JATSTITUTIONAL FAR
Test Facilities For
Integrated Pest Management Strategies
National
v Field
/ (Research
Center,
MBit
prepared by:
Atlanta
Field
Office
•£. &S&''
t*
-------
Special acknowledgement is given to Ms. Margie V. Gardner
for the original drawings contained in this volume.
-------
INSTITUTIONAL FARMS:
TEST FACILITIES FOR
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Conducted By:
NATIONAL FIELD RESEARCH CENTER, INC.
Atlanta Field Office
2700 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 150
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
Under Contract With:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Contract #WA-8-1861 -A
Mr. James Boland, Project Officer
Project Staff:
Ms. Elizabeth G. Nielsen, Project Director
Dr. Darold E. Albright, President
Mr. Jack F. Seum
Ms. Marilyn J. Morton
Ms. Elaine W. Clark
This document has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT v
BACKGROUND 1
Memphis Prototype 3
Current Project 5
INTRODUCTION 9
Agricultural Components 12
Corrections Components . 24
SKILLS FOR THE IPM PRACTITIONER . . 37
POTENTIAL PROJECT PARTICIPANTS 63
Federal Agencies and their State/Local Counterparts .... 67
Academic Institutions 97
Private Sector 101
POTENTIAL PROJECT COMPONENTS 105
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 115
PLAN OF ACTION 123
BIBLIOGRAPHY 135
APPENDICES 147
A. Project Contributors 149
B. Correctional Facilities and Farms Directory 159
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their appreciation to Mr.
James Boland of the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, for his timely and most helpful contributions to
this project. The valuable advice and support of persons from the""
many participating agencies and institutions - both public and
private - is sincerely appreciated. Their suggestions and comments
provided many insights in the development of this report and fulfill'
ment of project objectives. The names of these individuals are
listed in Appendix A - Project Contributors.
-------
FOREWORD
This report presents a recommended framework for the development of
a national program to implement integrated pest management/scientific
ecological agricultural practices and training programs on institutional
farms. Based principally upon the prototype model project implemented in
Memphis, Tennessee in 1977 (as described in the Background of this report),
it focuses upon correctional institutions and their populations, and upon
the programs initiated during the Memphis project - while offering sugges-
tions and recommendations for additional programs and strategies.
Specifically, this report presents:
- an overview and rationale for an institutional program
and its various sub-components;
\
- descriptions of the various governmental agencies
(Federal, State and local) with a potential for
involvement in such a program, and their relevant
programs; and an overview of potential private
sector and academic participants;
- a recommended methodology in which these agencies
could cooperate to initiate such a program;
- specific techniques and programs which could be ini-
tiated at institutional farm project areas;
- a model IPM technician career structure and the skills
required;
- recommendations for further research.
In preparing this report, it was assumed that the readers would be
quite varied with respect to background on the subject matters involved.
An effort was made, therefore, to present the materials uniformly, with
enough information in each subject area (e.g., Federal agencies, inte-
grated pest management, etc.) to make the report understandable to lay
persons and discipline-specific professionals alike.
m
-------
The information and recommendations contained in this volume were
condensed from on-site interviews with over 40 Federal and other officials,
as well as from telephone conversations, correspondence and extensive
literature review. As opinions and ideas varied significantly, the fact
of a recommendation's inclusion should not be construed to signify the
endorsement of each and every particular person interviewed. Efforts
were made, however, to incorporate each person's viewpoints, both posi-
tive and negative, and to condense the materials/opinions into the most
generally acceptable and workable plan.
-------
ABSTRACT
-------
BAG KG ROUN D
Memphis Prototype
During the months of March through September, 1977, a model project
to implement IPM and eco-agriculture on the Shelby County Penal Farm
was carried out under the auspices of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This project grew from a youth/family gardening program spon-
sored by Youth Service in Memphis, Inc. on land donated by the Penal
Farm, to encompass the entire Penal Farm agricultural operations.
EPA provided technical assistance and support in the form of two
summer interns, and through securing the services of National Field
Research Center. Initial efforts by the project staff for the youth
gardening project included developing contacts, publicizing the program,
and enlisting the support of individuals and agencies. Through these
efforts, donations of equipment, supplies and services abounded. These
included the use of three vehicles, water storage units, seeds and tools,
a trailer truck for storage, media support, office space, and a homemaking
van for instructional purposes. Throughout the project, young persons and
their families received instruction in scientific ecological gardening tech-
niques; received assistance in planting and caring for their crops; and were
assisted in harvesting their produce.
Activities undertaken to upgrade the Penal Farm's agricultural operations
and implement IPM/eco-agricultural techniques included:
— the application of compost to the land;
— the involvement of Memphis State University;
— the completion of a farm plan;
— the development of a lagoon upgrading plan;
— consultations with several eco-agricultural experts;
— the use of non-chemical controls;
— the conduct of a farm dealer demonstration school.
Selected Penal Farm residents were allowed to garden with their families
in conjunction with the youth gardening project. Additionally, interested
inmates attended films, slide demonstrations and discussions regarding IPM
and eco-agriculture, and steps were taken to develop a curriculum in
agriculture for these individuals.
Some of the more notable outcomes of this project were:
— numerous youths, families and inmates were provided
the opportunity of learning to plant and care for
gardens;
— families were able to partially offset spiraling grocery
bills by growing their own produce;
VII
-------
— interest grew throughout the network with regard
to scientific ecological farming;
— an increased interest was developed in support of an
agricultural curriculum for residents of the Penal Farm;
and
— the potential for integrated gardening/farming projects
based upon IPM and eco-agricultural principles and
techniques was demonstrated, providing a basis for
future replication and expansion.
Current Project
The apparent successes of the Memphis project prompted EPA to provide
for further study concerning the replication/expansion of the project on a
national scale, and it again acquired the services of National Field Research
Center. With the objective "to facilitate the ultimate acceptance of inte-
grated pest management as a nationally accepted agricultural practice
through a strategy analysis for future demonstration models in the institu-
tional farm setting", the firm agreed to:
— develop a national procedural program leading to the
utilization of institutional farms as IPM demonstration
models;
— identify and define IPM techniques and procedures
applicable in the institutional farm setting;
— identify individuals/offices within Federal agencies/
national organizations with activities and objectives
paralleling the field of IPM, and to elicit their interest in
the model institutional farm concept; and
— identify and categorize individual skill sets required in
the successful application of IPM in the institutional
farm setting.
The chief strategy has been interviewing Federal officials in agencies/
offices with activities and functions that relate to an institutional IPM/eco-
agricultural program. However, the report provides limited background on
the potential involvement of the private sector and academic community,
and stresses the importance of their eventual role in a national program.
Vlll
-------
I NTRODUCTION
An institutional farming and gardening project such as was carried out in
Memphis consists of a number of separate but interrelated components. In
order that the reader have a background on these components, the Intro-
duction to the report presents an overview of the major fields relating to the
Memphis project and being recommended for future projects. Below, the
major points of each component are capsulized, with the following major
divisions: Agricultural Components and Corrections Components.
Agricultural Components
Integrated Pest Management
A strong and growing dependence on chemical pesticides in recent years
has led to concerns about a number of pesticide-related problems, including:
environmental contamination; resistances developed by some pests to
commonly used pesticides; adverse health effects on humans and animals;
outbreaks of secondary pests as a result of the complete elimination of other
pests; and resurgences of original pests from eliminating natural predators.
These concerns have led to an increasing interest in and application of IPM
strategies as alternatives to pest control problems. Although the definition
of IPM varies, IPM systems incorporate considerations of all the tools and
methodologies available; the effects on the food produced; the costs to the
farmer and consumer; and the effects on the environment, animals and
humans. IPM techniques being researched and implemented by Federal,
State and local governments, academic institutions, growers, and private
business and industry include: using crop varieties resistant to pests,
releasing natural pest enemies, adjusting planting times and crop rotations,
implementing cultural practices such as row spacing and flooding, and using
pesticides when deemed necessary.
Scientific Ecological Agriculture
In concept, scientific ecological agriculture is a cross between conven-
tional agriculture and alternative forms with names such as organic, natural
and biological agriculture. While these alternative forms have varying
characteristics, they generally use little or no synthetic pesticides or fertil-
izers; emphasize feeding plants indirectly, through the soil; and attempt to
restore proper soil conditions, often through adding humates or humus.
Proponents of these systems claim that such techniques increase the health
of the soil, which in turn provides a natural resistance to pests; and that less
rainfall is required to maintain healthy crops.
Scientific ecological agriculture, then, borrows alternative techniques
such as composting, and borrows from conventional agriculture when oc-
casion calls, to carry out the most efficient, economical, productive, and
scientific agricultural operation possible - while remaining as environmentally
sound and energy-efficient as possible.
IX
-------
Energy and Agriculture
It has been hotly debated whether or not agriculture is the largest energy
consumer in the United States. Its direct energy consumption takes place
chiefly through the operation of tractors and other farm equipment, and
through irrigation, crop drying and other agricultural processes. An indirect
energy use by agriculture comes through the use of petroleum-based
pesticides and fertilizers.
U.S. scientists are researching and testing alternate energy sources for
agricultural production, as well as conservation strategies. Some alternate
forms being tested include: solar energy for crop drying, irrigation and the
heating of farm structures; wind energy for pumping water and generating
electric power; crop residues and manures (biomass) for conversion to usable
energy forms; and heat recovery from air exhausted from animal shelters and
crop dryers. Recommended energy conservation measures include equip-
ment changes and adjustments, new management practices, reducing over-
drying, and combined field operations.
Gardening
Community gardening is on the uprise in the U.S., as surveys show that a
great many Americans want to grow crops but lack the land and know-how
required. In addition to providing food for families, community gardens
provide such useful functions as a constructive recreational outlet, an aid to
heightened awareness of nature and environmental processes, and a
facilitator of the "sense of community". Gardening is an educational
process, and some assert that it fosters individualism, self-reliance, and
creativity. Most community gardening projects are sponsored by local
groups; however, State and Federal agencies are also supporting such
programs.
A number of universities, correctional institutions, hospitals, nursing
homes, and mental institutions are recognizing the therapeutic value of
gardening, and are initiating "hortitherapy" programs. Hortitherapy has
been defined as the use of horticultural appeal and methods for improve-
ment of physical well-being. Types of individuals served have included the
visually, mentally, and physically disabled; substance abusers; the elderly;
and adult and juvenile offenders.
Corrections Components
The Offender
An estimated 500,000 individuals are currently confined to Federal, State
and local institutions and jails. While the offender population is far from a
homogeneous group, the typical offender is likely to be a young, under-
educated male from a minority background. The economic history of most
offenders is one of long periods of unemployment, low wages, low status,
and welfare; however, as a whole the offender population is as intelligent as
the "outside" population. Although 95 percent of those incarcerated are
men, the number of arrests of women is rapidly increasing, and the types of
offenses committed by women is expanding.
Studies have shown that society places a stigma upon the offender and ex-
offender, often taking the form of refusal for employment, and through
restrictive licensing laws. This problem is compounded by the fact that
many ex-offenders do not have sufficient job skills.
x
-------
The Correctional System
The correctional system in actuality includes four major components:
police, prosecution and defense, courts, and corrections. The latter consists
of a complex network of correctional institutions, half-way houses, and
other facilities throughout the country, including: the Federal prisons of
minimum, medium and maximum security, and community treatment
centers; similar institutions for State adult offenders; youth custody and/or
treatment facilities; and local detention and correctional facilities.
The goals of correctional institutions today are varied, ranging from
punishment to rehabilitation. Reform attempts today are marked by infu-
sions of funds for models, studies, panels, research and other efforts. Recent
and on-going efforts include pre-trial intervention; job training, counseling
and placement; token economy implementation; the development of prison
industries; and post-prison adjustment assistance. It is not yet clear what
effects, if any, these programs have on prisoner reform.
Institutional Vocational Skills Training
Surveys of vocational training in correctional institutions indicate that
between 10 and 20 percent of all inmates are enrolled in such programs, the
most common being: automotive mechanics, arc and acetylene welding,
machine shop, masonry, radio and TV repair, auto body repair, carpentry,
barbering, baking and cooking, architectural and mechanical drafting, air
conditioning and refrigeration, and small engine repair. About one-half of all
inmates are apparently unable to participate in vocational training for
reasons such as lack of aptitude or interest, and inability to meet minimum
requirements. Many institutions also offer prison industries.
The relationship between acquiring occupational skills and recidivism is
not clear, but evidence suggests that training coupled with full support
services reduces a person's likelihood of returning to crime. Among the rec-
ommendations being advanced for vocational training in prison are: provide
a greater diversity of offerings; expand community contacts; improve
guidance and placement services; institute apprenticeship programs; co-
operate with the military; use CETA and other funds; and expand upon the
Free Venture model.
Institutional Farming
Literature is scarce on correctional institutional farming operations, but
it appears that most farms have declined in quality and quantity (out-
put) over the last thirty years. Reasons include: a shift in attitudes regarding
hard labor for inmates; lack of funds; and the economic feasibility of buying
rather than producing the institution's food. Today, while some inmates
work in agricultural operations, few are provided formal agricultural training.
It appears that interest is reviving towards re-developing the potential of
penal institutional lands. Reasons include the spiraling costs of purchasing
food, and pressure from without to reduce these costs. A good many of
these institutions have an abundance of land to work with, as indicated by a
survey conducted by the American Correctional Association in cooperation
with the Environmental Protection Agency. This survey is published as
Appendix B of the full report.
XI
-------
SKILLS FOR THE IPM PRACTITIONER
Only recently have curricula in IPM become available. Today, many col-
leges and universities throughout the country are offering bachelor and
graduate level educational programs in pest management, producing profes-
sionals with the capabilities of providing expert consultative services and
and performing research in the field. However, comprehensive training pro-
grams at the two-year level and below in IPM are not so common, as indi-
cated by a 1977-78 survey by National Field Research Center.
Two sources have been identified for IPM curricula, at the associate
degree level and below. These are abstracted in the following two sections.
Integrated Pest Management Curriculum Report
In 1973, Kirkwood Community College of Cedar Rapids, Iowa and the
Associated Research Corporation of Miami, Florida developed a report
entitled Integrated Pest Management - A Curriculum Report. It consists of
materials developed at and in conjunction with a conference in Berkeley,
California, and presents outlined courses of study up to the doctoral level, as
well as IPM jobs at each level and the competencies required. Below are the
jobs outlined for the two-year level and below. The full institutional farm-
ing report details the specific skills required for each job.
High School Level:
Applicator Jobs
People-Oriented Jobs
Technician Jobs
MDTA Skills Center Level (for direct occupational entry):
Applicator
Applicator Assistant
Field Sweeper or Scout
Equipment Operator
Laboratory Assistant
Insectary Technician Assistant
Field Equipment Technician
Inspector Trainee
Community College and Technical Institution Level:
IPM - Laboratory Services
Laboratory Technician: Biological
Laboratory Technician: Chemical
Insectary Technician
Environmental Monitoring Technician
Field Sweeper/Scout
IPM - Application Services
IPM Foreman
Field Equipment Technician
Aerial Applicator
Structural Applicator
Kill
-------
IPM - Supplies and Services
Retailer
Salesperson
Technical Salesperson
A Source Book on Integrated Pest Management
In 1977, Mary Louise Flint and Robert van den Bosch of the International
Center for Integrated and Biological Control of the University of California,
developed and released A Source Book on Integrated Pest Management. It
contains curriculum content in environmental education in the context of
IPM, and can be used as a base to design and develop curriculum and relevant
instructional/learning resources in instructional leadership education such as
teacher education, and in the education of children and youth, and in adult/
continuing education. Accompanying materials present competence do-
mains relevant to the Source Book for education and teacher education in
IPM.
Discussion
IPM-related education/training and career ladders are as yet largely
unstructured, especially at lower levels. The above two sources will be
useful to those attempting to implementing IPM training programs and
career systems. Some suggestions for such implementation in the institu-
tional setting include:
— structure programs around job market needs and institu-
tional variables;
— structure flexibility into the training programs;
— make use of available supportive individuals, institutions,
and teaching aids;
— incorporate on-the-job training and field experience;
— provide supportive services such as job counseling and
placement; and
— provide for follow-up training.
xiv
-------
POTENTIAL PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
This chapter in the full report presents descriptions, based upon
interviews and research, of agencies and institutions which have activities
and functions that relate, or potentially relate to an institutional IPM/
eco-agricultural program. As such, they have potential involvement in a
national program. The first area, Federal Agencies and their State/Local
Counterparts, describes appropriate Federal agencies by their general
functions and activities; reviews specific sections and/or programs of these
Federal agencies with potential linkages; and reviews State and local public
agencies whose functions are at least partially tied to the Federal agencies
described.
The second and third sections, Academic Institutions and Private Sector,
provide very brief descriptions of the potential involvements of these
sectors, as the scope of the project neither permitted nor stipulated the
extensive work necessary to provide thorough coverage. Any extensive
work towards implementing a large scale institutional farming program
must give due consideration to the academic community and the private
sector.
Below are outlined the agencies/institutions receiving coverage in the full
report.
Federal Agencies and their State/local Counterparts
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Executive Office of the President, Council on
Environmental Quality
Departments:
Department of Agriculture:
Conservation, Research and Education
Science and Education Administration
Cooperative State Research Service
Extension Service
Federal Research
Teaching
Soil Conservation
Economic Statistics and Cooperative Service
Rural Development
Department of Energy:
Conservation and Solar Applications
Division of Industrial Energy Conservation
Solar Technology Transfer Branch
Intergovernmental and Institutional Relations
xv
-------
Department of Health, Education and Welfare:
Office of Education
Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of Environmental Education
Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education
Department of Justice:
Bureau of Prisons
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
Agencies:
Community Services Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Academic Institutions
Land-Grant Institutions
Other Four-Year Advanced Degree Institutions
Two-Year Institutions
Private Sector
National/State/Local Organizations
Business and Industry
xvi
-------
POTENTIAL PROJECT COMPONENTS
This chapter in the full report summarizes the activities and projects
recommended by interviewed officials, those identified through literature
review, and/or those successfully implemented during the Memphis project.
Specific components actually initiated at a particular project area would
depend upon several factors including crops grown, pest problems, soil
types, weather and climatic conditions, acreage, the size and population of
the institution, the priorities of the participants, and the resources available.
Potential project components are briefly summarized below, by major
category.
IPM/Eco-Agriculture
Specific strategies would vary with the situation. It is suggested that an
initial project should be to work with the Soil Conservation Service for an
area conservation plan. Establishing cooperative relationships with Federal,
State and local agencies, academic institutions, and the private sector would
also be crucial to successfully implementing IPM/eco-agriculture. Working
with researchers would facilitate "technology transfer" of the latest
techniques. In a more commercial vein, agricultural operations could be
linked with, in some way, existing prison industries programs.
Gardening/Horticulture
Suggested participants include youths and their families, elderly persons,
inmates and their families, and mentally and physically handicapped
persons. Suggested activities include training participants in gardening
techniques along with classes in related areas; soliciting support from local
volunteers, high school and college students; and establishing liaisons with
local food fairs. It may be feasible to assist in establishing additional garden-
ing sites in nearby cities and/or build greenhouses or propagation chambers.
A related possible activity would involve the maintenance of lawns in an
energy-efficient manner.
Energy Conversion/Conservation
Possible energy conservation measures could include proper insulation,
adjustments of equipment, combining field operations, when possible, and
reducing tillage when appropriate. On-farm energy production possibilities
include the use of biomass for heating buildings and drying crops; the use of
solar apparati for heating buildings and water; the construction of wind
turbines for electricity and pumping water; and the construction of small
hydropower projects. Again, it is stressed that project participants draw
upon all of the expertise that is available.
xvii.
-------
Corrections
In addition to providing training to offenders in eco-agricultural and IPM
skills, as outlined in a previous chapter, it has been suggested that involved
institutions could tie-in with the solar installer training program for
correctional institutions, provided by the Department of Energy. Addi-
tionally, some have suggested that research and demonstration projects
concerning the offender could be conducted by private or public research
bodies in conjunction with an IPM/eco-agricultural program.
Outreach/Promotion
A very important factor for a successful program is obtaining the support
and cooperation of the community-at-large, as well as special interest
groups, local government, and private organizations. Suggestions for such
efforts include:
— speaking before local civic organizations, youth groups,
schools and other organizations;
— paying personal visits to key public officials as well as to
local farmers and business and industry representatives;
— contacting and preparing news releases for newspapers and
TV stations; and
— inviting guest speakers on appropriate topics, and opening
the talks to the public.
xvi 11
-------
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The great majority of those interviewed during the course of this study
expressed much enthusiasm regarding the merits of an institutional IPM/eco-
agricultural project. Many felt that a unique and exceptional aspect is that
such a project has the potential of providing benefits to a number of
disciplines. Several of the interviewed officials, however, pointed out
potential obstacles to the successful implementation of an institutional
program and/or suggested areas for further research or study before actual
project, which were not within the scope of this project. These potential
obstacles and areas for further research are listed below. Discussions of these
can be found in the full report.
Potential Obstacles
1. Placement of Trainees:
A. The job market for IPM and other agricultural
skills may not be good enough to justify the
development of training programs in these areas.
B. Many IPM/eco-agricultural jobs are seasonal in
nature.
C. Farmers may not be willing to hire former
inmates.
2. Economic Feasibility:
A. It may be more economical for institutions to buy
their food, while leasing their land to local
farmers, as raising their own food may cause extra
expenses for additional guards, more equipment,
etc.
B. Implementing IPM and eco-agricultural techniques
may prove less cost-efficient than conventional
methods.
C. Many institutional farms may be located on poor
land for agricultural purposes, and may be located
far from any population centers.
3. Sale of Produce:
A. Local farmers may resent competition from a
public institution.
B. Many States have laws forbidding prison industries
which compete with private enterprise.
4. IPM policy within and among Federal agencies, as well as
with other public and private groups, is only in its formative
stages.
xix
-------
Areas for Further Research
In response to Potential Obstacles:
1. A national survey on employment opportunities in IPM
and related areas.
2. A national survey on attitudes of potential employers
towards the hiring of ex-offenders.
3. A national survey on correctional institutions, on such
factors as land characteristics, crops and pests, management
practices, philosophies, etc.
4. An analysis of probable economic effects on institutions of
an IPM/eco-agricultural program.
5. A survey of all State and Federal laws and policies relating to
institutional farming, sale of produce, inmate wages, and
other relevant factors.
6. A survey of unions and farmers on their attitudes towards
the sale of produce by institutional farms.
7. A survey and analysis of Federal legislation relevant to
IPM/eco-agriculture - especially as these laws impact the roles
of Federal agencies.
Other suggested further research:
1. A survey on other institutional land, e.g., Department of
Defense, hospitals, geriatric facilities, that could be used for
gardening/farming programs.
V
2. A comprehensive survey of all curriculum materials devel-
oped either by institutions or under grants/contracts in
support of both IPM and eco-agricultural techniques.
3. Convene a working conference of identified authorities in
the IPM and eco-agricultural fields to identify gaps in
existing curricular offerings and develop plans for filling
such gaps.
4. A more detailed analysis of potential private sector and
academic community participants.
xx
-------
PLAN OF ACTION
One of the objectives of this study was to develop a procedural program
leading to the utilization of institutional farms as IPM demonstration
models. With the completion of this study, sufficient interest has been
identified in the various agencies to warrant the development of a co-
ordinated program for implementing an institutional program on a large
scale. In the process of conducting the interviews, ideas were solicited as to
the manner in which such a large scale program could be implemented.
Below are briefly outlined the suggestions consistently received and
recorded.
Conduct an Institutional Study
An integral part of any future work must be the provision of more
detailed information on the institutions to be involved, with all institutions
informed of the possibilities. Institutions should be categorized on such
factors as acreage under cultivation, climatic conditions, type of institution,
availability of educational support systems, and others. The result should be
a rank ordered listing of potential project participants.
Establish an Interaqencv Advisory Group
To bring a national program to reality, it will be necessary to "officially"
involve interested agencies, and establish a responsible body in charge. The
formation of a core interagency advisory group should be backed by formal
interagency agreements, while other agencies and groups not in the core
could establish their roles with letters of intent. At the outset, the con-
figuration on the following page could depict the advisory group.
Involve the Private Sector and Academic Community
It should become a major responsibility of the advisory group to provide
for the involvement of these extremely important support groups.
Develop a Long Range Budget
It should be an initial responsibility of the advisory group to develop
basic financial projections for at least a five-year period. A primary goal will
be to lead the involved institutions in the direction of economic self-
sufficiency - which will not happen in one or two years.
Establish Realistic Timelines
It should be an initial responsibility of the advisory group to draw up
guidelines for participation, making plans for program expansion over a
number of years - phasing new institutions into the program and, where
appropriate, phasing older programs out. It is suggested that the initial
planning stages will consume from twelve to fifteen months.
