation Subcommittee. Our goal was to highlight examples of target audiences, inputs, outputs (activities and participation), and outcomes (short-term, medium-term, and ultimate impacts) of IPM programs. Logic Models can provide a visual representation of how IPM can impact the environment, human health, and economics of production agriculture, residential/public areas, and natural resources/recreational environments

From its inception in 2004, subcommittee members Bill Coli (Chair), Linda Herbst, Carol Pilcher, Barbara VanTil, Peg Perreault, Ann Sorenson, and Thomas Grietens, with occasional input from Bill Hoffman, Steve Hopkins, Tom Brennan, and George Norton, used an iterative and reiterative process to develop logic models for each cell of the IPM Matrix. Peer review of draft models was accomplished by distributing drafts to Extension IPM Coordinators in each Region, to staff of Regional IPM Centers, to members of the Federal IPM Coordinating Committee (FIPMCC) which includes representatives from EPA, USDA, USDI NPS, DOD, and GSA, as well as to NIFA staff Mike Fitzner and Marty Draper.

Feedback from reviewers was considered carefully, and numerous suggested changes were made to the substance of the final models. It should be noted that models available through this website are intended to represent examples of performance indicators and impact measures, and, as such, are anticipated to change over time as new potential performance indicators and measures are identified, or current ones found to be not relevant. In addition, these models don't describe every possible measure that could be used to describe impact.

Dissolution of NIPMEG
With the launch of the Logic Models web site and because of changes in focus of US EPA, a key strategic partner in IPM, and after discussion in 2011 among the Regional IPM Center Directors, it was decided that NIPMEG had served its purpose and was no longer needed.


Many individuals and organizations supported development of these logic models.

Logic Model Development and Review

We gratefully acknowledge the many hours spent by members of the Evaluation Subcommittee of the National IPM Evaluation Working Group (NIPMEG): Bill Coli, Thomas Greitens, Linda Herbst, Bill Hoffman, George Norton, Peg Perreault, Carol Pilcher, Anne Sorenson, and Barbara VanTil in developing the initial logic model drafts.

Thanks also to the members of the four regional IPM Coordinator Groups, the Federal IPM Coordinating Committee, the joint ECOP/ESCOP IPM Committee, representatives of the four Regional IPM Centers, and the School IPM Working Group for providing comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of the various IPM Logic models.

Special thanks are due to the following individuals who provided in-depth review and detailed comments leading to the development of the finalized model versions: Herb Bolton, Lynn Braband, Mike Brewer, Rakesh Chandran, Jody Gangloff-Kauffman, Dawn Gouge, Tom Green, Albert Greene, Peter Goodell, Jennifer Grant, Ames Herbert, Elizabeth Lamb, Norm Leppla, Susan Ratcliff, Tom Royer, Mark Schmaedick, Andrea Szylvian, Allison Taisey, and Joanne Whalen.

Website Maintenance

Linda Herbst, Ron Stinner, Joyce Strand and William Coli developed this presentation of the logic models. The website is currently maintained by the Southern Region IPM Center. For questions or suggestions, please contact us.


United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) was a major sponsor of this project. Several agency personnel contributed to the development, creation, and completion of these sample logic models. They include but are not limited to USEPA, USDA NIFA and Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, The IPM Institute of North America, Inc., American Farmland Trust, and many university personnel.





About Us | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

This website is maintained by the Southern IPM Center, supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture.