Project Summary:

Authorized Organizational Representative:

Principal Investigator/Project Director #1:

Principal Investigator/Project Director #2:

Principal Investigator/Project Director #3:

Principal Investigator/Project Director #4:

Principal Investigator/Project Director #5:

Description of the Agricultural Communication Network Project:

1. Project Objectives:


• To improve agricultural research underlying agricultural telecommunications.
  
  
• Make optimal use of available resources for agricultural extension, resident education, and research by sharing resources between participating institutions.
  
  
• Enhance the ability of United States agriculture to respond to environmental and food safety concerns.
  
  
  
  Explain how the project relates to the Program Objective(s) and how the Project will contribute to achieving these.
  
  PAT is the front-line training program in the nation for mitigating potential environmental and safety effects of pesticide use. PAT addresses pesticide use in agriculture and in rural, suburban, and urban contexts. PAT learners include farmers, ranchers, and other private applicators who produce agricultural commodities; applicators in commercial pesticide services for building and other structural pest management, turf and landscape, agriculture, and many other areas; and additional pesticide applicators involved in forestry, public health, aquatic pests, food processing, stored grain, and other areas of pest management.

  A majority of PAT program content addresses environmental and health concerns such as waste management, water quality, occupational and environment health, sustainable agricultural, natural resource protection, and food safety. Specific environmental and safety PAT program topics include safe handling of pesticides, applicator safety, pesticide toxicity and long term health effects, poisoning and first aid, personal protective equipment, pesticide waste management and container recycling, protection of ground and surface waters, protection of non-target organisms and endangered species, minimizing pesticide drift, farm and other worker protection, protection of food from pesticide residues, and compliance to federal and state pesticide and environmental laws and regulations. In most states PAT programs are also heavily involved in closely related Extension programs in water quality, food safety, migrant and other farm worker protection, environmental public issue education, home and yard pest and pesticide management, and integrated pest management.

  This project is fundamentally a case study of the effort involved to design, produce, and implement an agricultural communication network. This network consists of both the technology structure and the human/organizational relationships. The grant collaborators come from all regions of the United States and are dedicated to building additional partnerships with industry, governmental and tribal agencies, other universities, tribal organizations, professional groups, Extension offices, and organizations in related fields such as public health and environmental safety.

  
  
  


2. Description of Agricultural Communication Network to be Developed or Utilized.

We propose the development of an internet-based national system to deliver the common components of national education and training programs. This system relies on two kinds of networks: a human network built of partnerships with industry, professional organizations, and governmental agencies and a technology network which integrates learning modules, communications, collaboration, course management, and evaluation utilities in a highly interactive learning environment.

Phase 1, development of the blueprint for a truly national system of PAT distance education modules, is nearly complete. Phase 1 efforts to date have clarified the fundamental need to strengthen and expand existing partnerships as well as to create new partnerships if the project is to succeed. One of the Phase 1 deliverables is a preliminary business plan examining the projects expenses, funding needs, and revenue flow. The magnitude of the project requires partnering with a wide variety of professional groups, organizations, and agencies to create the organizational, infrastructure, and educational systems which will create the critical mass necessary to be self supporting in three to four years. It is this building of partnerships which is the primary focus of Phase 2.

BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS

The collaborators for this grant application recognize the need to bring in a diverse set of project partners to produce the final communication network and content. The grant collaborators will approach potential partners to lead discussions about building awareness, expanding partnerships, and soliciting input and funds at various regional and national meetings. These meetings include Pesticide Applicator Training (PAT) regional meetings, the 2001 national PAT certification workshop, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Pre-SFIREG meetings, American Association of Pest Control Officials (AAPCO) meetings, the American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE) national meeting, the National Coalition on Drift Minimization, the National Pesticide Stewardship Alliance, and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, among others. Special attention will be given to working with US-EPA to develop a public/private partnership with the pesticide industry. When applicable, Letters of Commitment and Memorandums of Understanding will cement and clarify the partnerships. These efforts, necessary given the magnitude of the project, are designed to build partnerships one at a time. At least one grant collaborator is affiliated with each Extension region across the United States and will focus on regional as well as national efforts.

The EPA and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) co-chair what is now called the Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG). The mission of CTAG is to develop and implement proposals that will enhance the knowledge, skills and attitudes of pesticide users necessary for safe and effective pest management. CTAG represents a wide array of Pesticide Training and Certification (PT&C) and PAT national stakeholders including Extension, AAPSE, the AAPCO, state PT&C lead agencies, the Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials, tribal regulatory agencies, industry, EPA, other federal agencies, the Armed Forces, and other stakeholders. Many of the cooperators in this proposal and potential project partners are active members in CTAG and participate in the on-going CTAG efforts. CTAG provides another major avenue of partnership building.

The grant collaborators have targeted the following organizations as essential project partners:

1) National Exam and National Core Training Manual
This proposed project is part of a three-sided e project approach to national education and training. The other two parts are the EPAs development of a national pesticide applicator core exam and the development of a national pesticide applicator training core manual. The national exam and manual efforts are vital to the development and content of the training modules outlined in this project.

2) American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE)
AAPSE has agreed both to support the direction, concepts, and work of the project and to create a Policy Board. The Policy Board membership will represent various project stakeholders inside and outside of AAPSE. Details of policy issues such as the systems fiscal agent, copyright, and ownership will be negotiated for the national system in this Policy Board.

AAPSEs support and partnership is also vital because the organization plays a central role at regional and national levels in directing the future of the PAT program. AAPSE recently expanded its full membership beyond Extension to include representatives from federal government agencies, state government agencies, and tribal pesticide program. It provides one of the best venues for networking with the large and diverse groups, agencies, and organizations involved in pesticide education.

3) Public/Private Partnership
The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is the federal home of pesticide applicator certification and licensing. Working in partnership with the Certification and Worker Protection Branch (CWPB) and US-EPA, we will seek to establish a public/private partnership to create and support the national system. Industry is a key stakeholder and is highly interested in how the pesticide applicator training program will impact them. During Phase 1, the CWPB announced formal support for the projects effort to create a national system of pesticide training modules. CWPB has invited us to prepare a grant proposal for their consideration in US EPAs next fiscal year that would help partially support the project (letter of support included at the end of this section).

The interim National Program Leader, Cooperative State Research and Extension Education Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) also supports the concept and direction of the project and will be another player involved in forming public/private partnerships.

4) Pesticide Safety Education Institute (PSEI)
The virtual Pesticide Safety Education Institute (PSEI, http://psei.ext.vt.edu) will serve as a dominant web site for pesticide safety education. It is developed and maintained at Virginia Tech Pesticide Programs, Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University by Dr. Mike Weaver, one of the original co-P.I.s on this project. The PSEI will be the electronic portal for students and instructors to locate and use web-based pesticide safety training. During Phase 2 of this cooperative project, Dr. Weaver will serve as a co-principal investigator on the cooperative project and will provide leadership to investigate whether the PSEI is a feasible location to house major components of the national systems infrastructure. His role will include management of the PSEI and promotion of the cooperative project. The PSEI will serve as a portal for those seeking to test the internet-based training modules developed by the project. Virginia Tech will cooperate with the University of Minnesota in this testing phase.

In addition, Dr. Weaver and PSEI are the connection to North Carolina State University and the Southern Pesticide Safety Education Center (PSEC). Pesticide Safety Education Centers are being developed in several regions across the United States. Our project will join with the PSEC project to provide the online distance education component of the centers-an important operational step towards establishing the national system (letter of support included at the end of this section).

5) State Extension PAT Programs
The support of the Extension ANR (Agriculture and Natural Resources) Program Leaders is essential to expand the state Extension partnerships beyond the original four states. Further state connections include:

· Dr. Amy Brown, University of Maryland, will create a fourth training module addressing pesticide toxicity and health effects. Dr. Brown is from the Northeast region, completing representation from all four major regions in the grant collaborators;
· Selected additional states as sites to field test the modules;
· Other state Extension PAT program partnerships may also develop through other regional and national relationships.

6) Pesticide Applicator Training in Canada
Extension pesticide applicator training programs, US-EPA, and others have long-established working relationships with their Canadian federal and provincial counterparts. Recent efforts under the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) have greatly expanded harmonization between the two counties in the area of pesticide regulation and applicator training programs. The timing of this project now offers the opportunity to become an international distance education system (letter of support included at the end of this section).