Provide Technical Assistance and Support Personnel
Technical assistance and support personnel are necessary ingredients to
program success in the preliminary and implementation phases. Initially,
assistance should be secured from contract personnel to carry out the forma-
tive tasks. As the program progresses, assistance will be needed to carry out
the mandates of the advisory group, to monitor institutional operations, to
assist in securing other appropriate expertise, and for other tasks necessary
to successfully implement viable programs.
xxi
-------
PROPOSED INTERAGENCY ADVISORY GROUP CONFIGURATION
** Other interested agencies as evidenced by letter of intent.
xxn
-------
^BACKGROUND
-------
BACKGROUND
Memphis Prototype
Early in 1977, Youth Service in Memphis of Memphis, Tennessee,
began seeking gardening opportunities for Shelby County youth. The
Shelby County Penal Farm, in northeast Memphis, which had previously
provided gardening land to the area's older citizens, agreed to donate
ten acres of Penal Farm land to the youth gardening project. From the
outset, the chief goal was to instruct local youths and their families
in gardening while avoiding the use of chemica.l pesticides and fertilizers,
when possible.
With this in mind, assistance was sought from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Technical assistance and support were provided in the
form of two summer interns with agricultural backgrounds, and through the
services of National Field Rese.arch Center.-
Initial efforts in support of the youth gardening project included
developing contacts, publicizing the project, and enlisting the support
of individuals and organizations. Donations of services, equipment and
supplies abounded, which included: three vehicles, water storage units,
seeds and tools, a trailer truck for storage, media support, office
space, and a homemaking van for instructional purposes.
Throughout the term of the project, young persons and their families
received instruction in scientific ecological gardening techniques;
received assistance in planting and caring for their crops; and were
assisted in harvesting their produce. Crops planted included corn,
watermelon, beans, turnips, zucchini squash, squash, okra, pumpkins,
radishes, spinach, cucumbers, lettuce, cantaloupe, carrots, collards,
beets, peas and mustard.
-------
As the project developed, it became clear that many of the activi-
ties undertaken in the youth gardens had equal applicability with prison
farms in general, and for inmates in particular. One of the first steps
taken in this regard was to provide selected Penal Farm residents with
garden plots to grow produce alongside their families, for use by the
families. Additionally, with the assistance and support of the Penal
Farm administration, project participants expanded their activities
towards the implementation of scientific ecological agriculture (or
eco-agriculture) throughout the Penal Farm, and towards the upgrading of
the Penal Farm agricultural operations in general.
The Penal Farm, which contains over 1,200 acres of pasture, hay,
row crops, gardens and orchards, processes and consumes its produce but
still must purchase a great portion of its food; in the past it had
produced nearly all of the food required within the institution. Among
the activities undertaken in developing the farm's potential were:
- the application of compost to the land;
- the involvement of Memphis State University;
- the completion of a farm plan;
- the development of a lagoon upgrading plan;
- consultations with several eco-agricultural experts;
- the use of non-chemical pest controls; and
- the conduct of a farm dealer demonstration school.
Residents of the institution became further involved with the
project by attending films, slide demonstrations, and discussions regard-
ing scientific ecological farming and integrated pest management (IPM).
Steps were also taken, in cooperation with the State Technical Institute
at Memphis, towards the development of a curriculum for interested in-
mates in agriculture, stressing IPM and eco-agricultural techniques.
4
-------
Many positive results occurred as a consequence of these gardening
and farming operations. Some of the more notable outcomes were:
- numerous youths, families and inmates were provided
the opportunity of learning to plant and care for
gardens;
- families were able to partially offset spiraling
grocery bills by growing their own produce;
- interest grew throughout the network with regard
to scientific ecological farming;
- an increased interest was developed in support of an
agricultural curriculum for residents of the Penal
Farm; and
- the potential for integrated gardening/farming proj-
ects based upon IPM and eco-agricultural principles
and techniques was demonstrated, providing a basis
for future replication and expansion.
The activities and outcomes of this project are described in
greater detail in the resultant report entitled Youth and Inmates:
A Model Summer Project Involving Scientific Ecological Farming Techniques
in Memphis, Tennessee, available from National Field Research Center, - -
Iowa City, Iowa.
Current Project
The positive outcomes of the Memphis project prompted the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to provide for further study concerning the
replication/expansion of the project on a national scale. To do so,
it again acquired the services of National Field Research Center (NFRC),
"To facilitate the ultimate acceptance of integrated pest manage-
ment as a nationally accepted agricultural practice through a strategy
analysis for future demonstration models in the institutional farm
setting" is the stated objective of the current project. Specifically,
NFRC agreed to:
5
-------
- develop a national procedural program leading to
the utilization of institutional farms as IPM
demonstration models;
- identify and define IPM techniques and procedures
applicable in the institutional farm setting;
- identify individuals/offices within Federal agencies/
national organizations with activities and objectives
paralleling the field of IPM, and to elicit their
interest in the model institutional farm concept;
and
- identify and categorize individual skill sets re-
quired in the successful application of IPM in the
institutional farm setting.
The chief strategy in carrying out this study has been interviewing
Federal officials in those agencies/offices with activities and functions
that relate to, or potentially relate to an institutional IPM/eco-
agricultural program. It became obvious early in this four-month proj-
ect that energies should be focused towards the Federal level for sev-
eral reasons, including:
- an unexpected abundance of individuals in numerous
agencies were strongly recommended by initial Fed-
eral contacts as being potential strong assets to an
eventual national program, and as sources of expert
recommendation for the program's design;
- the Federal government, more than any other body,
has the resources and expertise available to insti-
gate the development of such a program; and
- without the enthusiasm, attitudinal support and
• cooperation by and among Federal agencies, other
governmental and private groups would be less likely
to contribute their efforts towards an institutional
program.
While the cooperation of other groups (e.g., state and local govern-
mental groups, associations, business and industry, and the academic
community) will be crucial to the success of any institutional project,
their role would best come into play after the "prime movers" have
-------
formed cooperative relationships among themselves, and detailed their
specific roles and strategies.
Interviewed officials (listed in Appendix A), after being provided
with background on the Memphis and current project, were asked to pro-
vide feedback to the following types of questions (varying somewhat
with the person and his/her agency and role):
- What is your/your agency's current role (especially
as it relates to this project)?
- What IPM/eco-agricultural or other activities do you
feel would be appropriate to carry out in the insti-
tutional setting?
- What type of training would be needed to teach the
required skills?
- What do you feel would be the appropriate strategy
in implementing a national program of this nature
(e.g., organizational structure, selection of sites,
monitoring, evaluation)?
- How would you/your agency be willing to participate
in this project?
- What restrictions/constraints do you see towards
the development of a national program, and what
could be done to overcome them?
- What other agencies/persons do you know who are in-
volved or have potential involvement in activities
related to this project?
It is apparent from the above list that the intent of this project
and the interview process was not to solicit funds. Rather, the goal
was to raise interest in the project and its future possibilities/
potentials, and to garner expert advice and feedback to support the
development of a viable strategy for demonstration of IPM in the insti-
tutional farm setting.
This report, then, presents the outcome of the interview process.
While based chiefly upon Federal input, it also represents an extensive
-------
literature review, as depicted in the Bibliography. A limited mail
survey was also carried out to key recommended individuals throughout
the country, to inform them of the project and provide them the oppor-
tunity to provide input if they so chose.
-------
INTRODUCTION
-------
INTRODUCTION
An institutional farming and gardening project such as was carried
out in Memphis during the summer of 1977 consists of a number of separate
but interrelated components. Before embarking upon such a project, it is
important to have a background on these components. This Introduction,
therefore, presents a brief overview of the fields relating to the Memphis
project and being recommended for future projects.* How these components
could/should be implemented will be discussed in later chapters.
The Introduction is subdivided in the following manner:
Agricultural Components:
Integrated Pest Management
Scientific Ecological Agriculture
Energy and Agriculture
Gardening .
Corrections Components:
The Offender
The Correctional System
Institutional Vocational Skills Training
Institutional Farming
Footnotes
*Readers desiring further information on these subjects should consult the
references cited at the end of the Introduction, and the Bibliography.
11
-------
AGRICULTURAL COMPONENTS
Integrated Pest Management
Definitions of integrated pest management (IPM) are nearly as varied
as the IPM techniques being researched and implemented. Some of these defi-
nitions, offered recently by officials in the field include:
/
"All means of managing pests - chemical, cultural prac-
tices, resistant varieties, predators and parasites -
in a program to attempt to provide farmers with a prac-
tice that minimizes the expense of all pest management.
It should be a systematic approach and, ideally, a wide
approach". - Vr. Rupert Cutler, Assistant Secretary
Conservation, Research and Education, U.S. Department
Agriculture. 1
"Sound management of pests in agriculture using all
tools available including chemicals to produce opti-
mum amounts of safe wholesome food at the lowest pos-
sible cost to the public", Vr. WULLcum L. HolLis,
Science Coordinator, National Agricultural Chemicals
"A pest population management system that utilizes all
suitable techniques (and information) to reduce or so
manipulate pest populations that they are maintained
at tolerable levels, while protecting against hazards
to humans, domestic animals and the environment. It
strives for maximum use of naturally occurring mortal-
ity elements of the pest's environment, including
weather factors, pest diseases, predators and parasites.
If artificial controls such as chemical pesticides are
used, only those that augment the natural controls are
imposed . . .the ultimate goal is not maximum destruc-
tion of pest populations but maximization of benefits
and the concurrent maintenance of environmental integ-
rity". - Vr. Warren R. MtuA, Veputy Assistant Adminis-
trator far Testing and Evaluation, Ofi&ice oft TOXA.C
Su.bstanc.es, U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency ( for-
merly o£ the Council, on Environmental Quatity) . $
While these definitions vary in several respects, most IPM researchers
and practitioners consider IPM systems to incorporate the following:
- a consideration of all the tools and methodologies
available;
12
-------
- a consideration of the quality, quantity, and safety
of the food produced;
- a consideration of the costs to the farmer and the
consumer; and
- a consideration of the effects on the environment,
animals and humans.
In actuality, some IPM techniques are not new. Such practices as
releasing beneficial insects, adjusting crop planting times, burning, and
using available pesticides for pest control have been documented in
ancient Chinese, Sumerian, Greek and Roman cultures - dating as far back
4
as 2500 B.C. Flint and van den Bosch, in A Source Book on Integrated
Pest Management, recount the history of pest control from that time to
the present day. Although the science and technology progressed almost
continually throughout the years, it was not until after World War II
that the war on crop pests appeared to be virtually won - with the devel-
5 • <
opment of'-DDT and other synthetic organic pesticides. Usage of such
pesticides to control insects, weeds, nematodes, diseases and other pests
has continually increased since that time, and according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, farm usage of pesticides increased by approx-
imately 40 percent between 1966 and 1971, while total U.S. use increased
by 22 percent. Between 1971 and 1975, pesticide use in the U.S. further
increased by 46.5 percent, and in 1973 alone 1.36 billion pounds of
pesticides were manufactured in the United States.
The availability of such pesticides has significantly contributed
to increased agricultural production yields. However, an almost total
dependence on synthetic pesticides, as has occurred in recent years,
has resulted in a number -of problems, including:
- environmental contamination;
- resistances developed by some pests to commonly used
pesticides;
13
-------
- adverse health effects on humans and animals;
- outbreaks of secondary pests as a result of the com-
plete elimination of other pests; and
- resurgence of original pest populations from elim-
ination of natural predators.
These factors, coupled with the increased costs of developing,
producing and applying pesticides, and stringent Federal controls
(through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) over
pesticide use and application has led to an increasing acceptance of
IPM as an alternative to pest control problems.
IPM today is the focus of an abundance of basic and applied research
by the Federal government, State governments, universities throughout
the country, and the private sector. Educational programs in IPM at
the bachelor and graduate level are producing experts in pest management
to assist growers in determining economic thresholds for control meas-
ures, and to recommend the pest control measures to be applied, when
required, based upon technologies proven viable by the researchers.
IPM techniques being researched and utilized today include:
- pesticides, including insecticides, fungicides, herbi-
cides, mulluscicides, nematicides, rodenticides, and
acaricides;
- crop varieties resistant to pests;
- natural pest enemies;
- pheromone (sex lure) traps to lure and destroy male
insects;
- preventative measures such as soil fumigation for nema-
todes, and assurance of good soil fertility;
- avoidance of peak pest populations by changing planting
times or pest-controlling crop rotation;
- improving pesticide-application technology; and
14
-------
- other cultural practices such as flooding, row
spacing, and plot spacing to reduce pest populations. 8
Researchers continue to study, both biologically and economically,
possible IPM strategies, and numerous projects have demonstrated posi-
tive results. Some examples are:
- intensified use of pest management through the aid of
advisors or consultants in the San Joaquin Valley in
California reduced cotton insecticide costs $7.00 per
acre and resulted in a net savings of $4.50 per acre;
- a related study in Texas brought about a $6.00 per
acre reduction in pesticide costs;
- implementation of pest management systems for control
of the alfalfa weevil resulted in a 20 percent to 100
percent reduction in pesticides in twelve states -
with annual savings estimated at $7 million; and
- a pest management program in Maryland for controlling
the Mexican bean beetle has saved farmers an estimated
$1 million to $3 million per year. 9
Through governmental and other efforts, farmers throughout the coun-
try are increasingly learning of IPM strategies (many of these efforts are
outlined in later chapters). The field of IPM, however, could still be con-
sidered in its infancy. Most of the research and demonstration projects
to date have been of the one crop/one pest variety, and only recently have
projects emerged that cover multiple pests on multiple cropping systems -
as a farmer faces. Additionally, most studies have been on a field-by-field
basis, rather than areawide which could be more feasible in many cases.
And, for crop producers to fully accept IPM practices, the economic feasi-
bility must be demonstrated under real-world conditions, an area that has
tended to lag behind the biological research and demonstration efforts.
15
-------
Scientific Ecological Agriculture
While there is an abundance of definitions for integrated pest
management, "scientific ecological agriculture" (or eco-agriculture)
is suffering from a lack of specific definiton. In concept, it is a
cross between conventional agriculture and alternative forms that have
names such as organic, bio-dynamic, natural and biological agriculture.
These alternative systems largely have their roots in Europe, and while
differing from each other in a number of respects, generally have the
following characteristics:
- little or no use is made of synthetic pesticides and
fertilizers, or of other artificial chemicals such as
hormones and antibiotics;
- emphasis is placed on feeding plants indirectly through
the soil with compost and other natural materials such
as seaweed, and the microbes in turn feed the plants;
- the system is seen as holistic, rather than analytical,
where land, farmer and consumer are viewed as a whole
system, and the farmer is seen as less exploitative of
the soil; and
- emphasis is placed on restoring proper soil conditions
often through building humus or adding humates, rather
than depleting the soil.
Some benefits of these systems are greatly reduced health and environ-
mental risks and a savings in money for the farmer - from the extreme cut-
backs on the use of synthetic pesticides and other chemicals. Proponents
of these systems claim that their techniques increase the health of the
soil, which in turn provides a natural resistance to pests; and that less
rainfall is required to maintain healthy crops.
Scientific ecological agriculture, then, borrows alternative agricul-
tural techniques, such as composting and applying animal manure and other
materials, and maintaining the soil without toxic chemicals. It also
16
-------
borrows from conventional agriculture when occasion calls, to carry out the
most efficient, economical, productive and scientific agricultural opera-
tion possible - while remaining as environmentally sound and energy effi-
cient as possible. Under this scheme, integrated pest management is one
component of an eco-agricultural operation. As with IPM, an eco-acricultural
scheme would be considered dynamic - changing and improving as a result of
research and application.
Virtually no research has been carried out regarding scientific eco-
logical agriculture as a whole. Some separate components, or possible com-
ponents have been researched, however, such as a multitude of IPM strategies,
the application of certain farm compost materials and sewage sludge, the
production of methane from manures, and the effects of mulches. A true
scientific eco-agricultural practitioner would consider the results and
Implications of such research in his/her practices.
Several researchers have been studying the economics of organic farm-
ing. Robert C. Oelhaf researched for his doctoral dissertation the eco-
nomics of both conventional and organic agriculture and reached the follow-
ing conclusions:
The main reasons that organic farming is rare have to
do with market failures, not inherent production costs.
These market failures are large and may be having a large
impact on human health and future well-being as well as
on industrial organization. At any rate, some risk has
been introduced into the food system, especially through
the widespread use of agricultural chemicals, although
organic yields per acre are far higher than those in
earlier eras and the price differences between organic
food and conventional food are far smaller than at retail,
still it does cost more to produce organic food. The
market failure and the potential social benefits from
more widespread adoption of organic methods argue for
a federal role of promoting research into, and adoption
of, organic farming.10
17
-------
Oelhaf and Wysong, in another publication, have concluded that organic
farming uses less energy than conventional agriculture and generates lower
physical food output per person-hour. Although it does require more labor,
resource constraints should not be a hindrance to the widespread adoption
of organic farming, they conclude, as unemployment continues to rise in this
country, and there are plentiful supplies of seaweed and soil amendments.
Lockeretz, et al. of Washington University's Center for the Biology
of Natural Systems have reached similar conclusions as a result of com-
paring the economic performance of fourteen organic farms and fourteen con-
ventional farms, all mixed crop-livestock, in the Midwest in 1974 and 1975.
Among their findings were:
- the organic group had an overall production level an
average of 10 percent below that of the conventional
group in terms of market value of output per acre of
cropland;
- the operating costs of organic farms was lower, so that
returns to crop production were equal for the two groups;
- the conventional group was 2.3 times more energy-intensive,
primarily because of the energy needed to produce con-
ventional fertilizers;
- the organic group required 12 percent more labor per
unit of market value of the crops produced; and
- while the input and removal of phosphorus and potassium
were in balance in the conventionally managed cropland,
the organic farmers were drawing somewhat on pre-existing
resevoirs of .these nutrients.12
Later, this group reported that the organic farms had reduced soil
13
loss and increased soil organic matter as compared to the conventional farms.
While these results cannot be directly related to scientific ecological
agriculture, or to crop systems outside the Midwest, they do have implica-
tions for the development of an eco-agricultural operation. Lockeretz and
his associates have acknowledged in their discussion of findings that a
18
-------
system lying between conventional and organic agriculture may have the
most overall viability, and achieve the best balance between environmental,
energy, economic, and production concerns.
Energy and Agriculture
It has been hotly debated whether or not agriculture is the largest
energy consumer in the United States. While the U.S. food system (includ-
ing food transportation, processing and packaging) accounts for about 17
percent of the nation's total energy consumption, direct on-farm agri-
cultural production amounts to about 2.5 percent. *4 This translates into
about 258 million barrels of oil each year. These fuels are chiefly con-
sumed on the farm through the operation of tractors and other farm equip-
ment, as well as through irrigation, crop drying, and other purposes con-
nected with agricultural production.
An additional indirect energy use by agriculture comes through the
use of petroleum-based commercial pesticides and fertilizers. In 1974,
direct agricultural production consumed about 1.27 quads *, while the
production of fertilizers and pesticides accounted for an additional
0.62 quads.
While these two agricultural components represent only a small portion
of U.S. energy consumption, their importance cannot be underestimated. Oil
and gas reserves will eventually be depleted, and the need for food produc-
tion, which supplies a very basic human need, will undoubtedly increase to
feed U.S. citizens and for exports to the world's ever-increasing population.
For this reason, U.S. scientists are researching and testing alternate energy
sources for agricultural production. The most notable of these are:
* A quad is the amount of energy equivalent to that contained
in 172 million barrels of oil.
19
-------
-solar energy for crop drying, irrigation, and heat-
ing of farm structures (such as chicken houses, pig
farrowing and brooding facilities, milking parlors,
and greenhouses);
-wind energy for pumping water and generating electric
power;
-crop residues and manures (biomass) for conversion to
usable energy forms;* and
-heat recovery from air exhausted from animal shelters
and crop dryers.
In Energy Policy for the U.S. Food System, a group of leading au-
thorities in the areas of food and energy stated that agricultural de-
pendence on fossil fuels could be reduced by methods such as reduced or
minimum tillage,** changes and adjustments in equipment, new management
practices, proper selection and management of crops, and combined field
operations. They also recommended improving structures and ventilation
equipment, reducing overdrying, and improving the animal's utilization
of feed through breeding, diet formulation, environment and disease con-
trol. In this document, the group recommended national policies and
incentive plans to facilitate the acceptance of suggested alternate en-
ergy conversion practices and agricultural energy conservation.
Integrated pest management and scientific ecological agriculture,
discussed in previous sections, also decrease farm consumption of non-
renewable energy resources. This occurs primarily through decreased
application of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and secondarily
*"Energy plantations", or farms raising crops specifically for energy conver-
sion are now being experimentally operated in several parts of the country.
Additionally, several projects are us'ing grains and grain residues to pro-
duce grain alcohol for an automotive fuel containing 10 percent agricultur-
ally derived ethyl alcohol and 90 percent unleaded gasoline.
**It has been found, however, that while minimum or no-till systems reduce en-
ergy consumption and erosion they create more need for pesticide application,
20
-------
through a reduced use of farm machinery (and airplanes) for application.
Many of the recommendations for alternate energy source development
and conservation cited above are only now in the testing stages, and many
have not reached the point of economic feasibility. It is certain that
none of the new technologies will be fully accepted by the producer until
they have been demonstrated under real farming conditions to be money-
savers for the already financially troubled farmer.
Gardening
Gardens, including large community gardens, have been found in
America since the Pilgrims, and their popularity has tended to come
in waves. Today, the community gardening concept has seen a tre-
mendously intensified interest, evident in the great number of
community gardens cropping up throughout the country (there are over
160 such programs in California alone, and the demand for more is
18 '
growing ). A Gallup survey stated that in 1976, 47 percent of
all households in the U.S. had some form of a vegetable garden. Of
these eight million families, 1.5 million used community gardens.
The poll further predicted that this number would double in 1977, as it
it found that more than thirty million Americans wanted to grow on
their own land but lacked the supply and know-how that community
1 g
gardens supply.
In addition to providing food for families (resulting in financial
savings and often improved nutrition), community gardens provide such use-
ful functions as a constructive recreational outlet, an aid to heightened
awareness of nature and environmental processes, and a facilitator of the
"sense of community". Gardening is an educational process, and some assert
that it fosters individualism, self-reliance and creativity. ^
21
-------
Most community garden projects are sponsored by private local
groups; however, State agencies are increasingly funding such projects.
The Federal government has sponsored a number of urban gardening pro-
grams, and many of its food and nutrition and employment funds can be
applied to gardening programs.
Community gardens require considerable organization as was demon-
strated in Memphis, and it is important that there be a knowledgeable
supervisor to prepare the plots, solicit community support, provide in-
struction and coordinate other services offered. This person must, also
deal with problems that could arrive - such as vandalism of produce.
Gardening not only serves useful purposes for the community-at-large,
but also for special populations. The Horticulture Department, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, of Clemson University has been a leader in
the instruction and application of "hortitherapy"., although many other
universities, correctional institutions, hospitals, nursing and mental
institutions throughout the country have recognized its merits and
initiated hortitherapy programs. Hortitherapy, sometimes called garden
therapy, has been defined as the use of horticultural appeal and methods
21
for improvement of physical and mental well-being.
Hortitherapy may involve caring for a single plant in a patient's
room, planting a terrarium, or gaining enough knowledge and experience in
horticulture to secure a vocation. The ultimate goal is to help an indi-
vidual adjust to and feel more content with his/her environment, and help-
op
ing that person reach his/her highest potential in life.
Positive results in achieving these goals have been reported by Clem-
son and by other groups throughout the country. Types of individuals
served have included the visually, mentally, and physically disabled (spec-
ial tools are available for the handicapped, as are special greenhouse
22
-------
designs); substance abusers; the elderly; and adult and juvenile in-
carcerated offenders. Within South Carolina, a vocational training
program for offenders in horticulture and greenhouse management was
implemented in a correctional institution, as was a therapeutic pro-
23
gram for geriatric inmates.
23
-------
CORRECTIONS COMPONENTS
The Offender
According to the Department of Labor, there were approximately
45 million offenders in the United States in 1977. This estimate includes
all youths and adults who are or have been confined to penal institutions
or other correctional facilities; and those who have had contact with the
criminal justice system through the pretrial, probationary, or parole pro-
cesses. Of these 45 million individuals, an estimated 500,000 are confined
to Federal, State and local institutions and jails. Of the over ten million
arrests for misdemeanors and felonies each year, three to four million con-
victions result. Of these, approximately one and one-half million are for
24
first offenses. The majority of incarcerated persons are confined less
25
than two years.
While the offender population is far from a homogeneous group, the
typical offender today is likely to be a young, under-educated male from a
minority background; 95 percent of those incarcerated are men. The economic
history of most offenders is one of long periods of unemployment, low wages,
low job status, and welfare. While this group is generally as intelligent
as the "outside" population, school and employment records generally re-
flect failure. 26
Men are more likely to be charged with such crimes as robbery, burglary,
auto theft, vandalism, weapons offenses, drunkenness, and drunken driving.
Women, on the other hand, are more likely to be arrested for larceny, fraud,
embezzlement, prostitution and commercialized vice, and vagrancy, according
to FBI reports, and they tend to serve shorter sentences than men. Like
men, women offenders tend to come from poorer, less educated groups in
07
society, and are most often members of minority groups.
24
-------
FBI statistics also indicate that the number of arrests of men in-
creased by 82 percent between 1960 and 1972 - while the arrests of women
increased by 246 percent. The types of offenses committed by women appears
OQ
to be expanding.
Studies have shown that society places a stigma upon the offender and
ex-offender, often taking the form of refusal for employment by public and
private employers alike. A study by the American Bar Association reported
that 37 States refused in varying degrees to hire offenders, and documented
the existence in 50 states of nearly 2,000 licensing laws affecting offend-
29*
ers. This problem is compounded by the fact that many ex-offenders do
not have sufficient job skills. In a 1974 survey of penal institutions,
wardens estimated that 70 percent of the inmates needed to acquire job skills
in order to obtain steady outside employment. They also estimated that
only 34 percent were likely to acquire sufficient job skills during .-their
stay.30
It is not known how many incarcerated persons are rehabilitated by
prison efforts or through other means. It is clear that the cost to the
taxpayer for incarcerating offenders is enormous - possibly as high as
$10,000 to $15,000 per inmate.31
The Correctional System
The correctional system in actuality includes four major components,
at the Federal, State and local levels: police, prosecution and defense,
*The American Bar Association, Section of Criminal Justice formed
Project ADVOCATE (Attorneys Donating Volunteer Services to Ex-Offenders)
in 1976, funded by the Department of Labor. Its mission is to catalyze
local bar associations to launch bar-volunteer projects to provide coun-
seling and civil law assistance to offenders in the locales, and to help
eliminate artificial barriers to employment.
25
-------
courts, and corrections. The latter, which is most germane to an institu-
tional farming project, consists of a complex network of correctional insti-
tutions, half-way houses and other facilities throughout the country. The
system includes: the Federal prisons of adult minimum, medium and maximum
security, and community treatment centers for persons convicted of Federal
crimes, overseen by the Federal Bureau of Prisons; similar institutions
for State adult offenders, overseen by the State Departments of Corrections;
youth custody and/or treatment facilities, most often overseen by State
Departments of Youth and Family Services or similar State agencies; and
local detention and correctional institutions (well over 3,000 in existence)
run by municipal and county governments. The American Correctional Associa-
tion publishes yearly a Directory of Correctional Institutions and Agencies,
providing up-to-date information on juvenile and adult correctional depart-
ments, institutions, agencies and paroling authorities in the United States
and Canada.
The goals of correctional institutions today appear nearly as varied
as their history. The first American prisons were born"out of a reform
movement against capital punishment, and espoused the ethic of rehabilita-
tion - a change from the eighteenth century philosophy based on vengeance
and deterrence. This largely unsuccessful rehabilitation movement was
followed by a succession of other reform attempts, including hard labor,
discipline, skill training, psychiatry, education, electric shock, counsel-
oo
ing, behavior modification and sociology.
Today's inmate reform attempts are marked by the infusion of funds
(mostly Federal) for models, studies, panels, research and other efforts -
all in an attempt to learn the best way to deal with the growing incar-
cerated population and offenders at other levels of the correctional
26
-------
system. Recent and ongoing efforts include pre-trial intervention; job
training, counseling and placement services; token economy implementation;
the development of prison industries; post-prison adjustment assistance;
and others. It is not yet clear what effects, if any, these programs have
on prisoner reform, and, attitudes from within and outside the correctional
system vary dramatically regarding the purposes of the institutions:
rehabilitation or punishment - or a combination of the two. These varying
philosophies are reflected in the diversity of prison reform programs, or
lack thereof. Still, a large portion of the prison populations return to
crime, and many prison officials continually must deal with crimes within
the prison walls themselves.
Institutional Vocational Skills Training
A 1972. survey of vocational programs in correctional institutions
recorded 12,868 trainees enrolled in 855 vocational education programs in
State and Federal institutions, which represents less than 10 percent of
the 130,800 persons in the responding institutions. Over one-half of
these institutions had five or fewer vocational programs, the most common
being: automotive mechanics, arc and acetylene welding, machine shop,
masonry, radio and TV repair, auto body repair, carpentry, barbering,
baking and cooking, architectural and mechanical drafting, air conditioning
and refrigeration, and small engine repair." A similar study in 1974
concluded that 75 percent of all juvenile and adult correctional institutions
in the sample (70 percent of all institutions) at that time conducted formal
vocational training programs, and that 21 percent of all inmates were en-
rolled, with an additional 9 percent on waiting lists. About one-half of all
inmates were reportedly unable to participate in vocational training for
reasons such as lack of aptitude or interest, and inability to meet minimum
27
-------
academic requirements. Other findings of this study include:
1) only 20 percent of the inmates surveyed indicated
that special jobs programs or persons in the insti-
tutions assisted then in obtaining outside employ-
ment;
2) only 4 percent of the inmates were participating in
work release programs and an additional one-half
percent in training programs conducted outside the
institution;
3) one-third of the institutions had one or more prison
industries, employing 11 percent of all inmates -
most of whom were also allowed to participate in
vocational training; and
4) over 80 percent of the responding institutions
assigned inmates to the operation or maintenance
of the institution, and nearly one-half of these
inmates were working in these activities. Only
57 percent reported this provided them with the
required skills for outside employment.34
While the relationship between unemployment and crime has been demon-
strated, few studies have been able to prove (or disprove) that occupational
skills training reduces recidivism. One reason is that follow-up on ex-
offenders is quite a difficult undertaking, especially for non-parolees.
Even those studies that have been carried out have shown contradictory
results. The overriding opinion in current literature appears to be that
comprehensive skills training (with full support services*) in occupations
likely to lead to gainful employment reduces an individual's likelihood of
returning to crime. As Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall testified before
the U.S. Congress this year: "In many cases, transition from felon to
working citizen can be the step leading to permanent rehabilitation and full
return to society".
*Such support services include skills assessment, training in job hunting,
basic education if needed, job development and placement, follow-up with
employer and employee, and other services such as medical care and legal aid.
28
-------
Among the recommendations for vocational training advanced in the
previously cited 1974 survey are:
1) there should be a greater variety of offerings to
meet individual needs, not only in more diversified
occupations, but also to meet the needs of special
persons such as the handicapped, elderly, minority
and bilingual inmate;
2) community contacts should be greatly expanded, and
an occupational advisory committee formed within
institutions;
3) improved programs of vocational guidance, counseling
and job placement should be implemented, along with
attention given to revising training schedules to
a more flexible modular format;
4) organized programs for obtaining information on re-
leased or paroled inmates should be implemented; and
5) prison industries, maintenance and service activities
need to be planned from a vocational point of view,
and apprenticeship programs should,he instituted in
connection with work assignments. 35
A more recent report (1978) by the American University Law School
Institute for Advanced Studies in Justice contains eleven issue papers
on crime and employment by persons active in planning, public administra-
tion and education. These authors examine from various perspectives the
emergence of employment and crime problems in the community, the schools,
in prison, in the armed forces, and in the public-at-large. Dr. Richard
Tropp, in "Suggested Policy Issues for Employment and Crime Problems",
writes in broad as well as specific terms about policy decisions which
must be addressed. While chiefly offering suggestions for governmental
intervention, many of his suggestions are equally applicable to an indi-
vidual institution. Some of these are:
29
-------
1) expand apprenticeship programs, especially for juven-
ile offenders;
2) emphasize placement and the provision of labor market
information to assist offenders in selecting vocational
programs;
3) assist offenders in relocating from original (often
crime-inducing) areas upon release;
n
f 4) make use of the military to facilitate market entry;
5) provide job training, counseling and placement to some
offenders after release;
6) identify jobs in which trainees can be placed before
providing the training, and direct the training and
counseling towards those skills, work behaviors and
attitudes required for those jobs;
7) expand upon the Free Venture model, now operating
in several States, inviting private industries to
lease facilities within prisons for factories and
shops which provide training and experience for
inmates; and
8) use CETA and other funds to encourage the formation
of volunteer "friend" networks to create new con-
tacts in the community for offenders, thereby facil-
itating employment. 3^
In sum, there appears to be a general consensus that the current
correctional vocational skills training system needs improvement. This
is not to suggest there are no viable and worthy programs in operation;
evidence suggests quite the contrary. However, such "model" programs,
as well as an abundance of recommendations and ideas (though often un-
tested) are available for testing and implementation.
Institutional Farming
Literature is scarce concerning correctional institutional farming
operations, but it is clear from materials of individual institutions
30
-------
from about thirty years ago that at that time such farming operations
were large, productive and modernized for that time. Such materials are
not found regarding today's operations, and it appears that most of these
farms have experienced situations over the last thirty years similar to
that of the Shelby County Penal Farm: gradually declining operations
both in quality and quantity. According to a variety of sources, this
has occurred for several reasons including:
1) a general shift in attitudes regarding the use of
incarcerated populations for hard agricultural labor
tasks;
2) funds were not available to buy up-to-date equip-
ment as it became available, or to hire farm man-
agers who were up-to-date on the latest technolo-
gies; and
3) it became cheaper to buy the food required for the
institution than to produce it on the farm.
Today, many institutions utilize inmates, under supervision, to
perform the farm operations requiring few skills, and to perform general
grounds maintenance. Few, however, provide formal training in agricul-
turally related skills, it appears. The Federal Bureau of Prisons oper-
ates one program in agricultural machinery, in one institution. Addi-
tionally, a 1973 source book on correctional vocational training, for
which 66 "unique" training programs were analyzed, reported the exis-
tence of several horticultural training programs and one in farm equip-
ment repair. Other^efforts by the authors to locate agricultural train-
ing programs in correctional facilities have been unsuccessful. 37
Informal contacts by the authors with Federal, State and correc-
tional institutional personnel tend to indicate that interest is reviving
towards re-developing the potential of penal institutional lands. Reasons
include the spiraling costs of purchasing food for the inmate populations,
31
-------
and pressure from without to reduce these costs. A good many of these
institutions have an abundance of land to work with, as indicated in
Appendix B - the Correctional Facilities and Farms Directory - the result
of a survey carried out in 1977 by the American Correctional Association
in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
32
-------
FOOTNOTES
Charlotte Sine, "Can Agriculture Wrest Pest Management from the
Bureaucrats?", Farm Chemicals (March 1978), Vol. 141, no. 3, p. 24.
"Ibid.
Ibid.
Mary Louise Flint and Robert van den Bosch, A Source Book on
Integrated Pest Management, for the U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, Office of Education, Office of Environmental Education
(Berkeley: International Center for Integrated and Biological Control,
University of California, 1977), pp. 83-85.
5Ibid., p. 108.
Council on Environmental Quality, The Sixth Annual Report of the
Council on Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1975), p. 454.
Robert C. Oelhaf, "The Economics of Organic Farming" (Ph.D. disser-
tation, University of Maryland, 1976), p. 76.
Q
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
An Integrated Pest Management Primer (Gainesville, Florida: University
of Florida).
Q
James Nielson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Conservation, Research
and Education, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statement before the Senate
Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Education, October 31, 1977.
Robert C. Oelhaf, "The Economics of Organic Farming" (Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School, University of Maryland, College Park
Campus, October 1976), p. 337.
Robert C. Oelhaf and John W. Wysong, "Technical and Economic Con-
siderations in Organic and Conventional Farming," Maryland Agri-Economics
(College Park: University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service,
May 1977).
12
William Lockeretz, et al., Organic and Conventional Crop Production
in the Corn Belt: A Comparison of Economic Performance and Energy Use for
Selected Farms, for the National Science Foundation, Program of Research
Applied to National Needs (St. Louis, Missouri: Washington University,
Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, June 1976), p. iii.
33
-------
William Lockeretz, et al., "Field Crop Production on Organic Farms
in the Midwest," Journal of Soil and Hater Conservation (May-June 1978),
pp. 130-134.
14
Energy Policy for the U.S. Food System - A Subpart of the National
Energy Policy, a document prepared by a panel of leading authorities in
the areas of food and energy (March 10, 1977), p. 11.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Public Affairs, "Solar Energy
for Agriculture and Industry" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Energy, 1978), p. 2.
Energy Policy for the U.S. Food System, p. 11.
17Ibid., pp. 11-12.
18
Rosemary Menninger, Community Gardens in California (Sacramento,
California: California Office of Appropriate Technology, 1977), p. v.
19
University of New Hampshire, Cooperative Extension Service,
Organizing Neighborhood Gardens for Your Community, by Silas B. Weeks
(Durham, New Hampshire, University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
Service, Ref. 1977), p. 6.
20
Community Gardens in California, p. 1.
21
- Clemson University, Horticulture Department, Agricultural Experiment
Station, South Carolina's Hortitherapy Program: Innovative Development of
Individual Potential Through Horticulture, by T.L. Senn, et al., Misc.
Pub. No. 10 (Clemson, South Carolina:CTemson University, 1974), p. 2.
22
Clemson University, Horticulture Department, Agricultural Experiment
Station, Hortitherapy Van-Design, Equipment and Use, by Phyllis R. Gilreath
and Adele P. Olson, Research Series No. 168 (Clemson, South Carolina:
Clemson University, 1976), p. 1.
23
South Carolina's Hortitherapy Program, p. 10.
24
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,
Training Programs for Offenders (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Labor, 1977), p. 11-2.
25
U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Final Report on
Vocational Preparation in U.S. Correctional Institutions: A 1974 Survey,
by Girard W. Levy, Robert A. Abram, and Diane LaDow, Battelle Columbus
Laboratories (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 1975), p. iii.
34
-------
26
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Programs for
Offenders, p. II-4.
27Ibid., p. II-3.
00
"'ibid., p. II-4.
29Ibid., p. II-7.
U.S. Department of Labor, Final Report, p. iii.
31
American Bar Association, Project ADVoCATE (Washington, D.C.:
American Bar Association, 1978), a brochure.
32
American Correctional Association, Parole Corrections Project,
Manual: The Planned Implementation of Mutual Agreement Programming in a
Correctional System, by Stephen D. Minnich, Resource Document #9 (College
Park, Maryland:American Correctional Association, 1976), p. 1.
33
U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administra-.
tion, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Job
Training for Offenders and Ex-Offenders - A Prescription Package, by
Phillis Groom McCreary and John M. McCreary (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office: 1975), p. 8.
34
U.S. Department of Labor, Final Report, various.
35
U.S. Ibid., pp. vii-viii.
Richard A. Tropp, "Suggested Policy Initiatives for Employment and
Crime Problems," Crime and Employment Issues, ed. American University Law
School, Institute for Advanced Studies in Justice for the U.S. Department
of Labor (Washington, D.C.: The American University Law School, 1978),
pp. 19-65.
37
New England Consortium for Occupational Education, and Far West
Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, The First
National Sourcebook - A Guide to Correctional Vocational Training, for
the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Bureau of Adult
Vocational and Technical Education (July 1973).
35
-------
SKILLS for the
1PM ^PRACTITIONER
-------
SKILLS FOR THE IPM PRACTITIONER
CURRENT STATUS
Only recently have curricula in integrated pest management become
available. Today, many colleges and universities throughout the country
are offering bachelor and graduate level educational programs in pest
management, producing professionals with the capabilities of providing
expert consultative services and performing research in the field.
Not so common, however, are IPM programs at levels below the bach-
elor degree. According to a 1977-78 survey by National Field Research
Center of educational programs in environmental and energy-related
fields, those certificate and associate level programs available in the
broad area of pesticides chiefly cover pesticide applications. While
some offer courses that also cover non-chemical methods, no programs at
this level were identified that offer broad coverage of integrated
pest management.
The job market for IPM specialists appears to be ever-improving,
with jobs available for professionals in Federal and State agencies,
including the Cooperative Extension Service, with grower-owned organ-
izations, or as private consultants. Farmers are learning that employing
the services of IPM specialists can save them money. Services of such
specialists often include field monitoring; management counseling on
when control action is needed and what alternatives are available; and
advice on procedures such as choosing plant varieties, and the timing
of planting, harvesting and cultivation. These specialists generally
O
have at least four years of post-secondary education. £-
Although less information is available, professionals in the Fed-
eral Government and the academic community have indicated that the
39
-------
IPM field has room for technician-level practitioners - with two
years or less of post-high school education. These persons could be
employed by farmers and farm cooperatives, private IPM consultants
or extension services and perform such duties as field scouting and
the application of IPM practices as advised by the specialists.
Two sources have been identified for IPM curricula, both pro-
duced as a result of grants from the Office of Environmental Education,
of the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare. These are discussed in the two following sections, while the
final section, Discussion, relates them to the institutional setting.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT CURRICULUM REPORT
In 1973, Kirkwood Community College of Cedar Rapids, Iowa and
the Associated Research Corporation of Miami, Florida developed a report
entitled Integrated Pest Management - A Curriculum Report. It consists
of materials that were developed at and in conjunction with a conference
in Berkeley, California. The purpose of this conference was to develop
courses of study in IPM appropriate for use at several levels: secon-
dary schools, MDTA * programs, community colleges and technical institu-
tions, baccalaureate programs, master's level programs, and doctoral
level programs. The report presents these outlined courses of study,
as well as IPM jobs at each level and the competencies required.3
Presented here will be this report's data relating to the two-year
level and below, as these are felt to be the most appropriate for an
institutional program.
* Manpower Development and Training Act
40
-------
A
High School Level
The authors identified three major job clusters that could be at
least partially taught at the high school level: applicator jobs,
people-oriented jobs, and technician jobs. Five common elements apply
to all of these jobs:
1) basic communication skills;
2) appreciation of the need for pest control;
3) receptiveness to the philosophy of control through
IPM;
4) general knowledge of the pest universe; and
5) sensitivity to the environment.
Cluster I: Applicator Jobs
This category includes jobs which directly relate to the physical
application of pest control products, and are usually performed under
supervision. Most of these applicators must possess skills in the oper-
ation of some type of vehicle for application, and should have an ele-
mentary knowledge of crop production, growing cycles, weather conditions
and precautionary measures. Unless an applicator were skilled in a
wide variety of application techniques for an array of crops, such a
job could require much travel as dictated by growing seasons.
At the end of training, such a person should possess the following
proficiencies:
1) be aware of acute hazards of chemicals and biologic
agents and take all precautionary measures for pro-
tection;
2) possess knowledge of proper operation and safety
of application equipment;
3) know the procedure used in maintaining simple field
records;
4) have a sound knowledge of the kinds of chemicals and
biologic agents used, their formulation and their
general characteristics, efficacy and potential ad-
verse effect on non-target organisms;
5) possess basic knowledge of the pest species being
controlled;
41
-------
6) know the crop system and the role of chemicals
and biologic systems in relation to that system;
7) possess knowledge of application principles in
relation to meteorological conditions;
8) be aware of laws and regulations which govern the
operational procedures;and
9) possess ability to follow directions carefully and
be concerned with accuracy in operation.
Author's note: Today, with applicator certification requirements,
private applicators must be certified to apply restricted-use pesticides.
Commercial applicators must be certified or apply pesticides under the
supervision of a certified applicator. Commercial certification requires
the passage of a State-administered examination on such areas as pesti-
cide formulations, uses and restrictions; and safety procedures.
Cluster II: People-Oriented Jobs
People-oriented jobs are generally those positions contained under
the designation of "advisors". Advisors in IPM are involved in assist^
ing the consumer in defining pest management problems and in identifying,
proposing, or recommending alternative solutions to those problems.
They depend upon supportive personnel to make recommendations, which
the advisor passes on to the consumer.
Advisors could be.trained through high school courses and on-the-
job training (OJT) but increasingly, post-secondary education, possibly
up to the associate degree level, will be required.
The general proficiencies for these jobs are:
1) possess elementary knowledge of botany, of how
plants grow and of environmental effects on plant
growth;
2) possess knowledge of the chemical product and its
effect on living systems and the environment;
3) possess basic knowledge of chemical and biological
principles;
4) possess knowledge of chemical products and pest
management procedures; and
5) possess elementary knowledge of soils and nutrient
requirements of plants.
42
-------
Cluster III: Technician Jobs
Technicians are supportive personnel under the advisor category,
but are not involved in direct contact with the consumer. They enable
the professional IPM advisor, through their support, to make recommen-
dations to the consumer based on the most accurate and appropriate
information available. Technician personnel should be highly trained
in the chemical or biological sciences, and be able to apply basic
research and analysis techniques in the laboratory. For this reason,
while high school training may be adequate, increasingly higher level
jobs in this category will require post-secondary education.
The general proficiencies for technician jobs are:
1) possess an elementary knowledge of specific scien-
tific and mathematical procedures;
2) know the procedures used in field and laboratory
techniques;
3) know the techniques and procedures used in reporting
data;and
4) possess a knowledge of safety procedures.
MDTA Skills Center Level5
MDTA Skills Centers were operated throughout the country under
the Manpower Development and Training Act to train unemployed and under-
employed individuals for job entry. Such training was usually designed
to enable the student to reach the job entry level in the shortest
period of time possible.
Since the release of the IPM Curriculum Report, MDTA has been re-
placed by the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), and
MDTA Skills Centers as -such no longer exist. CETA programs are re-
viewed later in this report under the Department of Labor. This sec-
tion, on the MDTA Skills Center level, could be applied to similar
facilities existing today which have job entry training goals.
Th.e authors of the IPM volume believed that training for the
following IPM-related jobs could be provided through MDTA Skills Centers:
43
-------
Applicator, Applicator Assistant, Field Sweeper or Scout, Laboratory
Assistant, Insectary Technician Assistant, Field Equipment Technician,
and Inspector Trainee. While most of these are further described under
Community Colleges and Technical Institutions, they have in common the
following job elements (in differing degrees):
1) skill in communication with the farmer and inter-
personal relations;
2) skill in practical entomology - how to identify
pests and control them, how to identify weeds and
control them, how to identify nematodes and con-
trol them, etc;
3) an environmental awareness;
4) skill in visually recognizing and identifying a
problem;
5) ability to perform arithmetic skills and to report
quantitatively;
6) ability to work in the field of chemistry and biol-
ogy, a practical application of techniques and an
understanding of the problems and principles in-
volved;
7) general knowledge of crop production;
8) general knowledge of economic implications of this
field;
9) general knowledge of safety procedures and practices;
10) knowledge of products and their effects; and
11) general knowledge of regulations for the use of
pesticides.
The conference participants believed that the most appropriate
initial MDTA training would begin at the equipment operator level, with
the extent of training being ascertained at the local level when employ-
ment opportunities are determined. An equipment operator is defined
as one who operates equipment that is utilized in IPM management, e.g.,
44
-------
application of agri-chemicals and biological agents, and the implemen-
tation of other techniques implicit to this type of strategy. General
skills of the equipment operator (other than aerial) include:
1) practice interpersonal relations with supervisors,
clients and residents in the area;
2) know the precautionary measures which must be taken
for protection from acute hazards of the materials
and equipment being used;
3) operate equipment properly and safely;
4) maintain simple field records accurately;
5) able to recognize the pest being controlled;
6) able to identify and differentiate target and non-
target substrate;
7) able to practice application principles in relation
to the weather;
8) have a sound knowledge of the equipment and what
; can be expected of it; •
9) possess the ability to take basic decontamination
procedures in case of error or accident;
10) know how to use elementary first aid;
11) be aware of laws and regulations which govern his/
her operational procedures;
12) possess knowledge of and be aware of the reasons for
re-entry regulations and precautions;
13) follow and apply employer policies for the develop-
ment of the business;
14) possess ability to follow directions carefully and
be concerned with accuracy in operation;
15) possess the ability to make minor on-the-job decisions
and call the supervisor when decisions are major;
16) practice proper radio-telephone and telephone skills;
17) follow instructions on disposal of excess pesticides
and the containers;
45
-------
18) implement proper maintenance of equipment;
19) know how to use an operators manual and other
direction-giving material;
20) know how to calibrate application equipment accurately;
21) have basic knowledge and understanding to make prac-
tical application of the principles of chemicals
and biological agents, their formulation and their
general characteristics, efficacy and potential ad-
verse effects on non-target organisms.
Equipment operator mechanical skills include:
1) know how to operate a vehicle that contains or
pulls a tandem;
2) know how to regulate pump flow;
3) know how to clean, care for and change nozzles and
other spray devices;
4) know how to operate specific equipment applicators
such as fog machines, hydraulic sprayers, mist
blowers, field fumigators and knife applicators;
5) know how to make minor repairs in order to maintain
peak performance;
6) know exactly what the equipment being used is capable
of;
7) be aware of laws and regulations which govern oper-
ational procedure;
8) know how to develop and implement a regular main-
tenance schedule;
9) be able to interpret and practice directions given
in the operators manual;
10) be able to mix pesticides with accuracy; and
11) be able to practice precautionary measures appro-
priate to pesticide application and disposal.