7) Tribal Pesticide Programs
This project will partner with selected tribal programs to field test training modules. The goal of this testing is to understand the issues surrounding how national core modules may and may not meet the needs of this specific learner group.

TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM

The project team will evaluate, select and install an enabling technology structure to manage the national curriculum modules. This framework will provide a secure system for registering and logging participants, delivering content, distributing module materials, and tracking learners.

RESOURCES AND URLS

AAPSE website, hosted by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
http://aapse.ext.vt.edu/

University of Arizona Pesticide Information and Training Office
http://Ag.Arizona.Edu/pito/

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, content for Pesticide Application Equipment - Sprayers
http://psei.ext.vt.edu/DC/pae/pae-1.html

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Certification and Training Advisory Group (CTAG) website
http://aapse.ext.vt.edu/ctag/index.html

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Extension Pesticide Safety Education Programs home page
http://www.vtpp.ext.vt.edu

Pesticide Safety Education Institute (PSEI) (housed at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)
http://psei.ext.vt.edu

Washington State University, Pesticide and Environmental Stewardship home page
http://pep.wsu.edu

Washington States website for recertification courses (place X in every box , to get credit you must complete the course; ID: AAPSE, Password: 4dognite)
http://pep.wsu.edu/scripts/webmain.asp

University of Minnesota Extension Service HELPS (Health, EnvironmentaL, and Pesticide Safety)
http://www.extension.umn.edu/pesticides/

University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Entomology: Integrated Pest Management
http://pest.umd.edu/

University of Maryland Cooperative Extension, Pesticide Education and Assessment Programs (PEAP)
http://pest.umd.edu/spatc/spatc2.html

University of Maryland Cooperative Extension, Dr. Amy Brown
http://www.entomology.umd.edu/faculty/abrown_cv.html

EPA Office of Pesticide Programs initiative: Pesticides and National Strategies for Health Care Providers
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare/healthcare.htm

LETTERS OF SUPPORT

PSEC Letter of Support
20 April 2000

Dean Herzfeld, PAT Coordinator
Plant Pathology Department
495 Borlaug Hall
1991 Buford Circle
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108

Dear Mr. Herzfeld:

Earlier this year the American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators completed a study to assess the feasibility of creating regional Pesticide Safety Education Centers (PSECs). Shortly after the final report was released a meeting was held in Raleigh, North Carolina to develop a proposal to create a Southern Region PSEC in North Carolina State University. On May 9 the PI for that project (Dr. Wayne Buhler) will request $150,000 from the Pesticide Environmental Trust Fund. Approximately $50,000 in in-kind services will be provided by other state Extension pesticide coordinators in the Southern Region. State pesticide certification programs will also be asked to take an active role in creating the Center.

At the Raleigh meeting, Dr. Mike Weaver, Virginia Tech Pesticide Coordinator, discussed the National Pesticide Training Model and how it might support the SR PSEC. There was unanimous agreement that your project could and should be an essential component of our efforts. The SR PSEC proposal identifies two essential types of training: a non-resident on-line phase and a resident hands-on phase. The primary function of the PSEC will be train Extension agents with responsibilities for conducting PAT training and state pesticide inspectors with educational and enforcement responsibilities. Neither of these groups can afford to take time away from their jobs to attend a two-week training program. Both on-line and hands-on phases of the training will be the equivalent of one week of classroom instruction. Dividing the training into two phases allows greater flexibility for all participants and reduces overall costs significantly. Incidentally, the proposal includes a half-time position to help Dr. Weaver develop the on-line training component.

A similar PSEC proposal will be discussed next month at the Western Region Pesticide Conference. Again, the ADEC proposal for on-line training would be an essential component of a Western Region PSEC.

The success of your project proposal will do much to ensure the success of the SR PSEC. This is a wonderful demonstration of how funds from several sources can be leveraged to benefit everyone.

Sincerely yours,

Barry M. Brennan
Attach. SR PSEC proposal
Chair, PSEC Committee


Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Canada, Letter of Support
Pest Management Regulatory Agency
2250 Riverside Drive
Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9

June 7, 2000

Dean Herzfeld, PAT Coordinator
Plant Pathology Department
495 Borlaug Hall
1991 Buford Circle
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108

Dear Mr. Herzfeld:

The Canadian pesticide applicator certification and training co-ordinators recently held their annual meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia. We were fortunate to have had Carol Ramsay from Washington State University present an overview of the technology-enhanced national core curriculum modules recently developed. The Canadian co-ordinators were impressed with the work being done, and excited to learn about the proposed module on health effects/toxicology.

In Canada, we currently have approximately 42,000 certified private applicators and 48,000 certified commercial applicators. We are constantly striving for better and more cost-effective ways to reach our applicators and to offer quality alternatives to conventional classroom training. Although we are not in a position to offer funding towards this project, we fully support this endeavour in principle and look forward to exploring these common areas of interest with the project co-ordinators.

The certification and training co-ordinators in both Canada and the U.S. have made great strides towards work sharing over the years and in recent months through the NAFTA sponsored certification exam development project. I am sure you agree much commonality exists between our two nations and that it is of benefit to both of us to share in initiatives that improve the training of pesticide applicators. We look forward to hearing more about your current projects and discussing possible future partnerships.

Sincerely,

Lynn Skillings
Federal Co-chair
Canadian Working Group on Pesticide Education, Training and Certification

Wanda Michalowicz
Provincial Co-Chair
Canadian Working Group on Pesticide Education, Training and Certification


EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Letter of Support
June 1, 2000

Dean Herzfeld
University of Minnesota
Plant Pathology Department
495 Borlaug Hall
1991 Buford Circle
St. Paul, MN. 55108

Dear Dean:

On behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, I am writing to offer you my endorsement of the National Model for Technology-Enhanced Private Pesticide Applicator Training project.

As you know, several years ago we began the Certification & Training Assessment Group (CTAG) effort to review, and provide a future direction for, the national pesticide applicator certification and training program. Your project supports one of CTAGs five goals to "provide high quality pesticide education and safety training programs" by providing your peers with a resource and mechanism to create and use national education modules. By creating a national system to provide internet-based modules, your project will aid in the sharing and updating of resources while allowing easy access by target audiences.

As a national leader for the pesticide applicator program, I congratulate you, Mike Weaver, Carol Ramsay and Paul Baker on taking the initiative to begin this project. Your peers, the applicator community and the EPA will all benefit from your time, energy and commitment to a safer environment through pesticide safety education.

Sincerely,

/s/

Kevin Keaney
Certification & Worker Protection Branch Chief
Office of Pesticide Programs






Describe the Cost/Benefit Analysis for purchasing (or leasing) different types of facilities, equipment, components, hardware and software, or other items. (complete only if applicable to your project).



3. Agricultural Communication Network Programming:


• Agricultural Communications and Education
  
• Agricultural Engineering/Bioresource Engineering
  
• Agricultural Profitability and Sustainability
  
• Agronomy
  
• Entomological Science
  
• Environmental and Natural Resources
  
• Technology and Safety
  
• Plant Pathology
  
• Plant Science
  
  
  Describe the Programming and how it will contribute to achieving the Objective(s):
  
  Pesticide Applicator Training (PAT) is one of the single largest Extension programs in the nation. In addition to environmental, safety, and health topics, PAT training and educational programming also addresses management of insects, weeds, plant diseases, and other pests in all settings; maintenance and use of pesticide application equipment; and pest management as part of agricultural economic and environmental sustainability. In many state Extension PAT programs there is a rich history of innovation and early adoption of a wide variety of educational technology and instructional designs.

  State Extension PAT programs are directly connected with external partners. PAT is one aspect of the larger pesticide applicator training, certification, and licensing programs. US-EPA is the federal lead agency for PT&C and USDA Extension is the federal lead agency for PAT. Tribal and state government pesticide regulatory agencies are the state lead agencies of PT&C programs, with state Extension services providing leadership for PAT. The tribal and state government PT&C lead agencies have the authority to approve training efforts for PT&C/PAT. State PAT programs maintain a close network of state and national industry, advocacy, educational organizations, and government agencies. There is wide diversity in the structure, requirements, and management of state PT&C/PAT programs due to significant variations in state regulations, diverse partners and stakeholders, and evolution of state programs.