46
-------
Community College and Technical Institution Level
Three options are recommended for IPM education at this level:
Laboratory Services, Application Services, and Supplies and Services.
Proposed curricula give direction for implementation of a two-year
associate program, a one-to two-year certificate program, or programs
for in-service training. Below are outlined the IPM report's descrip-
tions of the various jobs at these levels and the skills required.
IPM - Laboratory Services
General Skills:
1) possess elementary knowledge of, and apply chemical
procedures;
2) possess elementary knowledge of, and apply biological
procedures;
3) possess an elementary knowledge of mathematics pro-
cedures as applicable to the job description;
4) possess a knowledge of safety procedures;
5) possess the ability to collect and report data accur-
ately;
6) possess a knowledge of field and laboratory sampling
techniques;
7) possess the ability to operate laboratory instrumen-
tation, relative to the job description;
8) possess a command of the metric system; and
9) possess general knowledge of animal and plant pests
and elements of their control.
47
-------
Specific Jobs:
Laboratory Technician: Biological - works with many types of
biological agents including microbial and virus organisms.
Specific Skills:
1) know biological principles including sterile tech-
niques, and elementary microbiology;
2) know how to use laboratory instruments such as:
microscopes, balances, autoclave, environmental
chambers, dissection scopes, incubators, electric
pH meters, ovens, refractometer, microscope filters,
colony counters, hydrometers, thermometers, etc.;
3) recognize pests common to the area;
4) use appropriate nutrient media;
5) have basic knowledge of staining techniques; and
6) can report data in graph form.
Laboratory Technician: Chemical - engages in sampling proce-
dures and assists in analytical procedures relating to pesti-
cides and other chemical agents.
Specific Skills:
1) elementary knowledge of quantitative and qualita-
tive analyses;
2) know how to use laboratory instruments such as:
analytical balances, electric pH meters, ovens,
refractometers, sol-u-bridge, muffle furnace,
baths, polarizing microscope, hydrometer, burners,
etc.;
3) prepare and standardize laboratory solutions;
4) construct specialized pieces of laboratory glass-
ware;
5) set up and use distillation and extraction apparati;
6) have knowledge of chemical symbols, formulae and
equations; and
7) can report data in graph form.
48
-------
Insectory Technician - raises and assumes responsibility for
insects.
Specific Skills:
1) know how to use laboratory instruments such as:
analytical balance, ovens, pH meter, refractometer,
hydrometer, etc.;
2) possess knowledge of sterile techniques, elementary
microbiology and entomology;
3) use appropriate nutrient media;
4) possess knowledge of insect life and rearing techniques;
5) can design and construct specialized laboratory
equipment drawing upon carpentry, plumbing and elec-
trical skills; and
6) can interpret graphs.
Laboratory Assistant - performs laboratory duties as assigned
by a supervisor or technician.
Specific Skills:
1) familiar with laboratory glassware and cleaning
techniques;
2) know how to use laboratory instruments such as:
analytical balances, pH meter, ovens, refractom-
eter, autoclave, muffle furnace, baths, microscopes,
illuminators and light filters, colony counters,
hydrometer, thermometers, etc.;
3) can prepare and standardize solutions;
4) prepares nutrient media properly;
5) familiar with ordering laboratory material and
equipment;
6) familiar with weight and temperature conversions; and
7) can interpret graphs.
49
-------
Environmental Monitoring Technician - assigned to specific
sampling components of the environment to assure integrity
of pest management programs.
Specific Skills:
1) know how to use laboratory instruments such as:
analytical balances, ovens, autoclave, pH meter,
refractometer, sol-u-bridge, microscopes, illumi-
nators, hydrometer, thermometers, etc.;
2) possess knowledge of insects and their life cycles;
3) can report data in graph form;
4) possess knowledge of crop to be monitored;
5) possess exceptional field-observation acuity; and
6) have knowledge of the environmental factors which
impinge upon crop monitoring efforts.
Field Scout-Sweeper - acts as a data collector in field
situations.
Specific Skills:
1) possess a general knowledge of cropping systems;
2) have the ability to follow detailed instructions
and to make minor on-the-job decisions;
3) recognize and report secondary effects of control
measures;
4) possess the ability to operate a motor vehicle; and
5) have the ability to monitor populations of both
pests and biological organisms.
IPM - Application Services
General Skills:
1) possess an elementary knowledge of mathematics and
communication;
2) possess a knowledge of IPM programs;
50
-------
3) possess a knowledge of application equipment includ-.
ing operation, maintenance, calibration and decon-
tamination;
4) possess a comprehensive knowledge of the State and
Federal laws relating to pesticidal materials and
their application;
5) possess the ability to maintain records and report
accurately;
6) possess an understanding of the potential environ-
mental consequences of the use and misuse of pesti-
cides;
7) possess a practical understanding concerning toxicity,
hazards, and precautions to be taken in using pesti-
cides; and
8) possess the ability to identify pests and know the
importance of the biology of pests relevant to the
area of question.
Specific Jobs:
IPM Foreman - uses the disciplines required to perform the
tasks of IPM and to supervise the application of pesticidal
materials and biological agents.
Specific Skills:
1) understand the role of such factors as climatic
conditions, types of terrain, soil and substrata
and the presence of various non-target organisms;
2) understand the cultural practices and the related
problems involved in the successful growing of
plants or animals; and
3) have the ability to supervise and effectively com-
municate with employees.
Field Equipment Technician - advises and/or develops, adopts,
maintains, tests, operates, and calibrates equipment used in IPM.
Specific Skills:
1) have the ability to design, construct, service,
repair, regulate, test, evaluate, calibrate, and
operate pesticide application equipment;
51
-------
2) possess a knowledge of application equipment, such
as: dusters, seed treaters, spray rigs, slurry appli-
cators, injectors, and fumigators; and
3) understand the cultural practices and the related
problems involved in the successful growing of plants
or animals.
Aerial Applicator - applies pesticides and/or bio-control agents
by aircraft.
Specific Skills:
1) possess a practical knowledge of the types, main-
tenance, use and calibration of aerial application
equipment;
2) possess an understanding of how to apply pesticides
in various formulations;
3) possess knowledge of meteorological conditions and
their impact upon aerial application; and
4) possess a license to operate and fly an aircraft
in a safe manner and understand the parameters
of his/her equipment under given conditions.
Structural Applicator - operates equipment for pest control
in structures.
Specific Skills:
1) possess a knowledge of safety practices in relation
to food, utensils, food processing equipment,
sleeping quarters, and food preparation areas;
2) possess a knowledge of the elements of construc-
tion such as location of vents and drainage systems,
in relation to the work being done and the habits
of the pest;
3) possess a knowledge of surfaces on which pesticides
are applied such as vinyl or asbestos floors, wax
finish, etc.; and
4) possess the ability to operate equipment designed
for pest control in structures.
52
-------
IPM - Supplies and Services
General Skills:
1) possess knowledge of the product and its effect
on living systems and the environment;
2) possess basic knowledge of pests in the person's
trade area;
3) possess basic understanding of IPM;
4) possess interpersonal skills;
5) recognize Federal, State and local rules and regu-
lations pertaining to pesticides merchandise;
6) able to tell the safety precautions to follow with
pesticide merchandise;
7) have basic knowledge of pesticide application equip
ment used in his/her trade area;
8) competent in basic mathematics, sales ticket comple
tion, figuring discounts and taxes, pricing merchan
dise, and using business machines; and
9) able to practice sales techniques.
Specific Jobs:
Retailer - provides the consumer with supplies and materials
necessary for pest management.
Specific Skills:
1) possess basic skills in business and pesticide ter-
minology, inventory control, credit control, adver-
tising and promotion, merchandise display; and busi
ness law in the IPM industry;
2) competent in personnel management; and
3) able to recommend possible cultural, biological,
and chemical control for local area pests.
53
-------
Salesperson - provides the customer supplies and materials
necessary for pest management upon request.
Specific Skills:
1) possess basic knowledge of the product inventory;
2) aware of store delivery systems;
3) able to follow written and oral instructions; and
4) know the storage recommendations and shelf life of
products.
Technical Salesperson - advises the customer about materials
and supplies necessary to pest management.
Specific Skills:
1) competent in field sampling techniques;
2) competent in problem-solving techniques;
3) able to identify those organisms harmful to the
environment;
4) able to recommend possible biological, cultural,
and chemical control for local area pests; and
5) possess a knowledge of pesticide terminology.
In addition to providing the above job titles, descriptions and
skill requirements, the IPM Curriculum Report details suggested curric-
ulum outlines. Discussions on how these can'be utilized for an insti-
tutional farm setting will be provided towards the end of the chapter.
54
-------
A SOURCE BOOK ON INTEGRAGED PEST MANAGEMENT
In 1977, Mary Louise Flint and Robert van den Bosch of the Inter-
national Center for Integrated and Biological Control, University of
California, developed and released a Source Book on Integrated Pest
Management. As described in materials developed to accompany this
book, the Source Book contains curriculum content in environmental
education in the context of IPM. It can be used as a base to design
and develop curriculum and relevant instructional/learning resources in
instructional leadership education, such as teacher education, and in
the education of children and youth, and in adult/continuing education.
The contents of the Source Book can best be depicted by listing
the major topics, or chapter headings, which are:
1. MAN, PESTS AND THE EVOLUTION OF IPM: AN INTRODUCTION
2. .HUMAN-MANAGED ENVIRONMENTS AS SYSTEMS WITHIN THE
BIOSPHERE
3. WHAT IS A PEST?
4. A HISTORY OF PEST CONTROL
5. THE COST OF PEST CONTROL: ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL
6. THE PHILOSOPHY OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT: THE STRATEGY
OF THE FUTURE
7. PRACTICAL PROCEDURES: IPM MONITORING, DECISION-MAKING,
AND THE TECHNIQUES OF THE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGER
8. CASE HISTORIES IN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
9. THE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST
10. THE FUTURE OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 8
The accompanying materials present "competence domains" relevant
to the Source Book for education in IPM and teacher education in IPM.
The five competence domains for IPM education and their sub-sets are:
55
-------
General knowledge and understanding of underlying environ-
mental Concepts and Principles
- Understand wholeness as a fundamental concept of
organizing life.
- Understand the functional relationship of a part to
the whole and to other parts.
- Knowledge related to the Biosphere and its various
ecosystems.
- Understand man-managed environments as systems within
the Biosphere.
- Understand the forces at work in the (affected)
ecosystem.
- Understand how the components of ecosystem operate in
managed situations.
- Understand the ecological principles underlying the
restoration, preservation, or augmentation of natural
checks and balances in ecosystems.
Technical background knowledge and understanding relevant to
pest control
- View the pest problem as part of an ecosystem out of
balance.
- Know the ecological effects of various agricultural
practices.
- Familiar with the concept of "pest" and the major types
of pest problems, such as: weeds, plant pathogens, ar-
thropod, and vertebrate pests.
- Understand the role of natural enemies, the kinds of
damage pests can cause, and crop compensating abilities.
- Understand the dynamics of the particular ecosystem and
pest populations under various conditions.
- Recognize the existence of economic and aesthetic
thresholds (i.e., control action thresholds for pests).
- Understand the economic, social, and ecological conse-
quences and costs of different control strategies and
tactics.
56
-------
Specific knowledge about and application of integrated pest
control
- Know the philosophy of Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
- Know the brief history of pest management and the evo-
lution of IPM.
- Understand the economics of IPM.
- Understand why, IPM is the most effective way to control
pests both economically and ecologically.
-*t
- Know working examples of IPM programs in agricultural,
forest, and urban environments.
- Knowledge of determining economically and aesthetically
damaging levels of pests.
- Knowledge of techniques of IPM; more specifically:
actions to take to restore, preserve, or augment the
natural checks and balances of ecosystems.
- Understand the need for public understanding and support
of IPM.
- Career information relevant to IPM
- Know the role of the IPM specialist.
- Understand the need for IPM professionals.
- Know the career progression in IPM.
- Know the skills that the IPM specialist will require.
Teacher education competence domains include the above, with an
added dimension:
- Planning and implementing instructional arrangements for
education in integrated pest management
- Formulating instructional/learning objectives rele-
vant to the four competence domains explained above.
- Acquiring instructional/learning resources relevant
to the objectives.
57
-------
- Planning and implementing instructional/learning
arrangements with the application of resources.
- Evaluating the instructional/learning program.
DISCUSSION
IPM-related education/training and career ladders are as yet largely
unstructured, especially at lower levels. What we have seen are two at-
tempts to define a career ladder in IPM, and to outline formats for train-
ing and education for these careers. Some officials suggest that eventual-
ly there will be certification laws and/or regulations regarding IPM
practitioners and training programs, in which case curriculum content may
be largely pre-determined by the regulating authority. Until that time,
though, attemps to implement career systems and training programs will
largely be through trial-and-error.
There are several advantages to the development of career systems -
including job descriptions with task-related elements. First, it serves
as a starting point for localities to determine their own individual needs,
thus enhancing the possibilities for the development of the most appro-
priate job training/educational and workforce planning programs. Second,
it enables the prospective IPM practitioner to become more fully aware of
the short and long-term career possibilities, facilitating appropriate
educational or job entry decisions. Finally, proper workforce planning
promotes a stabilization of the farm workforce, enabling the development of
permanent and year-round jobs. This latter point was demonstrated recently
by the Rural Economics Institute, which developed a farm career system
and implemented it on sample farms in California, while working with a variety
of State and local organizations. This system resulted in the development
58
-------
of permanent, year-round jobs, as well as the identification of new
skill training short courses and supportive personnel management
g
systems.
In all probability, an institutional program that implements IPM
training for inmates will not choose to (and would probably not be wise
to) provide training at each level or for every IPM-related occupation
set forth in the IPM curriculum report. The development of job training
programs should be based upon several variables, perhaps the most impor-
tant being local job market needs. Also important for consideration
would be the interests and average length of stay of the population for
which the training will be offered (along with the prospective employers
likelihood of hiring this population), and the resources available, e.g.,
land, equipment and instructional support available through other insti-
tutions such as community colleges and the Cooperative Extension Service.
While the nature of training should be based upon the above variables,
it would be well to structure flexibility into the programs that are of-
fered, as specific career goals will undoubtedly vary. For instance, while
one student may be interested in a terminal program geared completely
towards direct occupational entry, another may prefer a program providing
the option for further education. Additionally, some students may want to
decide how far to advance or what speciality, if any, to pursue during
the course of study. In this case, a module approach may be the most appro-
priate.
While this report cannot set forth specific recommendations for pro-
gram implementation due to local/institutional variances, a program struc-
ture could resemble the flow chart on the following page.
59
-------
SAMPLE IPM TRAINING STRUCTURE
Job Market/Attitude Survey
Acac
Instil
\
t
lemic *i...
;ution
Other
Supportiv
Materials
\f
IPM Speciality Training
>
t
Vocational
J
Dipl
>
I,
oma
f
Vocational
1
Career
Diploma
>
/
Career
A
V
-
^ institution
IPM Source
4
Certificate
i
i
f»
«.
Supportive
OJT
N
Agricultural /Horticultural
Training
1
Vocational C
w
areer
f
Er
\
/
wironmental Training
_1
>
f \f
Vocational Career
v V
Diploma Diploma
I
Vocational C
4
areer
\
Dipl
>
1 I
oma Diploma
i
Vocational Career
Associate Degree
i
Associate Degree
Associate Degree
Etc.
Etc.
-------
Built into the chart are such advisable factors as:
1) supportive individuals/agencies such as the Coopera-
tive Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service,
farmers and community groups, etc.
2) supportive materials such as appropriate books, slides,
films, etc.
3) on-the-job training and field experience to accompany
formalized training;
4) career choices (horizontal and vertical), based on
previous job market and attitudinal surveys; and
5) the support and cooperation of academic institutions
in the community.
Though not depicted on the chart, a number of other factors are
strongly recommended for inclusion in such a program:
1) providing job and career counseling to students
and prospective students throughout the entire
process;
2) establishing liaisons.with prospective employers
throughout the process, placing students with
them for "internships" (through work-release),
where possible, and identifying jobs for graduates
after release;
3) providing other supportive services to students
and graduates where needed;
4) assuring that released inmates will have oppor-
tunity for additional instruction, through follow-
up training at the institution and/or through
the cooperating institutions(s); and
5) utilizing the resources of other existing pro-
grams to achieve program goals, e.g., working
with prime sponsors in utilizing CETA funds.
61
-------
FOOTNOTES
National Field Research Center, Inc., Phase II of a National
Environmental/Energy Workforce Assessment - Post-Secondary Education
Profile, Pesticides Volume, for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (Iowa City, Iowa: National Field Research Center, 1978).
2
Mary Louise Flint and Robert van den Bosch, University of
California, International Center for Integrated and Biological Control,
A Source Book on Integrated Pest Management, for the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Office of
Environmental Education (Berkeley, California: University of
California, 1977), p. 377.
Kirkwood Community College and Associated Research Corp., eds.,
Integrated Pest Management - A Curriculum Report, for the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Office of
Environmental Education (Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Kirkwood Community
College, 1973), p. 2.
4Ibid., pp. 93-96.
5Ibid., pp. 96-97, 112-124.
6Ibid., pp. 125-164.
"An Analysis of the Environmental Education/Integrated Pest
Management Curriculum Project", prepared to accompany A Source Book
on Integrated Pest Management (unpublished, 1977).
8
A Source Book on Integrated Pest Management, Table of Contents.
g
Rural Economics Institute, Career Development for Farm Employ-
ment, by Donald G. Bennett, for the U.S. Department of Labor (Davis,
California: Rural Economics Institute, 1977), pp. sl-s3.
62
-------
^POTENTIAL
PROJECT
PARTICIPANTS
-------
POTENTIAL PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
This chapter presents descriptions, based upon interviews and
research, of agencies and institutions which have activities and
functions that relate, or potentially relate to an institutional IPM/
eco-agricultural program. As such, they would have potential involve-
ment in a national program. The chapter is divided into three broad
areas: 1) Federal Agencies and their State/Local Counterparts; 2)
Academic Institutions; and 3) The Private Sector.
The first area, Federal Agencies and their State/Local Counter-
parts, briefly describes appropriate Federal agencies by their general
functions and activities; and reviews specific sections and/or programs
which were identified as having potential involvement or linkages to a
national institutional program. The Federal agency descriptions are
based upon three sources: information supplied verbally during inter-
views; written materials supplied by those interviewed; and the 1977/78
United States Government Manual, where needed. Also included in the
first area are State and local public agencies whose functions (and often
funding) are at least partially tied to the Federal agencies described.
These were not afforded a separate section as it is often less than mean-
ingful to describe one without relating it to its counterpart.
'The reader should not construe that the entire universe of agencies,
(Federal, State or local) with potentially relating functions has been
included in this chapter. Project researchers, while relying upon several
types of sources for referral (interviews and research), may not have been
directed towards some less visible programs. In other cases, though few,
referrals were made but the referred persons proved virtually unreachable.
65
-------
Additionally, some Federal agencies may have potential involvement in
a program, but which is unascertainable at the present time (many of
these are discussed more thoroughly towards the end of the chapter -
with examples). Finally, in the case of local and State agencies, local
and State needs and priorities vary; these variances are reflected in
the number and types of agencies created. The authors believe, however,
that the major agencies have been identified and described which would
have the most direct involvement in a national institutional program.
The second area, Academic Institutions, is based for the most part
upon input by Federal officials who work directly with academic insti-
tutions. It also is based upon experiences encountered during the Memphis
project and literature review (college catalogs, curriculum materials, and
research/extension publications)". The third area, The Private Sector, is
similarly based upon interviews (in the public and private sectors) and
literature review. As the scope of this project neither permits nor
stipulates the extensive work necessary to provide thorough coverage of
these latter two areas, they have received only token consideration.
However, the authors felt it necessary to call attention to these two
very important segments. Any extensive work towards implementing a large
scale institutional farming program must give due consideration to the
academic community and the private sector.
66
-------
FEDERAL AGENCIES
AND THEIR STATE/LOCAL COUNTERPARTS
-------
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
UNITED STATES CONGRESS
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) is an advisory arm of
the U.S. Congress. Its basic function is to help the Congress anticipate
and plan for the consequences of the uses of technology, and to examine
expected and unexpected ways in which technology affects people's lives.
The OTA consists of a bipartisan Congressional Board consisting of six
Senators and six Representatives, and the OTA director; it is assisted
by an Advisory Council. OTA programs are currently operated in the fields
of energy, food, health, materials, national R & D policies and priorities,
oceans, technology and world trade, and transportation.
A comprehensive analysis of chemicals used in food and agriculture
is currently being conducted by the OTA. One portion of this analysis,
an assessment of alternative pest management strategies in food produc-
tion, will meet the following objectives:
1) to assess the potential development and impact of
alternative pest management strategies in major
regions of the U.S. over the next 10-15 years;
2) to evaluate Federal policies identified as con-
straints on the development of alternative pest
management strategies; and.,
3) to assess the potential adaptation and impact of
U.S. advances in alternative pest management strat-
egies on pest management in developing countries.
An advisory group consisting of scientists, members of public inter-
est groups, and industry representatives assist in the planning and review.
The assessment objectives are addressed by the following working groups:
National Constraints Working Group
Regional Work Group on California Vegetables
Regional Work Group on the Central Corn Belt
Regional Work Group on the Great Plains Wheat Belt
Regional Work Group on Northeastern Potatoes
Regional Work Group on Northern Deciduous Wheat Belt
Regional Work Group on Southeast Grains and Legumes
Regional Work Group on Southwest Cotton and Field Crops
s
The reports of these committees will provide the basis for the final
OTA report, which is scheduled for completion December, 1978.
69
-------
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and consists of three members
appointed by the President. Its function is to formulate and recommend
national policies to promote the improvement of environmental quality.
It also carries out a continuing analysis of changes or trends in the
national environment, administers the environmental impact statement
process, provides an ongoing assessment of the nation's energy research
and development from an environmental and conservation standpoint, and
assists the President in the preparation of the annual environmental
quality report to the Congress„
As with other environmental areas, the CEQ's IPM role is to formu-
late and recommend national policy in the field, and to follow-up on the
recommendations, as required. In his 1977 environmental message to Con-
gress, President Carter instructed the CEQ to recommend actions which
the Federal Government could take to encourage the development and appli-
cation of pest management techniques which would emphasize natural bio-
logical controls like predators, pest-specific diseases, pest-resistant
plant varieties, and hormones, relying on chemical agents only as needed.
In 1972, the CEQ prepared and released a state-of-the-art report
on integrated pest management, and has continued to keep abreast of this
field. It will release a second report on IPM late in Fiscal Year 1978
pursuant to the President's request.
70
-------
DEPARTMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through its many and di-
verse programs, carries out executive policies in agriculture, and imple-
ments appropriate Federal legislation through research, regulatory, and
grant programs. It works to improve and maintain farm income, and to
develop and expand markets abroad for agricultural products. The Depart-
ment's programs are designed to curb poverty and malnutrition; to enhance
the environment; and to maintain U.S. production capacity by helping
landowners protect the soil, water, forests, and other natural resources.
The implementation of national growth policies is facilitated by rural
development, credit, and conservation programs. Inspection and grading
services are designed to safeguard the quality of the American food
supply. Environmental policies are coordinated through the Office of
Environmental Quality Activities, housed in the Office of the Secretary.
Many of USDA's programs filter to the State level through the State
Departments of Agriculture (their specific names vary somewhat). These
departments, operated with State and Federal funds, are largely regulatory
in nature. Programs typically encompass quality control for foods, feed,
seeds, plants, plant materials, fertilizers and pesticides. Regulatory
programs are also aimed at the control of animal and plant diseases.
Marketing practices are regulated according to State laws, and marketing
and other farm economy information is typically provided to the public.
In the majority of States, the State Department of Agriculture imple-
ments the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended,
and its State counterpart legislation (although in some cases this is carried
out by the State environmental departments). With such authority, the
departments are responsible for certifying pesticide applicators, and for
registering restricted-use pesticides, as defined by Federal and State laws.
USDA has the major responsibility for pest control activities in the
Federal Government. As stated in the Secretary's Memorandum No. 1929
dated December 12, 1977, and entitled U.S.D.A. Policy on Management of
Pest Problems:
It is the policy of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
develop, practice, and encourage the use of integrated
pest management methods, systems, and strategies that are
practical, effective and energy-efficient. The policy is
to seek adequate protection against significant pests with
the least hazard to man, his possessions, wildlife and the
natural environment. Additional controls and selective
measures to achieve these goals will be developed and
adopted as rapidly as possible.*
*Robert Bergland. Secretary's Memorandum No. 1929, U.S.D.A. Policy on
Management of Pest Problems (December 12, 1977).
71
-------
Conservation, Research and Education
Under the USDA Assistant Secretary for Conservation, Research and
Education are the Forest Service, the National Agricultural Library, the
Soil Conservation Service, and the Science and Education Administration
(SEA). The latter is further divided into the Cooperative State Research
Service, Federal Research, the Extension Service, and Teaching. The
Assistant Secretary chairs a Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sci-
ences created by the 1977 Farm Bill, P.L. 95-113. This Council communi-
cates to Congress, the President and the Secretary, and was formed to
foster coordination of conservation, research and education throughout
the country in the areas of the food and agricultural sciences.
JEA, the component of Conservation, Research and Education most
strongly tied to IPM, staffs a Coordinator for IPM. who oversees an SEA
^committee on IPM. This Committee is developing strategies for implement-
ing IPM for urban areas, agro-systems, rangeland, 1ivestock,. and aquatic
weeds. It will coordinate IPM activities within SEA, with the remainder
of USDA, and finally with other Federal agencies.
The IPM and other activities of potential relevance to a national
institutional program, in related SEA agencies, as well as in the Soil
Conservation Service are described below.
Science and Education Administration
Cooperative State Research Service
The Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) of SEA administers Fed-
eral grant funds for research in agriculture, agricultural marketing,
rural development, and forestry. These funds are made available to State
Agricultural Experiment Stations, as well as to other designated State
institutions. A specific grant program is also administered by CSRS on
special agricultural programs. With regard to integrated pest management,
the CSRS is represented on the various Departmental IPM committees, and
cooperates in coordinated interagency IPM research efforts. As with all
of its grant programs, the CSRS participates in planning and coordinating
IPM research among the various Experiment Stations, and between the sta-
tions and the Department of Agriculture.
The State Agricultural Experiment Stations are located within the land-
grant institutions in every state. These stations carry out agricultural
research for the respective States, geared to their specific crops, soils,
pests and other characteristics. They often operate branch stations scat-
tered throughout the State. Experiment Stations typically operate with
Federal and State funds, supplemented by grants from private industry,
foundations, and other sources. Coordination and communiraf'"" atp^ng Fy-
perimejit Stations Arid with USDA Jj^faci1iJ:ate(^
n'ttee on Organization and Pol =a ' ==-—-^=*
72
-------
Extension Service
The USDA Extension Service is one of three partners in the Coopera-
tive Extension Service; the other partners are State governments (through
land-grant universities) and county governments. All three partners
share in financing, planning and conducting educational programs in such
areas as agricultural production, marketing, natural resources, home
economics, food and nutrition, 4-H youth development, energy conservation,
and community and rural development. A chief goal of Extension is to
assist the public in learning about and applying the latest technology
and management knowledge developed through research. Cooperation among
the local, State and Federal levels is promoted by the Extension Committee
on Organization and Policy (ECOP).
The USDA Extension staff provides national program leadership and
assistance to State Extension Services, and coordinates with other Fed-
eral agencies, private industry and national organizations. State Exten-
tion Services provide statewide leadership and prepare appropriate programs
and educational materials. Area offices are located in nearly every county
of the United States. Their staffs work directly with individuals and
groups in educational services. Historically farmers, ranchers and other
rural individuals and groups have been the main recipients of Extension's
services. However, urban populations are increasingly receiving Extension
assistance. A number of States are locating extension specialists in inner
cities. Additionally, the Extension Service has conducted an urban garden-
ing program in sixteen cities.
State Extension Services are .responsible for providing training for
commercial pesticide applicators in support of certification. In most
cases, private applicators are trained by county extension agents. Addi-
tionally, many State Extension Services have organized field scouting
programs to assist farmers and ranchers in identifying economic thresholds
for pesticide application. In support of these programs, these Exten-
sion Services provide training to individuals in scouting techniques and
procedures.
Federal Extension, in cooperation with the States, has since 1971
conducted a pilot pest management program. The goal of this program is
to teach farmers, ranchers and homeowners how to carry out more effective
pest controls; protect natural enemies; implement, where feasible, non-
chemical means of controlling pests; and applying pesticides on an "as-
needed" basis. To date, the Extension Service has funded 52 pilot appli-
cation projects in 33 states on major commodities. It is beginning to
move out of pilot application into an operational mode.
Federal Research
The Federal Research staff (formerly the Agricultural Research
Service) provides, through research, knowledge and technology to assist .
farmers in producing efficiently, in conserving the environment, and in
meeting the nation's food and fiber needs. The research is carried out
in cooperation with the States, as well as with other segments of USDA,
other Federal agencies, industry, foundations, and private organizations.
73
-------
Approximately 8,000 employees comprise the Federal Research staff,
who are stationed at 150 locations throughout the country. Among the
diverse activities of the professional staff are research efforts aimed
at mechanizing crop and livestock production and processing; developing
superior strains of livestock and poultry; controlling diseases and
processing technology that utilize farm commodities; and expanding domes-
tic and foreign markets for agricultural products.
Federal Research efforts emphasize the effective use of soil and
water resources while keeping the soil, water and air relatively free from
pollution. While working to improve the quality and yield of field and
horticultural crops, and protecting crops against insects, diseases, weeds,
nematodes and other pests. Federal Research staff study biological as well
as chemical methods of control.
In addition to carrying out research and publishing resultant tech-
nical reports, Federal Research publishes informational bulletins for
homeowners and farmers on practical applications. Many are aimed at con-
trolling pests, stressing non-chemical methods.
Teaching
The role of the Teaching office in SEA was mandated by P.L. 95-113
of 1977, Section 1417. For the first time, USDA was assigned a role in
post-secondary education, coordinating a competitive grants program in the
food and agricultural sciences for all colleges and universities in the
United States. This office, assigned the responsibilities for this pro-
gram, has not yet received any appropriations for this effort.
Soil Conservation Service
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has responsibility for develop-
ing and carrying out a national soil and water conservation program in
cooperation with landowners and operators. It also works in conjunction
with community planning agencies, regional resource groups, and other
agencies of the Federal, State and local governments. The SCS assists
in agricultural pollution control, environmental improvements, and rural
community development.
Technical staff of the SCS includes soil conservationists, soil
scientists, economists, and engineers. Assistance is chiefly provided
through the nearly 3,000 local conservation districts - which cover over
two billion acres of the U.S. and its territories. Their activities in-
clude carrying out watershed protection and flood prevention programs;
assisting in USDA's conservation cost-sharing program; participating in
the national land cooperative soil survey, and heading the national land
inventory and monitoring activity; appraising potential for outdoor
recreation developments; and coordinating snow surveys for water supply
forecasting.
74
-------
Assistance to landowners and communities includes the development of
area conservation plans for agricultural land areas which help to lay the
foundation for land-use determinations. Other such services of SCS dis-
trict offices include:
1) preparing soil maps, range-site and range-condition
maps and woodland suitability interpretations;
2) providing information for each type of soil about
different safe uses and adapted crops, conservation
measures needed, and potential limitations;
3) providing technical assistance in laying out.and
checking the construction and maintenance of dams,
terraces, and other, structures; in selecting plant
varieties, seeding methods and rates, and cultural
practices to establish grass or trees as planned;
and in solving problems in managing pastures, wood-
lands, or wildlife habitats;
4) outlining alternative cropping uses, conservation
treatments, and soil management procedures required
to safeguard soil under different cropping systems; and
5) providing technical assistance on range, woodland, and
wildlife conservation; conservation engineering; recrea-
tion planning; and agricultural waste management.
On February 3, 1978 the Secretary of Agriculture established a National
Rural Clean Water Coordinating Committee, chaired by the Administrator of
the Soil Conservation Service. Other members are the Administrators of
the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Farmers Home Admin-
istration, Science and Education Administration, and Economics Statistics
and Cooperative Service; the Chief of the Forest Service; and the Assistant
Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA). This Committee coordinates and advises on the Rural
Clean Water Program, pursuant to an agreement between EPA and USDA. The
Program provides cost-sharing assistance to areas with critical water qual-
ity problems resulting from agricultural activity, to incorporate best
management practices in the control of such pollution. Additional infor-
mation is provided in the review of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Service
The Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Service (ESCS) develops and
carries out a program of economic research to assist governmental and pri-
vate agencies and individuals in areas relating to the production and
evaluation of farm commodities. Also carried out are farmer's cooperative
services, through research and technical assistance. The .Statistical Re-
porting Service prepares estimates and reports on production, supply, price,
and other items necessary to the orderly operation of the U.S. agricultural
economy.
75
-------
Within the ESCS's Natural Resources Economics Division are five
groups. The Environmental Studies Group consists of ten economists who
study economic impacts of pesticide regulation, and the economics of new
pest management technology. Its economic research is conducted in con-
junction with other research projects, often with Federal Research. Its
economic feasibility studies are intended to complement ongoing biological
feasibility studies.
To date, the Environmental Studies Group has focused on the augmen-
tation of three beneficial insects: trichogramma to attact bollworms and
budworms in cotton; the stiltbug to parasite the tobacco budworm; and
pediobius to parasite a soybean pest, the Mexican bean beetle. It is
also comparing conventional and alternative methods of controlling weevils
in pecans. Two of its major projects, conducted in cooperation with on-
going projects in North Carolina and Mississippi, are a boll weevil erad-
ication scheme and an "optimum" boll weevil management trial, respectively.
The Environmental Studies Group hopes to expand its pest management
research efforts. As proposed, the group would expand to carry out spe-
cific programs covering weeds and diseases, as well as insects, in mixed
cropping systems. This would necessarily more closely simulate actual
farming conditions.
Rural Development
Under the USDA Assistant Secretary for Rural Development are the
Farmers Home Administration and the Rural Electrification Administration.
The former provides credit for those in rural America who are unable to
get credit from other sources, at reasonable rates and terms; diverse loan
guarantee programs are operated by this Administration. The Rural Electri-
fication Administration finances electric and telephone facilities in rural
America and its territories, through loan and loan guarantee programs.
The Assistant Secretary for Rural Development serves as the chair-
person of the National Rural Development Committee, created by the Rural
Development Act of 1972. The Committee is directed to monitor all federal
actions ,that affect rural areas, and is composed of four task forces-
Water and Sewer; Housing; Transportation; and Health Care. This group
relates to the State Rural Development Committees, offering suggestions and
information, and submitting at least two project ideas to them each year.
The State Committees coordinate Federal actions with State and local ini-
tiatives, and formulate their own State/local priorities.
Rural Development handles most of USDA's migrant, transportation,
Indian affairs, and alternate energy programs. In support of alternate
energy source development and energy conservation in rural areas, it has
conducted demonstration projects in biomass (from animal wastes) and in
gasohol. It has also developed a low cost solar unit, and is studying the
use of algae ponds for wastewater treatment.
The office is also involved in weatherization programs for rural areas,
offering incentive loan programs through the Farmer's Home Administration
and the Rural Electrification Administration; it has also developed insula-
tion standards. The Secretary has requested that the Farmers Home
76
-------
Administration conduct a preliminary study concerning requiring, after
a certain year, that a certain amount of energy in a house financed by
the agency be from an alternate source, e.g., solar or wood. The chief
concern will be assisting persons in lowering costs of maintaining their
homes.
77
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The Department of Energy (DOE) was created in 1977 to provide the
framework for a balanced national energy plan, through the coordination
and administration of the energy functions in the Federal Government.
Major responsibilities include: the research, development and demon-
stration of energy technology; the marketing of Federal power; energy
conservation; the nuclear weapons program; regulation of energy produc-
tion and use; pricing and allocation; and a central energy data collection
and analysis program. Of concern to the department are the promotion of
consumer interest and the encouragement of competition in the energy
industries, as well as the protection of the nation's environment, and
the health and safety of its citizens. The Department is represented
by Regional Representatives and staff offices in each of the ten Standard
Federal Regions.
Most State governments maintain State-level energy agencies, whose
functions and size vary considerably. Most have fuel allocation func-
tions, while others conduct energy supply and demand studies, and recom-
mend State policies and strategies for wise resource use. A growing
number of these agencies are coordinating energy conservation plans and
programs for the State.
The following briefly describes several offices of the Department
of Energy which have potential relevance to a national institutional
farming program, and details specific programs with significant potential
applicability.
Conservation and Solar Applications
Program responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for Conservation
and Solar Applications include those designed to improve energy effic-
iency and system utilization and reduce energy consumption in the trans-
portation industry, public and private buildings, and agricultural and
industrial process heating; and preparation of a solar commercialization
plan. The office's Office of Small Scale Technology seeks to utilize
fully the services of individual inventors and small business firms.
Division of Industrial Energy Conservation
This Division has three main objectives: 1) reduce the energy con-
sumed per unit of production throughout the industrial/agricultural sec-
tor by assisting the penetration of existing and new energy conservation
technologies: 2) identify existing but underutilized technologies for
which Federal action can stimulate implementation; and 3) assist a shift
in fuel use from scarce to plentiful fuels. It does so by developing
economically viable technologies, accelerating industrial initiatives
and promoting the acceptance of technologies, and by establishing leader-
ship in the conduct of analysis, design, experimentation, and implementa-
tion of economically viable techniques for improving the efficiency of
industrial/agricultural processes.
78
-------
The Division's Agrjcujtura.1_a:nd Food Process Efficiency Branch is
A
currently involved witFT thirteen sub-programs. TheTf ir?tT~AGRTMOD, is 1
a dynamic simulation model of the U.S. food production system, designed I
for the analysis of : 1) the implications of alternative national policies f
on the food supply; 2) the effects of possible natural resource and energy /
constraints on the food supply and prices; 3) the impacts of policies on (
imports, exports and other reserves; and 4) the effects of technological \
change. The other twelve sub-programs will feed into this model. They 1
are: /
Energy Integrated Farm Systems
Irrigation Systems
Crop Drying Systems
. Alternative Farm Equipment Systems
Fertilizer
Dairy and Milk Processing
Meat Processing Systems
Food Processing Efficiency Systems
Food Sterilization
Packaging
Sugar Processing
Citrus Processing
The contracting is completed and the projects are underway for all
but the following:
Energy Integrated Farm Systems - A Notice of Program
Interest will be issued late in FY 78.
Alternate Farm Equipment Systems - A feasibility study
will be initiated in FY 79.
Fertilizer - One project is underway. A Program Oppor-
tunity Notice will be issued in late FY 78 for more
projects.
Packaging - A feasibility study of sterile aseptic
packaging will be initiated in FY 79.
Solar Technology Transfer Branch
This branch attempts to facilitate the transfer of known solar tech-
nologies into the private sector. Among its projects is a solar installer
training program being carried out in correctional institutions. It is
based on a DOE-sponsored correspondence course entitled Fundamentals of
Solar Heating, and is designed to train instructors to teach the skills
necessary (to the institutions' inmates) to install solar systems. In
offering this program, DOE provides the textbooks and other required
materials.
79
-------
To be eligible, an institution (Federal, State, or local ) should be
an established adult or juvenile facility with a training program in
heating, air conditioning, or plumbing. Upon completion of the course,
which is designed for those already possessing skills in one or more of
the above areas, a student should be able to size and lay out the typical
solar components used in residential or light commercial systems, to
assist in planning and supervising the installation of solar components,
and assist in troubleshooting solar operational problems.
This program has been established thus far in three institutions,
in the States of Connecticut, Florida, and Tennessee. Program coordinators
hope to establish this training program in at least fifty institutions
nationwide.
Intergovernmental and Institutional Relations
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and
Institutional Relations is the major outreach and consumer affairs coor-
dinator of DOE. The Office oversees and maintains DOE relations with
Congress, the news media, States, regional and local agencies, private
agencies, and consumer interests.
A major project of this office is the coordination of the Energy
Extension Service. Ten pilot Energy Extension Services have been in oper-
ation, in Alabama, Connecticut, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Guidelines are to
be published by October 1978 for other States to apply for Energy Ex-
tension grants.
The aim of the Energy Extension Service is to help States develop
educational programs to assist small energy consumers to conserve
energy and to switch to renewable or less scarce energy resources. Indi-
vidual programs are designed by the States, and are operated by the States
with technical assistance and backup from DOE Headquarters.
80
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
The activities of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(HEW) are varied and far-reaching, as its name implies. Through its five
Principal Operating Components (Office of Human Development, Public Health
Service, Health Care Financing, Social Security Administration, and Educa-
tion) its programs and policies have great impact on the general public,
in all aspects of health, education and welfare. Specialized programs are
carried out for such groups as the elderly, the handicapped, Indians, child-
ren and youth, rural Americans, the unemployed and poverty-stricken, vet-
erans, drug and alcohol abusers, the mentally ill, and students. The
Department's form of assistance varies from research to grant programs and
personal financial assistance.
There is no single State counterpart to the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare. Funds are distributed io State Departments of Educa-
tion largely through HEW regional offices as well as to State Departments
of Health/Human Services (names and functions vary). Health and welfare
funds and priorities are often further funneled to local offices and pro-
grams. These State and local offices provide services such as vocational
rehabilitation, drug abuse programs, health care services, youth develop-
ment programs, Food Stamp and other welfare programs, and elderly services.
HEW education funds are distributed to State Boards/Departments of Educa-
tion, and sifted to school districts and institutions of higher education.
The following describes activities of two components of the Office of
Education, Education Division, which have potential relevance to an insti-
tutional farming program.
Bureau of Elementary & Secondary Education
Office of Environmental Education
The function of the Office of Environmental Education is to implement
the Environmental Education Act of 1970. Its main activity is operating
a grants program to public school systems, local school agencies, State
education agencies, and institutions of higher education to implement envi-
ronmental education programs. It also awards contracts on a competitive
basis.
The Office first had involvement in integrated pest management in 1973
when it supported an IPM conference and the development of IPM curriculum
materials. In 1977 it supported a grant for the development of a source
book on IPM. Also in 1977, it funded a grant to Grady County Public Schools
in Georgia to develop a pilot course in environmental studies focusing on
IPM for grades 9-12, using the previously developed source book.
81
-------
Other than the above, the office has received few proposals for
programs related to IPM or other aspects or agriculture. As with all
proposals it receives, it is most interested in funding programs that
could be easily adapted to other localities and populations through-
out the country.
Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education
The Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education administers programs
of grants, contracts, and technical assistance for vocational and tech-
nical education, occupational education, metric education, adult educa-
tion, consumer education, education professions development, and community
schools. The appropriate State policy groups receiving the funds, such as
the State Boards of Vocational Education, plot their own courses for pro-
gram development within the Federal guidelines; they are formulated through
the State Plan process. A number of these State policy boards have de-
veloped close working relationships with the State and/or local corrections
boards or agencies.
82
-------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
The Department of Justice serves as counsel for the citizens of the
United States, representing them in enforcing the law in the public
interest. It represents the U.S. Government in all legal matters in
which it is concerned. The Department plays a key role in the protection
against criminals and subversion; in ensuring healthy competition of
business; in safeguarding the consumer; and in enforcing drug, immigration,
and naturalization laws.
The following summaries describe those programs/agencies identified
as having potential involvement in a national institutional farming proj-
ect.
Bureau of Prisons
The Bureau of Prisons is responsible for the care and custody of per-
sons convicted of Federal crimes and sentenced to incarceration in a Fed-
eral penal institution. It operates a nation-wide system of minimum, me-
dium and maximum security prisons, halfway houses, and community program
offices. Through its various divisions, programs are offered in popula-
tion management; community services; unit management; case management;
correctional service; education, vocational training and recreation; psy-
chology and drug abuse treatment; chaplaincy service; personnel management
and training; medical services; farm operations; and other services. The
Bureau's five regional offices manage institutions and programs within their
areas of responsibility.
The Farm Administrator, located in Kansas City, Missouri, has respon-
sibility for distributing funds to Federal institutions for feeding inmates;
a portion of these go to farming operations. This office does not carry
out special programs, but has cooperated with other agencies for such.
Education programs provide training to Federal inmates in a wide variety
of fields, including welding, automotive mechanics, and computer programming.
One agriculturally related training program is offered in one institution,
in farm machinery. There have been no training programs offered in horti-
culture, grounds maintenance, or related areas, although inmates histor-
ically have participated in such activities without formal training.
The Bureau of Prisons operates the Federal Industries, Inc"., a wholly-
owned, self-supporting government corporation. Approximately 60 industrial
operations in 25 institutions provide goods and services for sale to Fed-
eral agencies. Corporation policies are directed by a Board appointed by
the President.
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) of the Bureau of Prisons
is a source of technical assistance for State and local correctional agen-
cies. Its assistance is geared toward upgrading and strengthening the prac-
tice of corrections, in four program priority areas: 1) staff development;
2) probation and parole services; 3) jail operations and programs;
83
-------
and 4) screening for risk. Technical assistance is provided through
several avenues: on-site visits by NIC staff members; grants or con-
tracts to the agency requesting assistance; and/or on-site visits by
an individual or team to other agencies to gain experience and expertise.
State correctional programs for adult men and women are chiefly
administered by State Corrections Departments/Boards, which oversee
various types of corrections/rehabilitation facilities for prisoners
under the State's authority. Youthful offender programs are generally
administered by State Departments of Youth Social Services. Local
programs vary significantly with the local population and needs. Many
cities and counties operate their own correctional facilities for of-
fenders requiring minimum to maximum security.
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) assists State
and local governments in strengthening and improving law enforcement and
criminal justice. Block grants are made to States for approved criminal
justice programs and projects. Discretionary monies are also awarded to
States, units of local government, and private, non-profit organizations
for criminal justice projects. Efforts supported by LEAA include the areas
of court administration, organized crime, white collar crime, public cor-
ruption, disorders and terrorism, the rehabilitation of offenders, victim
assistance and the implementation of criminal justice standards and goals.
Other efforts supported by LEAA include programs for research, evaluation,
technical assistance, information, training and education. Assisstance
is also provided for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs.
LEAA programs are administered through its ten regional offices.
The Corrections Division of LEAA is involved with a prison industry
or Free Venture program for state institutions. Currently three states
(Minnesota, Illinois and Connecticut) receive grants for such programs,
to bring private enterprise into the institutions; Florida also receives
limited assistance. Four additional states may be funded during the next
fiscal year for Free Venture programs. While the current programs deal
with manufacturing, several States are considering expanding into agri-
cultural operations.
The LEAA National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice
provides assistance for research and development programs to improve and
strengthen law enforcement and criminal justice, and to evaluate and dis-
seminate the results of programs and projects supported by LEAA funds.
It also serves as the clearinghouse for the exchange of criminal justice
information. The corrections research carried out involves both pre- and
post-release experiences; service delivery systems are also designed for
offenders and ex-offenders.
84
-------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
The purpose of the Department of Labor (DOL) is to foster, promote
and develop the welfare of wage earners of the United States, to improve
their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profit-
able employment. It promulgates and enforces occupational safety and
health standards; collects and disseminates data in all facets of labor
economics; serves as a focal point for labor-management relations through
all sectors; administers employment standards dealing with overtime,
equal pay, age discrimination, affirmative action and other areas; and
oversees all of the Federal Government's employment programs. Adminis-
tration of these programs is funneled primarily through regional offices
established in the ten Standard Federal Regions.
State Departments of Labor, partially funded by DOL, are respon-
sible for the administration of the Employment Security programs in their
respective states, and for conducting specialized employment and training
programs for target groups. Many also enforce appropriate state laws
relating to occupational safety and health, child labor, workman's com-
pensation, and other areas. Most States maintain local public employ-
ment offices throughout the state to assist residents in finding employ-
ment, and to assist employers in locating suitable employees (over 2,400
have been established in the United States). These offices, in conjunc-
tion with the State and Federal Labor Departments, also participate in
analyses of current labor markets.
The following describes programs and activities within the DOL
Employment and Training Adnlini strati on which have potential relevance
to a national institutional farming program.
Employment and Training Administration
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is that component
of DOL with responsibilities for conducting certain work-experience
and work training programs; funding and overseeing programs conducted
under the provisions of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act
(CETA); administering the Federal-State Employment Security System;
and conducting a continuing program of research, development and eval-
uation.
A DOL Task Force for Rural Development, located in ETA, has recently
been formed at the request of the President to participate in the Execu-
tive rural policy effort. This group will attempt to ascertain how the
Department can best contribute to this rural effort, and to take steps
in dealing with these issues. Eventually the Task Force may develop
innovative projects, on an interagency basis, to demonstrate the potential
of rural programs.
The Employment and Training Administration has been involved with
offender research and development projects since 1963. This effort has
evolved from initial research and experimentation to the development and
85
-------
testing of programs models in selected areas, and finally, to promotion
and dissemination of approaches that have proven successful. ETA's
offender efforts have included training for employment; pre-trial inter-
vention; supported work projects; income assistance for releasees; and
bonding assistance. For a variety of reasons offenders programs have been
de-emphasized in recent years; however, there are some indications that
a forthcoming CETA amendment may place a higher priority on offender
programs than it has in the recent past.