  Todays structural, technological, governmental and global changes in agriculture are escalating the skills and knowledge required of farm managers. They have bigger management challenges, more demands on their time, and a greater need to manage and use information. It is harder than ever to pull together farm managers for on-site training programs, yet they have increasing needs to learn from and interact with Extension specialists, other producers, and agribusinesses.

  Pesticide applicator training and education programs in Minnesota, Virginia, Arizona, Washington, and Maryland are partnering to create and implement a technology-enhanced system of curriculum delivery that gains the acceptance of other state programs and national stakeholders of the PT&C/PAT. The proposed project will use the largest segment of the PAT program, Private PAT for farmers, ranchers, and other producers of agricultural commodities, as the vehicle to create the national system. This infrastructure paves the way for education in specific pesticide application categories, individual state regulations and training materials, public health and environmental safety issues, and many other disciplines.

  During Phase 1 of the project we developed three prototype national core curriculum modules on the topics of Drift, Ground Water Quality, and Pesticide Application Equipment - Sprayers. Prototype versions of these modules can be found at http://www.extension.umn.edu/projects/ppat/final/index.htm. In Phase 2, we will develop one additional pesticide safety content module on the topic of Pesticide Health Effects/Toxicology.

  The proposed project will be developed and shared nationally through AAPSE with input from other national PAT stakeholders. It will provide guidance for other multi-state and national internet training, resulting in greater efficiency, quality, and accessibility by all 50 states, Tribal PPAT programs, and county Extension offices in the country. It has already been extensively researched during the planning grant (Phase 1). Phase 2 will continue that research with comprehensive testing of the content modules, interface and technological structure, usability, economic feasibility, and sustainability.



Detailed description of methods to be used in producing and/or delivering the programing.

The development process will entail gathering, synthesizing, and editing content; replicating the design specifications creating during Phase 1; designing and programming interactive exercises; coding in HTML and other computer languages; and assembling the finished module within the larger system structure.

One person affiliated with the project from each Extension region will focus on each region as well as national efforts. We already have at least one Co-PI from each Extension region already. We will also work with US-EPA and others to expand the coordination among the national PAT core exam, national PAT core manual, and this projects efforts to develop national core training modules.

AAPSE has already agreed to develop a Policy Board that will bring various stakeholders together to work out the details of the major policy issues facing the development of the national system. The Policy Board will also act as an editorial board to facilitate peer review of the content modules. The Policy Board is integral to building partnerships because it offers a focused space for negotiating the interests and concerns of the partners. This process is the only way to get a viable and accepted national system.



4. Population to be Served and Target Audience(s):

The target audience has several dimensions. For the production of content modules, the primary audience is comprised of state Extension PAT coordinators across the United States, plus associated national stakeholders, including AAPSE, AAPCO, EPA, USDA, CTAG, and Extension educators.

For the completed system, the primary audience is private pesticide applicators in all states that may be geographically isolated and/or have limited time. Future development may expand the projects target audience to include other non-agricultural pesticide applicators, consumers, Native American tribes, other U.S. agricultural professionals, and the global agriculture community.



5. Collaborating Institutions and Other Partners:

The central collaborators for this grant are the University of Minnesota, Washington State University, the University of Arizona, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, the University of Maryland, and the American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators (AAPSE). These partners will collaborate to develop the national core content modules, select and implement the enabling technology structure, and perform the comprehensive usability and market testing needed to critically evaluate the system.

During Phase 1 of the project AAPSE voted to support this project and resolved to create a policy board with decision-making authority to shape the logistics and business plan for the national system. AAPSE will also act as an editorial and peer-review board, endorsing only the most accurate and current content.

Washington State, Arizona, Virginia Tech, and Maryland will each be a primary content expert for a core curriculum module. Minnesota will manage production based on the protocol developed in Phase 1. This centralized development is needed to coordinate the technology and produce a standardized product. All of the partners will participate in the testing of the completed content modules and delivery system and in building the partnerships for the project.

Dean Herzfeld at the University of Minnesota will be a Co-PI. He will coordinate collaboration with prospective project partners and will be the primary liaison and advocate for this project within the North Central Region.