As it stands, CETA is several ways encourages the development of
employment and training programs for offenders. Title III of CETA
(national programs) identifies offenders as one of the special target
groups requiring special attention at the Federal level, calling for the
development of information concerning the special needs of offenders
and efforts to increase employment opportunities for offenders. At the
State and local level, Title I of CETA encourages prime sponsors (recip-
ients of CETA funds) to establish "special model training and employment
programs and related services including services to offenders ..."
A brief synopsis of the CETA titles is as follows:
Title I: Grants to prime sponsors for comprehensive
manpower services including recruitment, orientation,
counseling, testing, placement, classroom instruction,
on-the-job training, allowances, supportive services,
and transitional public employment programs.
Title II: Grants to prime sponsors for programs of transi-
tional public service employment in areas of high un-
employment.
Title III: Grants for special target groups as autho-
rized under Titles I and II.
Title IV: Authorizes Job Corps, a residential program
of intensive education, training and counseling for
disadvantaged persons ages 16 through 21, operating at
60 centers nationally.
Title V: Establishes the National Commission for Manpower
Policy.
Title VI: Grants for emergency public employment programs
to augment Title II.
Title VII: General provisions.
Title VIII: Establishes Young Adult Conservation Corps,
providing jobs and training for disadvantaged youth in
conservation, wildlife and recreation.
86
-------
There are 445 prime sponsors nationwide; they are States, units
of local government with populations of 100,000 or more, or combinations
of local governments with populations of 100,000 or more. Those local
areas not qualifying as prime sponsors fall under the jurisdiction of
the "Balance of State". CETA provides prime sponsors maximum flexi-
bility in planning and operating their programs, within Federal guide-
lines.
87
-------
AGENCIES
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
The overall purpose of the Community Services Administration (CSA)
is to reduce poverty in America. It attempts to do so by helping low-
income families and individuals attain economic self-sufficiency. Agency
guidelines, revised annually, fix the incomes which qualify persons or
families, both rural and urban, for participation in antipoverty pro- '
grams. These programs seek to help the poor help themselves out of
poverty by providing educational and economic opportunity, and financial
support. CSA operates a regional office in each of the ten Standard
Federal Regions.
With the combined use of Federal, State and local funds, CSA sponsors
865 Community Action Agencies located in 2,210 counties throughout the
United States. Six basic programs operate under the community action
concept:
1) Local initiative: local funds used to support community
needs;
2) State Economic Opportunity Offices: advise Governors,
mobilize resources, and advocate for the poor;
3) Senior Opportunities and Services: projects provide
services for and with poor elderly persons and groups;
4) Community Food and Nutrition: programs provide funds
to assist local communities combat hunger and malnutri-
ti on;
5) Energy Conservation and Winterization: explores methods
of providing cheaper electric energy, and provides in-
sulation and other weatherproofing for the poor; and
6) Community Economic Development: operates mainly through
Community Development Corporations (CDC's), which are
resident-controlled and profit-oriented businesses for
low income persons. CDC's operate various businesses,
including manufacturing for toys, canoes, furniture,
blue jeans, and metal fabrication; shopping centers,
production and marketing cooperatives, franchises, indus-
trial parks, housing projects and land development, grocery
stores and supermarkets. They hire the poor, providing
training where needed, while seeking to run a profit-
making business that will eventually become self-sustaining.
Since 1976, CSA has funded the National Center for Appropriate Tech-
nology (NCAT) which addresses the need for small-scale technology as
solutions to the problems of the rising costs of energy, the increasing
shortages of non-renewable energy resources, and the continuing problem
of devising ways in which individuals and communities can become self-
sufficient and self-reliant. The primary mission of NCAT is the develop-
ment and application of technologies appropriate to the needs of low-income
88
-------
communities. During its first year of operation, the NCAT carried out a
wide range of activities, including the development of a National Informa-
tion Sharing Network for appropriate technology; developing a library,
hot line and clearinghouse for appropriate technology; organizing con-
ferences, and workshops on energy and appropriate technology; and pro-
viding outreach, education and training on small-scale technology to
Community Action Agencies, CDC's and low-income groups.
In addition to the NCAT, CSA has recently funded various other energy-
related projects. These include: weatherization and other energy conser-
vation programs; solar, wind and composting demonstrations; agricultural
energy reduction projects; energy-related economic development activities;
youth employment projects in energy-related fields; public policy research;
energy education; and consumer protection and advocacy.
CSA currently supports two offender programs: 1) a planning grant
towards the development of a statewide program for ex-offenders; and 2)
a rural program to give comprehensive pre- and post-release services for
offenders to facilitate adjustment and self-sufficiency. CSA also works
on a limited basis with LEAA for community crime prevention.
89
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The purpose of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to en-
hance the environment today and for future generations under laws enacted
by Congress. It enforces such laws in the control and abatement of pol-
lution in the areas of air, water, solid waste, toxic substances (inclu-
ding pesticides), noise and radiation.
Specific activities of EPA include research, monitoring, standard
setting, and enforcement; as well as coordinating with State and local
governments, public and private groups and individuals, and educational
institutions in their research and other antipollution activities. EPA
is represented by regional offices in each of the ten Standard Federal
Regions.
Most states now have designated environmental quality control depart-
ments that enforce applicable air and water pollution control laws. States
must demonstrate capability to carry out Federal law provisions before
being allowed to do so. Many of these agencies also have responsibilities
for pollution control from solid wastes, noise, and radiation - but in
some cases these are carried out by State Departments of Health. Similarly,
State Departments of Agriculture often carry out Federal/State pesticide
control provisions.
EPA's role and authority in pesticides stems from the Federal Insec-
ticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended in 1975. Among EPA's
authorities by this law are:
1) to classify pesticides by general and restricted use,
and require and administer the registration of all
pesticides;
2) to prescribe standards for the certification of appli-
cators, and establish standards for State certification
plans;
3) to issue experimental use permits;
4) to prohibit the distribution, sale or transportation
of unregistered pesticides, and the alteration of
_ pesticides or labels;
5) to issue "stop sale, use and removal" orders for
pesticides;
6) to establish regulations for the disposal or storage
of pesticides, and pesticide containers;
7) to set up a national monitoring plan; and
8) to conduct research to carry out the purposes of the
Act, giving emphasis to biologically integrated meth-
ods of control.
90
-------
This Act also directs EPA and States administering certification
plans to make IPM information available upon request to applicators and
other individuals. It may not be required that individuals seeking
certification receive instruction in IPM techniques.
In addition to supplying information to the public, the EPA Office
of Pesticide Programs is attempting to improve access to information
pertaining to pests, pest control methods, and IPM, and is developing im-
proved processes for the registration of pheromones, hormones and other
non-conventional means of pest control commonly employed in IPM strategies.
It is also exploring incentives for increased private sector involvement,
and has discussed the potential of incorporating IPM strategies into its
existing regulatory framework. Pursuant to the President's request for
a national IPM strategy, EPA is working cooperatively with USDA, CEQ, and
other public and private agencies to help formulate such a strategy.
Through another interagency cooperative arrangement, EPA is working
with USDA on a Model Implementation Program to demonstrate united efforts
to clean up water quality problems caused by non-point water pollution
sources (including sediments from croplands, forests, road and stream
banks; animal wastes from feedlots and pastures; and nutrients and pesti-
cides from agricultural lands). EPA, which has primary responsibility
for the control of non-point pollution under Section 208 of the 1972 Amend-
ments to the Clean Water Act, has overseen areawide and State water quality
management agency plan development. Under the Model Implementation Plan,
seven model farm projects were selected to implement comprehensive pro-
grams. They will be overseen by EPA and USDA cooperatively.
91
-------
OTHER POTENTIAL PUBLIC AGENCY PARTICIPANTS
As previously discussed, there are numerous Federal, State and local
agencies which could have useful tie-ins with institutional farming proj-
ects - but their potential linkages cannot be ascertained until specific
goals and objectives are established for each program developed. Their
involvement (or lack thereof) would vary with such factors as population(s)
served, geographical location, type(s) and diversity of land on each spe-
cific institution, and special services and programs offered (e.g., various
supportive services to offenders and ex-offenders).
The following list represents a sampling of Federal agencies with
such potential involvement, along with State/local counterparts, and the
potential roles of these agencies in a national program. The State and
local counterparts are usually related to their corresponding Federal
agencies through funding, goals, and activities. In some cases, though,
the non-Federal agencies may be financially independent from the Federal
Government, though similar in goals and/or programs to their listed Federal
counterparts.
FEDERAL STATE/LOCAL
/
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Conservation & State & County Committees
Stabilization Service
£01 e.nviA.onmewtat control
and con&eAvcution o tand&
Forest Service State & Local Forestry
Agencies
Te.ckyu.cal. oAAiAtance. in
manage.me.nt
92
-------
FEDERAL
STATE/LOCAL
Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
puh&ic.
and ioam>;
Community Affairs/
Development Agencies
Office of Minority Business Enterprise
A6.6-c6-tance to minority ex-o
Department of Defense
po&t>4.blLe. avaJJtaJoJLiL unuA&d Land,
Local military installa
tions
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Office of Human Development
Su.ppovti.ve.
State & Area Agencies on
Aging; Local Senior Centers;
Youth Service Agencies;
Native American Programs;
Vocational Rehabilitation;
Offices for Handicapped
Services
population*
Public Health Service
State and Local Health De-
partments and Clinics;
Regional Health Systems
Agencies; State and Local
Drug and Alcohol Abuse
Agencies and Programs;
Mental Health Centers
and
93
-------
FEDERAL STATE/LOCAL
Social Security Administration State & Local SSA offices
Information to quaLi&ie.d ex-o^ende/ti re.gar.ding
AeA.v4.cu/fiu.nci!> available.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Housing
Low income, housing aA&ibtance.
Department of the Interior
United States Fish and Fish and Game/Wildlife
Wildlife Service ' Commissions
Te.ckni.cal
National Park Service State & Local Park Agen-
cies
TQ.ckni.caJi aA&i&tance.; envifionmentaJi education
ACTION State & Local Volunteer
Coordination Agencies
Coordination ofi volunteer, program*
Appalachian Regional Commission
Support to/cooperations witk programs within i
13-Atate. area oft jurisdiction
*0f special note is that the National Capital Region of the National Park
Service is developing, in cooperation with the Department of Energy, a
handbook on low-energy maintenance of park areas. It will include such
areas as pest management,-composting of wastes, plant selection, irrigation,
pond maintenance, mowing, and park design.
94
-------
FEDERAL
STATE/LOCAL
National Science Foundation
TecA*u.co£
; te.c.knica£ i
4ouA.ce
Small Business Administration
Loan* & otheA aAAi&tancn to
wishing to zbtab-Li&k bmoJUL
Tennessee Valley Authority
Support and cooperation to
£ti> ge.ogsia.pkic.cii.
within
Veterans Administration
Support 4eAvM.ce6 to vvteAan
VA Offices, Hospitals and
Centers, State & Local
Veterans Service Programs
and
95
-------
ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
-------
ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
Land-Grant Institutions
Every State in the U.S., and Puerto Rico, maintains one State institu-
tion of higher education as a "land-grant institution." The land-grant sys-
tem was initiated 116 years ago through Federal legislation. Since that
time, USDA funds have been parceled to the States through the Hatch Act for
the land-grant schools, based upon farm population and outputs.
As land-grant institutions, their missions are research, education and
public service. Supplied with Federal, State, local and sometimes private
funds, these institutions house the Cooperative Extension Services and the
Agricultural Experiment Stations. Colleges of Agriculture focus en offer-
ing four-year and advanced degree programs in all aspects of the food and
agricultural sciences - including entomology, plant pathology, and often
specifically in pest management. Some additionally offer agricultural ed-
ucation programs at the two-year level.
Land-grant institutions' programs and services are not limited to agri-
culture. Most also house Colleges of Engineering; Arts and Sciences; Busi-
ness; Education and others.
Other Four-Year Advanced Degree Institutions
Agricultural education and services are not strictly limited to the
land-grant institutions. Many viable and comprehensive agriculturally
related curricula are offered by non-land-grant colleges and universities -
both public and private. While some do offer actual agricultural educational
curricula, many offer related programs such as environmental health, con-
servation, environmental and agricultural engineering, water resources, and
toxicology; along with their other diverse educational offerings.
99
-------
Many of these institutions conduct research supported by funds from
such sources as USDA (on a competitive basis), EPA, the National Science
Foundation, State and local groups, and private industry. Public service
activities vary from the conduct of conferences and seminars for the pub-
lic and special interest groups, to on-site technical assistance and
troubleshooting.
Two-Year Institutions
The number of public community and junior colleges has increased by
about 50 percent in the last fifteen years. These schools, along with
offering basic educational development and prebaccalaureate degree pro-
grams, usually also offer a number of terminal degree career programs.
A large number of these schools'offer such programs in agriculture, or
specialized agricultural areas. Related programs in environmental tech-
nology (including air, soil, and water sampling and analysis; and water
and wastewater treatment) are available, and several pest control pro-
grams (urban and/or agricultural) have been identified.
Public community and junior colleges typically stress, along with
V
their educational/training curricula, adult and continuing education,
and other forms of public services. Credit and non-credit courses are
often offered for the public, as well as wide array of workshops, seminars
and short courses.
Post-secondary vocational and technical schools offer two-year (or
less) programs intended for direct o'ccupational entry. Like community
and junior colleges, some offer training programs in agriculture and re-
lated fields- as well as a variety of short courses and adult/continuing
education programs.
100
-------
PRIVATE SECTOR
-------
PRIVATE SECTOR
The involvement of the private sector at many levels could be crucial
to a national institutional farming project's success or demise. Its in-
put could come through technical assistance and support, publicity, and
other cooperative efforts.
National associations have at their disposal a wide array of experts
who, individually or collectively, could provide recommendations in proj-
ect design and implementation; assist in gaining widespread recognition
and support to the project; and possibly provide direct technical assis-
tance. Some of these national organizations identified as being related
to or having potential involvement with an institutional farming project
are:
Agricultural Council of America
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association for Extension Education
American Association for Higher Education
American Association of Agricultural College Editors
American Association of Community and Junior Colleges
American Association of Institutional Farm Supervisors
American Association of Retired Persons/National Retired
Teachers Association
American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture
American Bar Association
American Chemical Society
American Correctional Association
American Corrective Therapy Association
American Rehabilitation Counseling Association
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
American Vocational Association
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Association of Community College Trustees
Association of Private Colleges and Universities
Crop Science Society of America
Entomological Society of America
Intersociety Consortium on Plant Protection
National Academy of Education
National Agricultural Chemicals Association
National Association for Environmental Education
National Association of Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture
National Association of County Agricultural Agents
National Association of Farmworkers Organizations
103
-------
National Association of Industrial and Technical Education
Teachers
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges
National Association of State Units of Agriculture
National Association of Trade and Technical Schools
National Education Association
National Vocational Agricultural Teachers' Association
National Wildlife Association
Rural Education Association
Public Offender Counselor Association
A number of these associations have State and/or local chapters which
could be of equal value. States and localities may additionally have their
own groups and associations which would have interest in an institutional
farming/gradening project such as horticultural societies, farmers' markets,
farmers' cooperatives, and growers associations, organic gardening/farming
associations, churches, chambers of commerce, and other civic groups.
. Local businesses that may have interest in and wish to cooperate with
an institutional program include nurseries and seed distributors, environ-
mental and agricultural consultants and laboratories, recycling centers,
chemical outlets, newspapers and television stations - as well as the local
farmers. Industries with potential tie-ins include utilities, chemical and
equipment manufacturers, water and waste treatment facilities, and any other
industries with potentially recyclable waste products.
104
-------
POTENTIAL
PROJECT
COMPONENTS
-------
POTENTIAL PROJECT COMPONENTS
i
The majority of the potential project components have been covered
in some manner in previous chapters. This section will serve to sum-
marize these activities and projects which were recommended by inter-
viewed officials, identified through literature review, and/or success-
fully implemented during the Memphis project.
At the present time, it is impossible to specify specific IPM, eco-
agricultural or other techniques which would be appropriate for each in-
stitutional project that might be initiated. Such specifics would nec-
essarily depend upon several factors, including crops grown, pest prob-
lems, soil types, weather and climate conditions, acreage, the size and
population of the institution, the priorities of the participants, and
the resources available. Moreover, implementation of one component may
preclude another, e.g., composting of manure for fields, or its use as an
energy source.
The following, then, as the chapter heading states, consists of po-
tential project components identified during the course of this study. It
is not intended to be limiting, but as a base for further discussion, as
other viable ideas may emerge in the future. The potential components in-
cluded here are presented by major topic areas.
IPM/Eco-Agriculture
While these two areas are basic to the intents of an institutional
project as it is now envisioned, for reasons stated earlier it would be
less than meaningful to recommend specific techniques for future projects.
Such techniques should be selected upon all information available, specific
to pests, crops, weather, etc. It has been suggested that before plans
107
-------
and projects are initiated, it would be wise to work with the Soil
Conservation Service in the development of an area conservation plan
to obtain a total perspective.
It would be important for project participants to identify and
draw upon all resources available, such as Extension IPM experts, pri-
vate consultants, local farmers (eco-farmers dp_ exist throughout the
country), and college/university faculty and students (internship
arrangements could possibly be made). Several universities have on-
line computer systems for IPM, designed to use current information from
the field, plus historical information and data gathered from scientific
experiments, in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of
pest management techniques. While these are essentially in their formative
stages, they could be very useful to the IPM practitioner in the insti-
tutional setting.
These practitioners, in order to make the institutional farms.true
demonstration areas for up-to-date IPM and eco-agricultural techniques,
would do well to keep abreast of all relevant current research results
coming from the Federal Government, universities, and private researchers.
Working in conjunction with these researchers could also prove very fruit-
ful, and "technology transfer" arrangements could be made, i.e., attempts
to pass techniques demonstrated under controlled research conditions to
real agricultural conditions.
Depending upon a specific project's stated objectives, other types of
agriculturally related applied research and demonstration projects could be
carried out in conjunction with an institutional project. Several suggest-
ions are:
108
-------
-controlled studies on the economic comparisons
of IPM/eco-agricultural vs. conventional tech-
niques, on a plot-by-plot basis; and
-studies and applications of adapting production
methods to be more self-satisfying.
In a more commercial vein, it has also been suggested that agri-
cultural operations be linked with, in some way,_ existing prison in-
dustries programs. The possibility of this would vary with the type of
institution and the laws governing its sale of products (or produce) on
the open market (discussed in Additional Considerations), along with
other factors. With adequate land, equipment and labor, it could be
possible for an institution to meet most of its own food needs and have
surplus for sale on the open market. Or, smaller operations could be
similarly commercialized, such as worm farming or beekeeping.
Whatever the specific agriculturally related activities chosen for a
particular project, it has been emphasized that the entire farming opera-
tion should be considered - including both crops and livestock - to achieve
the best balance between environmental, energy, health and economic factors,
Gardening/Horticulture
Many ideas were offered regarding gardening/horticulture projects.
With regard to gardening on institutional land, suggested participants in-
cluded community youths and their families, elderly persons, inmates and
their families, and mentally and physically handicapped persons. Specific
activities here could include providing training to participants on garden-
ing techniques along with classes in related areas such as nutrition, can-
ning, and freezing; soliciting support from local volunteers, high school
and college students; and establishing liaisons with local food fairs for
those gardeners wishing to sell their produce.
109
-------
To help expand the concept community-wide, project participants
could work with other individuals and groups in establishing additional
gardening programs within nearby cities. These could be on land owned
by churches, nursing homes, hospitals and other institutions, as well as
on city- or county-owned acreage. The populations served would vary with
the goals and purposes of the land owner. With proper staff, nursing
homes, hospitals and similar institutions could establish comprehensive
hortitherapy programs. While the project's staff could assist in setting
up other such community gardening programs, it would probably be most
feasible to help these other programs reach self-sufficiency as soon as
possible.
An institutional gardening project could make use of (or possibly •
establish) a "hotline" such as has been implemented by faculty members of
the University of Georgia College of Agriculture. This toll free Dial-A-
Gardener program covers about twelve counties, and offers 44 three-minute
tapes to give the calling gardener information on insects, diseases,
cultural practices and other relevant topics.
Several officials suggested the possibility of the construction of
greenhouses for wintertime vegetable .growing, or for raising flowers. They
could be heated with alternate energy sources, such as solar or manure
compost, or be designed for specific populations such as the handicapped,
as a public service. Other sources have noted that greenhouses may not be
feasible because of the expense to construct and operate, and they suggested
relying upon propagation chambers.
A_ related possible activity concerns lawn care and design. Based upon
available resources and expertise, institutional lawns could be designed and
maintained in the most energy-efficient manner available - while promoting
the use of techniques by other institutions/agencies, and the general public.
110
-------
Energy Conversion/Conservation
This area overlaps a good deal with the two areas above, as IPM, eco-
agriculture and alternative lawn care represent energy-conserving measures.
Other energy conservation strategies could include adding insulation to
farm buildings, assuring proper functioning of all farm equipment, combin-
ing field operations when possible, and reducing tillage when appropriate.
On-farm energy production possibilities include the use of animal and
crop residues as energy sources for heating buildings and drying crops;
the use of solar apparatuses for the heating of buildings and water, and for
crop drying; and the construction of wind turbines for electricity and
pumping water. In some cases, small hydropower projects may be feasible.
Again, each situation varies, and it would be important for project parti-
cipants to draw upon all expertise available for decision-making and proj-
ect implementation.
Corrections
In addition to involving the offender in many of the above potential
components, it has been suggested that a worthwhile and viable option
would be to train selected inmates for IPM-related occupations. This has
been detailed in the chapter "Skills for the IPM Practitioner". A sugges-
tion in this chapter is that curricula be structured flexibly, allowing
the inmates to choose among levels of training, and about the nature of
training. For example, one offender may prefer to specialize strictly in
IPM, while another may want additional knowledge and experience in all phases
of farm production. Other recommendations concerning training have included:
-working with prime sponsors to make use of CETA
and/or job placement;
111
-------
-emphasizing, along with formal training, OJT and/or
work-study off of the institution, and providing
for follow-up training;
-making use of a variety of resources; e.g., community
college and university programs, students and
faculty, guest lecturers, audio-visuals, etc.
An additional training possibility would be to work with the Department of
Energy in establishing its solar installer training program at the insti-
tution.
Some have suggested that research and demonstration projects concern-
ing the offender could be conducted by public or private research bodies in
conjunction with an IPM/eco-agricultural project. These could include
follow-up studies on released inmates who were provided training, studies
concerning the effectiveness of other supportive services, or as suggested
by one official, the implementation of a penalty alternative program in
which offenders, particularly youth, are given the choice of either incar-
ceration, or service to the farm or garden area.
Outreach/Promotion
A very important factor for a successful program is obtaining the sup-
port and cooperation of the community-at-large, as well as special interest
groups, local government, and private organizations. This was clearly demon-
strated during the Memphis project in which outreach and promotional efforts
resulted in donations of equipment, vehicles, seeds, expert advice, and
other goods and services.
Suggestions for such efforts include:
-speaking before local civic organizations, youth
groups, schools and other organizations;
112
-------
•paying personal visits to key public officials
as well as local farmers and business and
industry representatives;
•contacting and preparing new releases for news-
papers and TV stations about the project; and
•inviting guest speakers, and opening the talks
to the public.
113
-------
ADDITIONAL
CONSIDERATIONS
-------
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The great majority of those interviewed during the course of this
study expressed much enthusiasm regarding the merits of an institutional
IPM/eco-agricultural project. Many felt that a unique and exceptional
aspect is that such a project has the potential of providing benefits
to a number of disciplines. Of special interest is the fact that many
appeared to be as enthused concerning its contributions to another disci-
pline, as to their own. Also evident from the interview process was
that an institutional project as proposed, or components of such a pro-
gram, fit in very well with the goals and objectives of a variety of
agencies.
Several of the interviewed officials pointed out potential obstacles
to the successful implementation of an institutional program and/or
suggested areas .for further research or study.-.before actual project
implementation, which were not within the scope of this study. This
chapter will present and discuss the potential obstacles to an insti-
tutional program, as brought forth by interviewed officials, and convey
their recommendations for further research.
Potential Obstacles
1. Placement of Trainees:
A. The job market for IPM and other agricultural skills may
not be good enough to justify the development of training
programs in these areas.
B. Many IPM/agricultural jobs are seasonal in nature.
C. Farmers may not be willing to hire former inmates.
117
-------
Discussion: These potential problems would definitely need to
be dealt with before embarking upon offender training programs. Pro-
viding training for inmates in occupations with little chance of per-
manent full-time employment would defeat the purpose of the program and
probably would be worse than providing no training at all.