Carol Ramsay at Washington State University will be a Co-PI. She will be the primary content provider of the Drift module. She will provide leadership for content and instructional design of this core content module. The Washington State Department of Agriculture will assist with state-specific training material that supports learners in Washington. Carol Ramsay will also coordinate collaboration with the National Coalition on Drift Minimization for development and testing of the Drift module. She will be the primary liaison and advocate for this project within the Western Region.

Dr. Mike Weaver at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University will be a Co-PI, as well as the primary link between this project and the PSEI. He will be the primary content provider for the Pesticide Application Equipment - Sprayers module. He will provide leadership for content and instructional design of this core content module. Dr. Weaver will also provide management of the PSEI and promotion of the cooperative project. He will be the primary liaison and advocate for this project within the Southern Region and the PSEC project.

Paul Baker at the University of Arizona will be a Co-PI. He will be the primary content provider for the Groundwater Quality module. He will provide leadership for content and instructional design of this core content module. He will assist Carol Ramsay as the liaison and advocate within the Western Region.

Dr. Amy Brown at the University of Maryland will be a module author. She will be the primary content provider for the Pesticide Health Effects and Toxicology module. She will provide leadership for content and instructional design of this core content module. As the incoming AAPSE president, Dr. Brown will be an important part of developing the Policy Board. She will also be the primary liaison and advocate within the Northeastern Region.





6. Additional Rationale for Project

This effort is supported by and reflects the goals of a broad base of PT&C/PAT national stakeholders. In 1996 AAPSE initiated an assessment and strategic planning process for PT&C/PAT. The Environmental Protection Association (EPA) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) co-chair what is now called the Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG). The mission of CTAG is to develop and implement proposals, such as this one, that will enhance the knowledge, skills and attitudes of pesticide users necessary for safe and effective pest management.

CTAG conducted national surveys of Extension PAT programs and state PT&C lead agencies, held a series of extensive negotiation and planning sessions, and produced the January 1999 report "Pesticide Safety for the 21st Century: The Findings and Proposals of the Certification & Training Assessment Group." The report is the blueprint for future direction of PT&C/PAT and is the negotiated strategic plan to best meet the needs of the public, pesticide applicators, and United States agriculture. This proposal is directly based on the following three of CTAGs five strategic directions for PT&C/PAT:

CTAG Goal 1: Reduce the risks to the public from pesticide use. Provide for the safe and effective use of pesticides by ensuring that all pesticide users, including homeowners, have access to appropriate pesticide safety education materials and/or pesticide safety training. Ensure that all pesticide applicators who apply pesticides as part of their occupational responsibilities or activities [that could result in pesticide exposures to the public through direct exposure/contact, residues on food or plant materials, or from drift] have received adequate pesticide education and safety training corresponding to their category/level of pesticide use.

CTAG Goal 2: Provide high quality pesticide education and safety training programs. Ensure that all pesticide education and safety training programs meet national standards with regard to the content of the programs and the quality of training materials. Ensure that training coordinators for pesticide education and safety training programs possess the knowledge, skills and abilities to deliver effective training that meets the needs of pesticide users and keeps pace with evolving technological advancements and our changing understanding of pesticide risks.

Specific objectives under CTAGs Goal 2 on which this proposal is directly based include:
· Update Core Training Requirements and Establish National Model Curriculum.
· Provide Mechanisms for Coordinated Development and Review of Training Materials.
· Provide Mechanisms to Improve the Skills of Trainers/Educators.
· Establish a Network or Resource Pool of Subject Matter and Technology Experts/Specialists.
· Develop Training Materials in an Electronic and Modular Format.

CTAG Goal 5: Improve the efficiency of program organization and operations. Assure that the operation of pesticide education and safety training and applicator certification programs are coordinated through the National Program Offices (NPOs) to insure cooperation between implementing agencies and to provide for consistent evaluation, management and marketing of the program.

The proposed project will be developed as a model and shared nationally through AAPSE with input from other national PAT stakeholders. It will provide guidance for multi-state and national Internet training resulting in greater efficiency, quality, and accessibility by all 50 states, Tribal PPAT programs, and county Extension offices in the country.