Throughout this report it has been emphasized that local job market
surveys must be carried out before training program development, to
determine what IPM/agricultural skills, if any, are in demand, and
to structure the programs accordingly. Also at the local level, it may
be wise to survey potential employers concerning their receptivity to
hiring ex-offenders, and about other factors such as wages, opportuni-
ties for advancement, specific job requirements, and seasonal character-
istics, if any, of the jobs.
It also may be wise, for initial planning purposes, to perform a
similar national survey before specific localities are selected. Such
a survey should help indicate which geographical areas would be best
for locating programs, for placement purposes. It should also be
helpful in identifying viable job training programs, and in elimin-
ating wasted efforts at the local level.
2. Economic Feasibility:
A. It may be more economical for institutions to buy their
food, while leasing their land to local farmers, as raising
their own food may cause extra expenses for additional
guards, more equipment, etc.
B. Implementing IPM and eco-agricultural techniques may prove
less cost-efficient than conventional methods.
C. Many institutional farms may be located on poor land for
agricultural purposes, and may be located far from any
population centers.
118
-------
Discussion: Presently available information is not adequate to
verify or disprove the potential of these obstacles arising. Recent
research suggests that organic farming, while somewhat less productive
than conventional farming, is as cost-efficient as conventional due to
lower production costs. However, to what extent these findings can be
generalized to all geographical areas or to institutional farms in par-
ticular, is questionable. Further, although the need for extra equip-
ment and other resources depends to a large extent upon the ingenuity
and innovativeness of the project staff (as evidenced during the Memphis
project), little is known about the resources and resource constraints
of correctional farms in general, or about their management practices.
It has been suggested that a more in-depth study of correctional
farms may be in order before delving deeply into a national project.
Such a survey could include management practices, philosophies (e.g.,
rehabilitation or punishment), soil fertility and other land character-
istics, financial constraints and other relevant factors. Further
research could be carried out on the economics of IPM and scientific
ecological farming techniques, and based upon results of the above
survey, an analysis could be 'made regarding the project's economic
feasibility.
Several additional comments are in order. First, an underlying phil-
osophy of IPM and scientific ecological agriculture is that the strategies
are flexible, and adaptable according to economic and other considerations.
Second, while a survey and analysis such as were described above could
be very useful for initial decision-making purposes, only actual demon-
stration can prove or disprove an idea's feasibility or non-feasibility.
Although the Memphis project showed economic viability, its duration
119
-------
was not long enough to justify reaching firm conclusions or making
generalizations. Therefore, project policy-makers may be wise to start
small, and expand when positive economic results have been indicated.
3. Sale of Produce:
A. Local farmers may resent competition from a public
institution.
B. Many States have laws forbidding prison industries which
compete with private enterprise.
Discussion: The sale on the open market of institutional farms'
produce is not a necessary factor for the development of institutional
farming projects. However, it may be worthwhile to include, along with
the previously mentioned surveys, a study concerning -potential problems
that could arise in this regard, including farmers' and unions' attitudes,
as well as concerning relevant State and Federal laws.
4. IPM policy within and among Federal agencies, as well as
with other public and private groups, is only in its forma-
tive stages.
Discussion: This potential obstacle is somewhat difficult to
address by an outside observer. However, it seems that a cooperative
arrangement by Federal agencies as well as State and local, and private
groups for an institutional project would facilitate the formation of
formal policies. Additionally, the subject of scientific ecological
agriculture, which currently receives much less attention than IPM,
may necessarily be addressed from a policy standpoint as a result of a
cooperative institutional project. Perhaps an assist to Federal agencies
and other potential project participants would be a detailed analysis of
all Federal legislation pertaining to IPM and eco-agriculture.
120
-------
Areas For Further Research
In response to Potential Obstacles:
1. A national survey on employment opportunities in IPM
and related areas.
2. A national survey on attitudes of potential employers
towards the hiring of ex-offenders.
3. A national survey on correctional institutions, on
such factors as land characteristics, crops and pests,
management practices, philosophies, etc.
4. An analysis of probable economic effects on institu-
tions of an IPM/eco-agricultural program.
5. A survey of all State and Federal laws and policies
relating to institutional farming, sale of produce,
inmate wages, and other relevant factors.
6. A survey of unions and farmers on their attitudes
towards the sale of produce by institutional farms.
7. A survey and analysis of Federal legislation rele-
vant to IPM/eco-agriculture - especially as these
laws impact the roles of Federal agencies.
Other suggested further research:
1. A survey on other institutional land, e.g., Department
of Defense, hospitals, geriatric facilities, that
could be used for gardening/farming programs.
2. A comprehensive survey of all curriculum materials
developed either by institutions or under grants/
contracts in support of both IPM and eco-agricultural
techniques.
3. Convene a working conference of identified author-
ities in the IPM and eco-agricultural fields to
identify gaps in existing curricular offerings and
develop plans for filling such gaps.
4. A more detailed analysis of potential private sector
and academic community participants.
121
-------
PLAN of ACTION
-------
PLAN OF ACTION
One of the objectives of this study was to develop a procedural
program leading to the utilization of institutional farms as IPM demon-
stration models. Previous chapters have identified: those IPM tech-
niques and procedures applicable in the institutional farm setting;
individuals and offices within Federal agencies with activities paral-
leling the field of IPM; and, individual skill sets required in the
successful application of IPM.
With the completion of this study sufficient interest has been
identified in the various agencies to warrant the development of a coor-
dinated program for implementing an institutional program on a large
scale. In the process of conducting the interviews, ideas were solic-
ited as to the manner in which such a large scale program could be imple-
mented. The following suggestions regarding procedure were consistently
received and recorded.
1. Conduct an institutional study.
2. Establish an interagency advisory group.
3. Involve the private sector and the academic community.
4. Develop a long range budget.
5. Establish realistic timelines.
6. Provide technical assistance and support personnel.
The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to an elaboration
of these suggestions.
125
-------
Conduct an Institutional Study
Throughout both the Memphis project and this current project,
researchers at National Field Research Center in general, and the authors
in particular, have received requests for information concerning in-
volvement in any prototype projects. A study conducted by the EPA
intern, previously described, elicited a great deal of interest on the
part of particular institutions.
An integral part of any future work in the area must provide more
detailed information on the institutions to be involved, with all insti-
tutions informed of the possibilities. Responding institutions should
be categorized according to such factors as acreage under cultivation,
climatic conditions, type of institution, availability of educational
support systems, legal constraints imposed on such projects, and evi-
denced desire on the part of appropriate officials.
The results of such a study could be the development of a broad
range, rank ordered listing of potential project participants.
Establish an Interagency Advisory Group
It is clear from the previous chapters that many agencies have
shown interest in participating in a large scale institutional program.
It was clear in the interview process that the persons involved were
sincere in this desire and that many recognized a responsibility, often
unmet, for working with either institutions, offenders or farming
practices.
In bringing a national program to reality, it will be necessary
to "officially" involve those agencies expressing interest. Such
"official" involvement will necessitate establishing a responsible body
126
-------
in charge. Depending upon one's choice of words, this group might be
called a steering committee, a task force, an interagency advisory group,
or some other title.
The authors of this report have chosen to call this responsible
body an interagency advisory group. While the name applied is not of
critical concern, the authority to act is. National Field Research
Center has a long history in developing interagency agreements and has
found through that experience that it is crucial to such a program's
development to have persons involved who are in a position to actually
speak for the agency they represent. Any interagency program will lag
if the persons on the central work groups serve merely as couriers of
information. Other necessary characteristics of participants include
the fact that they be supportive of the concept, have some degree of
time flexibility to attend meetings and be thoroughly knowledgeable of
their own agencies' rules and regulations. (Rules and regulations are
important, but of equal importance is the knowledge that a totally new
program is being embarked upon and will demand a degree of flexibility
which only a knowledgeable person can provide.)
The core interagency advisory group, the formation of which should
be backed by formal written interagency agreements, should consist of
representatives from the following agencies:
- Department of Agriculture
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Department of Justice
- Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(Office of Education)
- Department of Energy
- Department of Labor
127
-------
The lead agency in this task should initially be the Department of
Agriculture by virtue of the nature and design of the program. This is
not meant to downgrade the role of the other agencies listed (nor of
those not listed in the core group), but rather to recognize both the
reality of the situation and the directed goals of the program.
Surrounding this core group should be all of the other agencies.
expressing an interest in being a part of such a project. These include,
but certainly are not limited to, the following:
- Community Services Administration
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Office of Technology Assessment
- Private Sector
- Academic Community
As with the designation of the lead agency of the core group, it
is not the intent to denigrate the potential role of this latter listing,
but to recognize that the signed, formal interagency agreements would be
practically impossible to secure. It will be time consuming enough to
get such agreements from the core group agencies. It should be sufficient
to have letters of intent filed by these groups with the interagency
advisory group.
In summary, at the outset, it would appear that the configuration
on the following page could be used to depict the advisory group.
Involve Private Sector and Academic Community
At the outset, it should be recognized that a primary function of
the advisory group will be to draw guidelines and generate resources
to provide every possible assurance of program success. It should also
128
-------
PROPOSED INTERAGENCY ADVISORY GROUP CONFIGURATION *
Department
of
Agriculture
* See preceding page for discussion.
** Other interested agencies as evidenced by letter of intent.
129
-------
be recognized that there is a lot more to resource generation than just
providing a sum of money to the institution.
Using the Memphis project as only one example, the authors found
case after case of the willingness of both the private sector and the
academic community to become involved. Initially, seeds, tools, fertil-
izer and other forms of support were forthcoming from the private sector.
This was followed by technical assistance and demonstrations from seed
and fertilizer companies, from private commercial composting firms and
from equipment manufacturers. In work completed since the Memphis
project, it remains evident that there is a genuine desire on the part
of the private sector to become involved.
Additionally, personnel from the universities and technical insti-
tutions in the area were most willing, even desirous, of becoming in-
volved in the Memphis project. They proved most helpful when assistance
was needed in technical aspects of lagoon construction, in developing
educational materials and in working with local elected officials, to
name just a few examples.
It should thus become a major responsibility of the advisory group
to provide for the involvement of these extremely important support
groups.
Develop a Long Range Budget
Definitely not to be overlooked in the process is the necessity
for marshaling the necessary financial resources to provide a reason-
able opportunity for program success. One of the initial tasks of the
advisory group should be to develop basic financial projections for at
least a five year period. One of the primary goals of the project will
130
-------
be to lead the involved institutions in the direction of economic
self-sufficiency - which will not happen in a one- or two-year period.
In most cases, the land on which institutions are located is the poorest,
from a farming perspective, that could be found. Additionally, with
the demise of "hard labor" operations, much of the land that was once
usable has been allowed to lie fallow and leach out, with little attempt
being made to maintain it in a productive mode.
Success of the overall program will depend to a great extent upon
the ability of the advisory group to draw sound financial plans and
guidelines for implementing them. Initial funds will of necessity come
from agency budgets. Given preliminary indications of program success,
subsequent funds can be appropriated.
Establish Realistic Timelines
The situation confronted with institutional farming, the ambitious
goals of the program, and the numerous agencies involved mandate the
development of a sound, realistic implementation process. Not all insti-
tutions desiring to participate at the outset will be able to due to
technicalities in State laws; due to budgetary constraints; or due to
the inability of the advisory group to handle such a massive undertaking
in its initial stages of development.
It will therefore be an initial responsibility of the committee
to draw up guidelines for participation, making plans for program expan-
sion over a number of years - phasing new institutions into the program
and, where appropriate, phasing older programs out.
It is suggested that the initial planning stages for this under-
taking will consume from twelve to fifteen months, contingent upon such
131
-------
factors as securing interagency agreements, budgetary cycles and time
of year to appropriately take advantage of planting cycles. Institu-
tional studies must be completed and guidelines for participation must
be developed during this preliminary phase.
Provide Technical Assistance and Support Personnel
Technical assistance and support personnel are necessary ingredients
to program success in both the preliminary phase and the implementation
phase. It is unrealistic to think that in spite of good intentions or
desires, designees from the various agencies previously described can
spend the time necessary to set up a program of this nature in addition
to carrying out the responsibilities encumbent upon them with their
current position. Initially, assistance must be secured in the form of
contract personnel under the direction of the Department of Agriculture
to carry out the formative tasks, i.e., institutional study, development
of prototype interagency agreements, and drawing up preliminary work
plans.
As the program progresses, technical assistance will be needed to
carry out the mandates of the advisory group, to monitor institutional
operations, and to assist in securing appropriate expertise to bring to
to bear on identified problems within each participating institution.
In many cases, as pointed out under the section of this chapter on the
involvement of the private sector and the academic community, the tech-
nical assistance and support personnel exist right in the area of the
institution - almost certainly within the State. It will be an additional
responsibility of the committee to provide the necessary technical assis-
tance to the institution to secure this support from these elements.
132
-------
Reports must be developed, technical assistance bulletins developed,
and materials disseminated to interested and involved agencies, insti-
tutions and individuals. All of these materials are needed to provide
for program continuation, growth, and goal attainment. The advisory
group should be charged with the responsibility for making provisions
for these activities.
Finally, continual monitoring and evaluation of each institution's
progress toward goal attainment; be it education and training of inmates,
economic self-sufficiency, job placement at the end of incarceration or
a combination of these factors, must be provided for by the advisory
group. The wise and appropriate use of financial resources will become
the responsibility of the granting/contracting agency with assistance
from the advisory group.
133
-------
{BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agreement between U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency on Rural Clean Water Program Design. Public Law
92-500, Section 208 (j), 25 April 1978.
American Bar Association. National Pretrial Intervention Service Center.
Directory of Criminal Justice Diversion Programs. Washington, D.C.:
National Pretrial Intervention Service Center, April 1975.
American Bar Association. Section of Criminal-Justice. Project:
ADVpCATE (Attorneys Donating Volunteer Services to Ex-Offenders).
Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association.
American Correctional Association. ACA in Action. College Park, MD:
American Correctional Association.
American Correctional Association. Directory. College Park, MD:
American Correctional Association, 1978.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. An American Success Story -
Increasing Agricultural Productivity. St. Joseph, Michigan:
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1976.
Andrilenas, P.A.; Ridgway, R.L.; and Starler, N.H. Extent of Use, Costs,
and Trends in the Control of Plant Pests: Insects. Washington,
D.C.: Crop Science Society of America, 1977.
Apple, J. Lawrence, and Smith, Ray F. (eds.). Integrated Pest Manage-
ment. New York: Plenum Press, 1976."
Aversa, Francis M. Report of a Pilot Study of Pests. Pesticides and
Safety for the Private Applicator. Lincoln, Nebraska: Office of
Marketing and Information, University of Mid-America, (1977).
Bagley, W.E.; Buxkemper, W.E.; Frisbie, R.E.; Lacewell, R.D.; Norman,
J.W.; Parker, R.D.; and Sprott, J.M. "A Practical Method of
Economically Evaluating an Operational Cotton Pest Management
Program in Texas." Journal of Economic Entomology. April 1976.
Berry, Joyce S. A Hortitherapy Program for Substance Abusers. Clemson,
SC: The South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Clemson
University, 1975.
Brightman, Carol. "The CETA Factor." Working Papers. May-June 1978.
Burrows, William C.; Nelson, Leon F.; and Stickler, Fred C. Energy -
From Sun, to Plant, to Man. Deere and Company, 1975.
Carrillo, J.L.; King, E.G.; and Ridgway, R.L. "Augmentation of Natural
Enemies for Control of Plant Pests in the Western Hemisphere."
Biological Control by Augmentation of Natural Enemies (1977). New
York: Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1977.
137
-------
Coleman, Eliot, and Tischbein, Heather. Manual on biological farming
soon to be released. Harborside, ME: Small Farm Research
Association, Greenwood Farm.
Concern, Inc. The Concerned Gardener — Environmental Projects at Home
and in the Community. Washington, D.C.: Concern, Inc., 1978.
Council on Environmental Quality. Integrated Pest Management. Washing-
ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, November 1972.
Council on Environmental Quality. Solar Energy - Progress and Promise.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978.
Croft, B.A.; Howes, J.L.; Welch, S.M. "A Computer-based, Extension Man-
agement Delivery System." Environmental Entomology. February 1976.
Cutler, Dr. M. Rupert. "I'm in Support of Chemical Control." Farm
Chemicals. March 1978.
DeBach, Paul. Biological Controls by Natural Enemies. Cambridge:
University Press, 1974.
Downs, Charles R. Of Pests and People - A Report on the Pesticide Research
Center, Michigan State University. Center for Environmental Quality.
Energy Policy for the U.S. Food System - A Subpart of a National Energy
Policy. Engineering Foundation/American Society of Agricultural En-
gineers. Pacific Grove, CA. 6-11 February 1977.
Federal Energy Administration. Office of Industrial Programs. Energy Con-
servation in the Food System - A Publications List, by Booz, Allen,
and Hamilton, Inc. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976.
Federal Energy Administration. Office of Industrial Programs. Energy in
U.S. Agriculture: Compendium of Energy Research Projects, by Jim
Rathwell and Gwendolyn Gales. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1976.
(
Federal Extension Service. A 1976 Report of the Status of State-Based
Model IPM Projects. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, (1976).
Flint, Mary Louise, and van den Bosch, Robert. A Source on Integrated
Pest Management. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Office of Environmental Education, (1977).
Gilreath, Phyllis R. A Hortitherapy Program for the Visually Handicapped.
Clemson, SC: The South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station,
Clemson University, 1976.
Gilreath, Phyllis R., and Olson, Adele P. Hortitherapy Van: Design,
Equipment and Use. Clemson, SC: The South Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station, Clemson University, 1976.
138
-------
Hardcastle, Harold. "An Aerial Applicator's View of IPM." Farm
Chemicals. March 1978.
Hiott, Jo Ann. A Hortitherapy Program for the Mentally Handicapped.
Clemson, SC: The South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station,
Clemson University, 1975.
Huffaker, C.B. (ed.). Biological Control. New York: Plenum, 1971.
Huffaker, C.B., and Messenger, P.S. (eds.). Theory and Practice of
Biological Control. New York: Academic Press, 1976.
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. An Integrated Pest
Management Primer. Gainesville: University of Florida.
Jellinek, Steven D. "Industry Shouldn't Feel Threatened Over IPM."
Farm Chemicals. March 1978.
King's Fund Hospital Centre Conference. "Gardening for Rehabilitation."
British Hospital Journal and Social Science Review. May 9, 1969.
Klepper, Robert; Lockeretz, William; Commoner, Barry; Gertler, Michael;
Fast, Sarah; O'Leary, Daniel; and Blobaum, Roger. "Economic
Performance and Energy Intensiveness on Organic and Conventional
Farms in the Corn Belt: A Preliminary Comparison." American
Journal of Agricultural Economics. February 1977.
Knake, Ellery L. "Catching Butterflies with Bear Traps." Farm
Chemicals. March 1978.
Lipinsky, E.S. "Fuels from Biomass: Integration with Food and
Materials Systems." Science 199 (February 1978).
Lockeretz, William; Shearer, Georgia; Klepper, Robert; and Sweeney,
Susan. "Field Crop Production on Organic Farms in the Midwest."
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. May-June 1978.
Menninger, Rosemary. Community Gardens in California. Sacramento,
California: Office of Planning and Research, and Office of
Appropriate Technology, 1977.
Michigan State University. Report of the Pesticide Research Center.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1974.
Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service. "On-Line
Pest Management of Selected Field and Vegetable Crops." MSU
Ag Facts. August 1975.
National Academy of Sciences. Contemporary Pest Control Practices and
Prospects: The Report of the Executive Committee, vol. 1 of Pest
Control: An Assessment of Present and Alternate Technologies.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1975.
139
-------
National Center for Appropriate Technology. A Plan for Evaluation.
by Fred D. Baldwin. Carlisle, PA: The National Center for
Appropriate Technology, 1978.
National Science Foundation. A Comparison of Organic and Conventional
Farms in the Corn Belt, by William Lockeretz, Robert Klepper,
Barry Commoner, Michael Gertler, Sarah Fast, Daniel O'Leary, and
Roger Blobaum of the Center for the Biology-of Natural Systems at
Washington University. Springfield, VA: National Technical
Information Service, July 1975.
National Science Foundation. Organic and Conventional Crop Production
in the Corn Belt: A Comparison of Economic Performance and Energy
Use for Selected Farms, by William Lockeretz, Robert Klepper,
Barry Commoner, Michael Gertler, Sarah Fast, and Daniel O'Leary of
the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Washington
University. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information
Service, 1976.
Oelhaf, Robert Charles. "The Economics of Organic Farming." Ph.D.
dissertation. University of Maryland, 1976.
Oelhaf, Robert C., and Wysong, John W. "Technical and Economic Con-
siderations in Organic vs. Conventional Farming." (University of)
Maryland Agri-Economics. May 1977.
Office of Appropriate Technology. California Green. State of California,
March 1978.
Office of Community Action. 1977 Research and Demonstration Projects -
Energy Programs.
Office of Technology Assessment. Brief-Facts about OTA. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment, 1978.
Olson, Adele Peele. The Development and Implementation of an Evaluated
Study of the Effect of Horticulture Therapy on Certain Physically
Disabled Patients. Clemson, SC: The South Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station, Clemson University, 1976.
Perry, Hiram. "Organic Farming Cannot Feed the World." Yankee,
September 1977.
Prins, Herschell. "Whither Community Service?"' The British Journal of
Criminology, vol. 16, No. 1 (January 1976).
Privette, C.V. Greenhouse Designs for the Handicapped. Clemson, SC:
Cooperative Extension Service, Clemson University.
Rehabilitation Research Foundation. Guide for Employment Service
Counselors in Correctional MDTA Programs. El more, AL: Rehabilita-
tion Research Foundation.
140
-------
Report of the Role of USDA in Integrated Pest Management before the
Symposium on Pest Control Strategies -- Understanding and Action.
by Dr. M. Rupert Cutler, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for
Conservation, Research, and Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, (1977).
Report of USDA's Role in Pest Management Programs before the Ento-
mological Society of America, by James Nielson, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Conservation, Research, and Education. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, (1977).
Secretary's Memorandum No. 1929 -- U.S.D.A. Policy on Management of Pest
Problems. by Secretary of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, (1977).
Senn, T.L.; Kingman, Atta B.; Sharpe, Joyce; Hiott, Jo Ann; Ballard,
William; and Bell, William. South Carolina's Hortitherapy
Program: Innovative Development of Individual Potential Through
Horticulture. Clemson, SC: The South Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station, Clemson University, 1974.
Sherman, Steve. "Organic Farming Can Feed the World." Yankee,
September 1977.
Sine, Charlotte. "IPM — Can Agriculture Wrest Pest Management from
the Bureaucrats." Farm Chemicals. March 1978.
'Spencer, Dr. Do.nald. "Who Took Chemicals Out of the IPM Toolbox?"
Farm Chemicals,. March 1978.
Starler, N.H., and Ridgway, R.L. "Economic and Social Considerations
for the Utilization of Augmentation of Natural Enemies." Biological
Control by Augmentation of Natural Enemies. R.L. Ridgway, and S.B.
Vinson, (eds.). ' New York:Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1977.
Sullivan, Peter. "Integrated Pest Management — Building a Better Bug
Trap." Conservation News. Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife
Federation, 1 August 1978, 15 August 1978.
Tummala, Ramamohan Lai, and Hayes, Dean. "On-Line Pest Management
Systems." Environmental Entomology. June 1977.
U.S. Community Services Administration. The National Center for
Appropriate Technology -- First Annual Report (1977-1978). by
the National Center for Appropriate Technology, (April 1978).
U.S. Congress. Senate. James Nielson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Conservation, Research and Education of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, speaking before the Senate Subcommittee on Agricul-
tural Research and General Legislation on the subject of pest
management. 95th Congress, 31 October 1977.
141
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Plant and Entomological Sciences -
II Crop Protection - Annual Report of the National Research Pro-
grams (1976).Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office,
(1976).
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service. Control
of Insects on Deciduous Fruits and Tree Nuts in the Home Orchard.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service. Insects
on Trees and Shrubs Around the Home, by P.H. Schwartz, Jr.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Biological Agents for Pest Control.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Farmers'
Use of Pesticides in 1971 . . . Expenditures (Agricultural
Economic Report No. 296). by Helen T. Blake and Paul A. Andri 1 enas.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, (1974).
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Farmers' Use
of Pesticides in 1971 . . . Extent of Crop Use (Agicultural
Economic Report No. 268).by Paul A. Andrilenas. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, (1974).
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Our Land
and Water Resources — Current and Prospective Supplies and Uses.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1974.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. The Hired
Farm Working Force of 1975. by Gene Rowe and Leslie Whitener Smith.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1976.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Trade-offs
Between Farm Income and Selected Environmental Indicators: A
Case Study of Soil Loss, Fertilizer, and Land Use Constraints, by
James Kasal. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1976.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. List of Available Publications of the
United States Department of Agriculture, by Publications Division,
Office of Governmental and Public Affairs. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1978.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Science and Education Administration.