7. Significant Impacts:

A national model for technology-enhanced program development and training has great potential for replication in a variety of national and state Extension programs. The explicit partnerships with a wide range of PAT-related organizations will also provide a model for other programs. Working across state lines is a major emphasis in Extension, one to which this project has already proven itself committed in Phase 1 and whose commitment will only increase during Phase 2. The core modules themselves are directly in line with PATs goals of creating national education and training materials and increasing technology-enhanced programming. The national standards established through this project, the national exam, and the national core manual provide a three-sided approach to PAT education that will benefit applicators, educators, and the public.



8. Describe the plans for research, assessment, evaluation and dissemination as applicable to the project:

A major part of this project is the evaluation component. We will work with institutions and individuals around the country to evaluate and test the delivery system, content modules, and the feasibility and long-term sustainability of the entire system.

Usability testing will include evaluation of the content by industry experts and pesticide applicators and evaluation of the interface and technology by the agriculture professionals who are the audience for the completed product. We will also market test the systems use and acceptance in participating states. We will also look at the educational outcomes of the content modules and attempt to answer the following questions: How did content presented in this way affect learning outcomes based on the stated learning objectives for each module? To what extent do this programs materials change the knowledge, attitudes and skills of the learners?

The feasibility study will analyze the long-term economic and organizational sustainability of this model. The study will include:

· Economic Partnerships: To what extent can federal agencies, individual states, and private industry cooperate to support and fund this effort over the long term? What will the Return On Investment (ROI) be for the partners involved?

· Pricing: To what extent can/should user fees sustain this effort? How will revenue flow through the completed project?

· Organizational Partnerships: How do all of the partners work together to produce and sustain the content, infrastructure, enrollment, support, etc. of the project? What are the roles of each partner within the organizational system?As the partnerships are built in Phase 2 for pesticide education, preliminary planning will be initiated for developing partnerships beyond pesticide education. Strategies include:

· Seeking educators in additional state Extension services as well as other content experts to develop additional training modules.
· Investigating a partnership with Extension IPM and pest management related programs in some regions.
· Building towards a consortium of land-grant universities (including 1890s and 1994s) and others to offer Extension and other distance education beyond pesticide and pest management topics.
· Exploring potential partnerships with a number of occupational and environmental health educational efforts at research universities and via the US-EPA with health care professionals interested in pesticide concerns.






9. Broader Impacts:

As the partnerships are built in Phase 2 for pesticide education, preliminary planning will be initiated for developing partnerships beyond pesticide education. Strategies include:

· Seeking educators in additional state Extension services as well as other content experts to develop additional training modules.
· Investigating a partnership with Extension IPM and pest management related programs in some regions.
· Building towards a consortium of land-grant universities (including 1890s and 1994s) and others to offer Extension and other distance education beyond pesticide and pest management topics.
· Exploring potential partnerships with a number of occupational and environmental health educational efforts at research universities and via the US-EPA with health care professionals interested in pesticide concerns.





10. Proposed Timetable:


August 2000
Initial Planning Meeting with all grant collaborators

September 2000
Southern Region PAT Meeting - Charleston, SC

September 2000
NE Tri-Agency Meeting

October - November 2000
Module content development and technology structure selection

October 2000
Letter of Commitment from NE Tri-Agency

October 2000
Letters of Commitment from PSEI and Southern Region PSEC

October 2000
National Pesticide Stewardship Alliance (NPSA) - St. Petersburg Beach, FL

October 2000
National Drift Coalition Meeting

November 2000 - January 2001
Module production and technology structure implementation

November 2000
Letters of Commitment/Understanding from NPSA and National Drift Coalition

December 2000
CTAG Meeting

December 2000
Core Exam task items/job analysis completed

January - March 2001
Usability testing of modules and technology structure, test result analysis and assessment, revised production timeline for changes

January 2001
Letter of Commitment from EPA

March 2001
AAPSE/AAPCO Meeting - Arlington, VA (Includes meeting with AAPSE Policy Board)

March - May 2001
Module revisions

June 2001
Modules complete, ready for presentation at National PAT workshop

June 2001
National Pesticide Applicator Training Workshop - San Antonio, TX

July 2001
All financial and organizational partnerships and commitment need to be in place for Phase 3 (full development)

Spring 2002
Phase 3 complete, full rollout for project





11. Project Personnel and Time Commitment:



Larry Coyle 6%
Dean Herzfeld 20%
Carol Ramsay 20%
Mike Weaver 10%
Amy Brown 5%