Quick Bibliography Series: Training, Management and Evaluation of
Extension Work 1970-1978. by Nancy H. Lewis. Beltsville, MD:
Technical Information Systems, 1978.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. Assistance
Available from the Soil Conservation Service. Agriculture Infor-
mation Bulletin 345. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
142
-------
U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration.
Employment and Training Programs for Offenders. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Labor, 1977.
U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration.
Manual: The Planned Implementation of Mutual Agreement Programming
in a Correctional System (Resource Document #9).by Stephen D.
Minnich. College Park, MD: American Correctional Association,
1976.
U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration.
National Program for Selected Population Segments — Manual 7:
Ex-Offenders — New Hope for Women Ex-Offenders: Project
Esperanza, San Jose, California, by Dean Ericson. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration.
Crime and Employment Issues — A Collection of Policy Relevant
Monographs, by the Employment and Crime Project of the Institute
for Advanced Studies in Justice at the American University Law
School. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978.
U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration.
Research and Development Projects. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1977.
U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Administration.
Rural Oriented Research and Development Projects: A Review and
Synthesis (R&D Monograph 50).by Gene S. Leonardson and David
M. Nelson. Washington, D.C.; Government Printing Office, 1977.
U.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. A Case Study;
Development and Implementation of a Manpower Service Delivery
to the Criminal Offender in the U.S. by Charles W. Phillips of
the Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.
.U.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. A Review of Man-
power R&D Projects in the Correctional Field (T963-1973) —
Manpower Research Monograph No. 28. by Roberta Rovner-Pieczenik.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973.
U.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. Correctional Man-
power Programs. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970.
U.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. The Post-Prison
Analysis of Criminal Behavior and Longitudinal Follow-up Evaluation
of Institutional Treatment"by W.O. Jenkins, A.D. Witherspoon,
M.D. DeVire, E.K. deValera, J.B. Muller, and J.M. McKee.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1974.
U.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. The Role of Prison
Industries Mov; and in the Future: A Planning Study, by Herbert S.
Miller, Georgetown University Law Center. 1975.
143
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service (Information
Division). Where to Get Information about Soil and Water Conservation.
U.S. Department of Energy. Agricultural and Food Process Industries
Branch. Program Description — Agriculture and Food Process
Efficiency Branch/Division of Industrial Energy Conservation.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978.
U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Education, Business and Labor
Affairs. Activities of the Department of Energy in Energy Edu-
cation. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978.
U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Public Affairs. Citizen's Workshop
on Energy and the Environment Handbook. Washington, D.C.: Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1978.
U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Public Affairs. Food Industry
Conservation. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Public Affairs. Fuels from Biomass.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 1977.
U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Public Affairs. Selected Depart-
ment of Energy Publications. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Energy, 1978.
U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Public Affairs. Solar Energy for Ag-
riculture and Industry. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Energy, 1971,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Bureau of Adult Voca-
tional and Technical Education. The First National Sourcebook - A
Guide to Correctional Vocational Training, by New England Center for
Occupational Education/Far West Laboratory for Educational Research
and Development. July 1973.
U.S. Department of Justice. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Job
Training for Offenders and Ex-Offenders — Prescription Package.
by Phyllis Groom McCreary and John M. McCreary. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, April 1975.
U.S. Department of Justice. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, by National Criminal
Justice Information and Statistics Service. 1977.
U.S. Department of Justice. The 40th Annual Report of the Board of Direc-
tors, by Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (1973-1974).
U.S. Department of Labor. "Are Vocational Courses Relevant?" Manpower.
July 1973.
U.S. Department of Labor. Employment and Training Asministration. Career
Development for Farm Employment, by Donald G. Bennett. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977.
144
-------
U.S. Department of Labor. Manpower Administration. Vocational
Preparation in U.S. Correctional Institutions: A 1974 Survey,
by Girard W. Levy, Robert A. Abram, and Diane LaDow. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975.
U.S. Department of Labor. The Role of Prison Industries Now and in the
Future: A Planning Study, by Virginia McArthus, Herbert S. Miller,
and Robert M. Monti Ilia. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Offi ce.
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. Report of the
Proceedings of the Energy Research and Development Administration
Workshop on Energy Conservation in Agricultural Production (July~
15-16, 1976).Washington, D.C.:" Washington' Scientific Marketing,
Incorporated, (1976).
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. Division of
Industrial Energy Conservation. Report of the Proceedings of the
Agriculture Processing Industry Workshop on Energy Conservation
(March 4-5, 1976"^Washington, D.C.:Washington Scientific
Marketing, Incorporated, (1976).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Environmental/Energy
Workforce Assessment — Post-Secondary Education Profile —
Pesticides, by National Field Research Center, Incorporated.
Iowa City: National Field Research Center, 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs.
Pesticide Protection — A Training Manual for Health Personnel.
by John E. Davies, M.D., M.P.H. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Public Awareness.
EPA Journal: Farmers and the Environment, vol. 4 (March 1978).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Who's Who in the Interagency
Energy/Environment R & D Program IV. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Youth and Inmates — A Model
Summer Project Involving Scientific-Ecological Farming Techniques
in Memphis, Tennessee, by National Field Research Center, Inc.
Iowa City: National Field Research Center, Inc., 1977.
U.S. Office of Education. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
A Curriculum Report — Integrated Pest Management, by Robert H.
McCabe, R.F. Mines, James O'Connor, Arden Pratt, and Jo Ellen
Zgut. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, (1973).
U.S. President. Executive Order 11755. "Relating to Prison Labor."
Federal Register 39, no. 2. 3 January 1974.
Weeks, Silas B. Organizing Neighborhood Gardens for Your Community.
Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, 1977
145
-------
Wert, Dr. Jonathan M. Energy - Selected Resource Materials for
Developing Energy Education/Conservation Programs. Washington,
D.C.: The National Wildlife Federation.
146
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS
-------
PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS
FEDERAL
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT:
Mr. Brad Gentry, Co-Project Leader
Pest Management Assessment
600 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20510
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:
Mr. Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE:
Mr. George Allen
Commodities Economics Division
Economics Statistics and Cooperative Service
. 500 12th St., S.W. .
- Washington, D0C. 20250
Dr. George E. Allen, Coordinator for IPM
Science and Education Administration
Administration Building
Fourteenth St. and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dr. Charles Beer, Director
Current and Future Priorities Staff
Science and Education Administration
Administration Building
Fourteenth St. and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dr. D. Dowler
National Program Staff, Federal Research
Science and Education Administration
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
Building 005
Beltsville, Maryland 20705
Dr. Barry Flamm, Coordinator
Office of Environmental Quality Activities
Office of the Secretary
Administration Building
Fourteenth St. and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
151
-------
Dr. Homer C. Folks, Deputy Director for Teaching
Science and Education Administration
Administration Building
Fourteenth St. and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dr. Joseph M. Good, Director of Pest Management
Programs
Extension Service
Science and Education Administration
South Agricultural Building
Fourteenth St. and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Mr. Al Hidlebaugh, Assistant Director
Inventory and Monitoring Division
Soil Conservation Service
South Agricultural Building
Fourteenth St. and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dr. W. Klassen
National Program Staff, Federal Research
Science and Education Administration
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
Building 005
Beltsville, Maryland 20705
Mr. Robert S. McLauchlan, Chief Plant Materials
Specialist
Soil Conservation Service
South Agricultural Buildirig
Fourteenth St. and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dr. H. Osborn
National Program Staff, Federal Research
Science and Education Administration
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
Building 005
Beltsville, Maryland 20705
Ms. Kitty Reichelderfer
Environmental Studies Group
Natural Resources Economics Division
Economic Statistics and Cooperative Service
500 12th St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Mr. Nooley Reinheardt
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for
Rural Development
Administration Building
Fourteenth St. and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
152
-------
Dr. R.L. Ridgway
National Program Staff, Federal Research
Science and Education Administration
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
Building 005
Beltsville, Maryland 20705
Dr. Robert C. Riley
Cooperative State Research Service
Science and Education Administration
Administration Building
Fourteenth St. and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dr. Neill Schaller, Administrator
Extension Service
Science and Education Administration
Administration Building
Fourteenth St. and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dr. Paul Schwartz
National Program Staff, Federal Research
Science and Education Administration
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
Building 005
Beltsville, Maryland 20705
Dr. W.C. Shaw
National Program Staff, Federal Research
Science and Education Administration
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
Building 005
Beltsville, Maryland 20705
Mr. Peter Sorenson
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for
Conservation, Research and Education
Administration Building
Fourteenth St. and Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dr. N.H. Starler, Project Leader
Environmental Studies Group
Natural Resources Economics Division
Economic Statistics and Cooperative Service
500 12th St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
153
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY:
Mr. William Holmberg
Office of Consumer Affairs
Forrestal Building
1110 Indiana Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Lawrence Kelso, Project Leader
Agricultural and Food Process Efficiency Branch
Division of Industrial Energy Conservation
Office of Conservation and Solar Applications
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20545
Ms. Debra Langford
Solar Technology Transfer Branch
Office of Conservation and Solar Applications
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20545
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE:
Mr. Walter Bogan, Jr., Director
Office of Environmental Education
Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of Education
400 Maryland Ave., S.W. -
Washington, D.C. 20202
*Mr. Thaine McCormick, Chief
State Programs and Services Branch
Division of Vocational and Technical Education
Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education
Office of Education
400 Maryland Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR:
Dr. G. Jay Gogue, Chief Scientist
Professional Services
National Capital Region
1100 Ohio Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20242
154
-------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:
Mr. Larry Greenfeld
National Institute of Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
633 Indiana Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20531
Mr. Shelvy E. Johnson, Assistant Education
Administrator
Bureau of Prisons
320 First St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20531
*Mr. H. Teufel, Farm Administrator
Bureau of Prisons
KCI Bank .Building
8800 N.W. 112th St.
Kansas City, Missouri 64153
Mr. H.T. Tubbs
Corrections Division
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
633 Indiana Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20531
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR:
Dr. Tom Joyce
Office of Research and Development
Employment and Training Administration
601 D St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20213
Mr. Laurence R. Langfeldt, Manpower Development
Specialist
Offender Programs
Employment and Training Administration
601 D St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20213
Dr. Emil Malizia
Task Force for Rural Development
Office of National Programs
Employment and Training Administration
601 D St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20213
155
-------
Dr. William Throckmorton
Office of Research and Development
Employment and Training Administration
601 D St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20213
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:
Ms. Mary Ann McKenzie
Office of Program Demonstration
1200 19th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20506
Ms. Barbara Pinn, CAP Specialist
Office of Program Development
1200 19th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20506
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
Mr. John Boykin
Office of Public Awareness
401 M St., S.W. .
West Tower
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dr. Mike Dover
Office of Pesticide Programs
401 M St., S.W.
East Tower
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mr. Charles Reese
Office of Pesticide Programs
401 M St., S.W.
East Tower
Washington, D.C. 20460
OTHER (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE)
**Dr. G.W. Bird, Professor
Department of Entomology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
156
-------
*Dr. T. Don Canerday, Chairman
Division of Entomology
University of Georgia College of Agriculture
Barrow Hall
Athens, Georgia 30602
*Ms. Mary Louise Flint
Environmental Assessment Team
California Department of Food and Agriculture
1220 N St.
Sacramento, California 95814
Ms. Tessa Huxley
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
1717 18th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Mr. Ray Olson
American Correctional Association
4321 Hartwick Road, Suite L208
College Park, Maryland 20740
*Mr. Jack Schaller
American Foundation, Inc.
1532 Philadelphia National Bank Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Mr. Ken Thomas, Program Director
Public Offender Programs
District of Columbia Vocational Rehabilitation
122 C St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
*Assisted through telephone contact.
**Assisted through correspondence.
157
-------
APPENDIX B
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND FARMS DIRECTORY
Author's note: This Directory was prepared as a part of a Correctional
Farm Study in September 1977, which was supported by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. It was carried
out by the American Correctional Association, with Carol S. Lessans as
the principal investigator. Readers should note that for local facili-
ties only, the data were obtained from a 10 percent random sample.
-------
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND FARMS DIRECTORY
The following directory consists of correctional facilities around
the country that have farming operations. There are four sections: (1)
State Correctional Departments and Farms; (2) Youth Services Departments
and Farms; (3) Local Correctional Departments and Farms; and, (4) Fed-
eral Correctional Facilities and Farms. All information was obtained
through the American Correctional Association's "Correctional Farm Ques-
tionnaire". An asterisk (*) indicates those states which did not respond
to the mailed survey. Any information about these states was obtained by
telephone.
The farms and/or facilities are described by their name, location,
type of security (minimum, medium, maximum, etc.), age of inmates (adult
or juvenile), total acreage, and cultivated acreage. For example:
State Prison Farm, Midville, min, adult, 500 acres: 250
For each state department (adult and juvenile), the address, telephone
number, and director's name are included so that EPA and other interested
organizations can obtain even more extensive information about a particular
jurisdiction and/or farm operation.
161
-------
•O J
STATE CORRECTIONAL DEPARTMENTS AND FARMS
ALABAMA State Board of Corrections, 101 S0 Union St.
Montgomery 36130 (205) 832-6800
Judson C0 Locke, Jr., Commissioner
Bob I. Bright, Associate Commissioner, Agri-Business
Fountain Correctional Farm, Atmore, max, adult, 8500 acres: 3666
Draper Correctional Center, El more, max, adult, 3331 acres: 1685
Red Eagle Honor Farm, Montgomery, min, adult, 2300 acres: 1555
State Cattle Ranch, Greensboro, min, adult, 4410 acres: 219
ALASKA Department of Health and Social Services, Division of
Corrections, Pouch H03, Health & Social Services Bldg.,
Juneau 99811 (907) 465-3376
William H. Huston, Director
Stanley J. Zaborac, Jr., Superintendent
Palmer Correctional Center, min, adult, 640 acres: 20
ARIZONA Department of Corrections, 1601 West Jefferson,
Phoenix 85007 (602) 271-5536
John Jo Moran, Director
Tom Rankin, Farm Superintendent
Arizona State Prison, Florence, max/min, adult, 1400 acres: 1000
ARKANSAS Department of Correction, P00. Box 8707, Pine Bluff
71611 (501) 535-7231
AoL. Lockhart, Asstc Director of Institutional Services
Cummins Unit, Grady, max, adult, 16500 acres: 11937
Tucker Unit, Tucker, adult, 4400 acres: 4160
Booneville Unit, Logan County, adult, 4600 acres: 2000
CALIFORNIA Department of Corrections, 714 P St., State Office Bldg.
No.8, Sacramento 95814 (916) 445-7688
J.J. Enomoto, Director
Elmer J. Becky, Acting General Manager, Correctional
Industries
California Institution for Men, Chino, min, adult, 2000 acres: 1850
Deuel Vocational Institution, Tracy, min, adult, 800 acres: 550
Correctional Training Facility, Soledad, min, adult, 900 acres: 550
*COLORADO State Department of Institutions, Division of
Correctional Services, 4150 S. Lowell Blvd., Denver
80236 (303) 761-0220
Gerald L. Agee, Director.
162
-------
COLORADO (cont.)
Colorado State Penitentiary (Medium Security Unit), Canon City,
600 acres
Colorado State Reformatory, Buena Vista
CONNECTICUT Department of Correction, 340 Capitol Ave., Hartford
06115 (203) 566-4457
John R. Manson, Commissioner
DELAWARE Department of Correction, Box 343, Smyrna 19977
(302) 653-7545
James T. Vaughn, Commissioner
Sussex Correctional Institution, Georgetown, min, adult, 226 acres
200
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA Department of Corrections, 614 H St., N.W. 20001
(202) 629-3532
Delbert C. Jackson, Director
Marion D. Strickland, Superintendent
Lorton, VA (Minimum Security Facility), adult, 1300 acres: 600
FLORIDA Department of Offender Rehabilitation, 1311 Winewood
Blvd., Tallahassee 32301 (904) 488-5021
Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary
Apalachee Correctional Institution, Sneads, med/min, adult, 6175
acres: 2121
Glades Correctional Institution, Belle Glade, close, adult, 7160:
3960.
Union Correctional Institution, Raiford, close, adult, 16909 acres:
3829
^GEORGIA Department of Corrections/Offender Rehabilitation,
State Board of Corrections, 800 Peachtree St, NE
Atlanta 30308 (404) 894-5548
William Crump, Asst. Commissioner
Bobby Whitworth, Agriculture
Georgia State Prison, Reidsville, adult, 9000 acres
Georgia Industrial Institute, Alto, adult, 650 acres
Georgia Diagnostic Center, Jackson, adult, 900 acres
Lee Correctional Institution, Leesburg, adult, 350 acres
Wayne Correctional Institution, Odum, adult, 200 acres
Walker Correctional Institutions, Lafayette, youths, 350
Georgia Training and Development Center, Buford, youths, 25 acres
Chatham County, 10 acres
Montgomery Correctional Institution, Valdosta, adult, 45 acres
Milledgeville Colony Farm, Milledgeville, 600 acres
163
-------
*HAWAII Department of Social Services and Housing, Corrections
Division, P.O. Box 339, Honolulu 96809 (808) 548-6441
Michael Kakesako, Administrator
IDAHO Department of Correction, Box 7309, Boise 83707
(208) 336-0740,,Don R0 Erickson, Director
State Correctional Institution, Boise, med/min, adult, 3500 acres: 1365
ILLINOIS Department of Corrections, 201 Armory Bldg.,
Springfield 62706 (217) 782-4777
Charles J. Rowe, Acting Director
William Beaty, Agriculture Manager
Menard Correctional Center, Menard, max, adult, 2363 acres: 934
Vienna Correctional Center, Vienna, min, adult, 3310 acres: 501
Vandalia Correctional Center, Vandalia, med, adult, 1513 acres: 875
INDIANA Department of Correction, 804 State Office Bldg0,
Indianapolis 46204 (317) 633-4697
Robert P» Heyne, Commissioner
Maurice J.R» Jackson, Director of Farms
Indiana State Farm, Greencastle, min, juv0 and adult, 2675 acres: 1155
Indiana State Reformatory, Pendleton, max, adult, 1437 acres: 1336
Indiana State Prison, Michigan City, max, adult, 1944 acres: 1806
IOWA Department of Social Services, Robert Lucas Bldg.,
Des Moines 50319 (515) 281-5459
Kevin J0 Burns, Commissioner
Iowa State Penitentiary, Ft. Madison, min, adult, 1000 acres: 500
Iowa Men's Reformatory, Anamosa, min/med, adult, 1467 acres: 650
Riverview Release Center, Newton, min, adult, 1500 acres: 855
Women's Reformatory, Rockwell City, min, adult, 220 acres: 183
KANSAS Department of Corrections, KPL Tower Bldg., 818 Kansas
Ave., Suite 500, Topeka 66612 (913) 296-3317
Robert Ro Raines, Secretary
KENTUCKY Bureau of Corrections, State Office Bldg0, Frankfort
40601 (502) 564-4726
David H. Bland, Commissioner
James T, Patterson, Farm Services Specialist
Western Kentucky Farm Center, Eddyville, max, adult, 2200 acres: 600
Roederer Farm Center, LaGrange, min, adult, 3300 acres: 400
Blackburn Correctional Complex, Lexington, min, adult, 350 acres: 80
Kentucky St. Hospital Farm, Danville, employee operated, 322 acres: 70
164
-------
LOUISIANA Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 44304, State Capitol
Station, Baton Rouge 70804 (504) 389-5641
C. Paul Phelps, Secretary
Burl Cain, Asst. Secretary, Agri-Business
Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, max/med, adult, 18000 acres: 50_00
Dixon Correctional Institute, Jackson, med, adult, 250 acres: 1800
Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women, St. Gabriel, med/max, adult,
1000 acres: 1000
MAINE Bureau of Corrections, 411 State Office Bldg,,, Augusta
04333 (207) 289-3161
John Rosser, Ed.D., Commissioner
MARYLAND Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services,
Division of Correction, 6314 Windsor Mill Rd.,'
Baltimore 21207 (301) 944-7028
Mark A. Levine, Commissioner
MASSACHUSETTS Department of Correction, Saltonstall Office Bldg.
Government Center, 100 Cambridge St., Boston 02202
(617) 727-3312
Frank A. Hall, Commissioner
Southeastern Correctional Center, Bridgewater, min, adult, 1450 acres
Northeastern .Correctional Center, Concord-Acton, min, adult, 550
acres: 200
MICHIGAN Department of Corrections, Stevens T. Mason Bldg.,
Lansing 48913 (517) 373-0720
Perry M. Johnson, Director
State Prison Farm of Southern Michigan, Jackson, close, adult, 4000
acres: 2500
Marquette Branch Prison, Marquette, max, adult, 2234 acres: 340
^MINNESOTA Department of Corrections, 430 Metro Square Bldg.,
Seventh and Robert Sts., St. Paul 55101
(612) 296-6133 Kenneth.F. Schoen, Conwissoner
MISSISSIPPI Department of Corrections, 723 N. President St.,
Jackson 39202 (601) 354-6454
Dr. Allen L. Ault, Commissioner
Mississippi State Penitentiary, Parchman, mixed, adult, 16000 acres:
200+
MISSOURI Department of Social Services, Division of Corrections,
911 Missouri Blvd., Jefferson City 65101
(314) 751-2389
Edward E. Haynes, Director
165
-------
MISSOURI (contc)
Church Farm, Jefferson City, min, adult, 2825 acres: 1223
Renz Farm, Cedar City, min, coed, 877 acres: 787
Missouri Intermediate Reformatory, Jefferson City, med, juvenile,
750 acres: 293
*MONTANA Department of Institutions, 1539 llth Ave», Helena
59601 (406) 449-3930
Robert Ho Mattson, Director
State Prison Ranch and Dairy Operation, Deer Lodge, min to max,
adult, 33000 acres
NEBRASKA Department of Correctional Services, P»0o Box 94661,
Lincoln 68509 (402) 471-2654
Joseph C. Vitek, Director
NEVADA Nevada State Prisons, P00o Box 607, Carson City, 89710
(702) 885-5089
Charles L. Wolff, Jr», Warden
Northern Nevada Correctional Center Farm, Carson City, min, adult,
1100 acres: 300
NEW HAMPSHIRE Adult Institutions, New Hampshire State Prison, Box 14,
Concord 03301 (603) 224-6554
William S0 Jamieson, Superintendent, Prison Industries
New Hampshire State Prison Farm, Concord, min, adult, 600 acres: 300
NEW JERSEY Department of Institutions and Agencies, 135 W. Hanover
St., Trenton 08625 (609) 293-3717
William H» Fauver, Director
John Jo Forker, Chief, Bureau of Institutional Support
Services
Annandale Correctional Institution, Annandale, juvenile, 1831 acres
Bordentown Correctional Institution, Bordentown, adult, 565 acres
Clinton Correctional Institution, Clinton, adult, 226 acres
Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital,adult , 1293 acres
Jamesburg Correctional Institution, juvenile, 725 acres
Leesburg State Prison Farm, adult, 1305
Marlboro Psychiatric Hospital, adult, 1006 acres
Trenton State Prison, Trenton, adult, 1112 acres
New Lisbon State School Farm, adult, 1854 acres
166
-------
NEW MEXICO Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 2325, Santa Fe 87501
(505) 827-2348
Michael F. Hanrahan, Secretary
Los Lunas Correctional Center, min, adult, 1600 acres: 1200
NEW YORK Department of Correctional Services, State Office
Bldg. Campus, Albany 12226 (518) 457-8134
Benjamin Ward, Commissioner
Frank Harrigan, Farm Consultant
Attica Correctional Facility, Attica, max, adult, 675 acres
Clinton Correctional Facility, Dannemora, max, adult, 334 acres
Coxsackie Correctional Facility, W. Coxsackie, med, adult, 540 acres
Eastern Correctional Facility, Napanoch, med, adult, 375 acres
Elmira Correctional Facility, Elmira, med, adult, 342 acres
Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Cornstock, max, adult, 630 acres
Green Haven Correctional Facility, Stormville, max, adult, 520 acres
Wall kill Correctional Facility, Wall kill, med, adult, 551 acres
Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Woodbourne, med/max, adult, 670 acres
*NORTH CAROLINA Department of Correction, 840 W. Morgan St., Raleigh
27603 (919) 829-4926
David L. Jones, Secretary
Caledonia and Odum Complex, Caledonia, adult, 9200 acres Render,
Burgaw, 200 acres ;'
»
NORTH DAKOTA Director of Institutions, State Capitol, Bismarck 58505
(707) 224-2474
Edward J. Klecker, Director
North Dakota State Penitentiary Farm, Bismarck, min, adult, 3000 acres:
820
OHIO Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 1050
Freeway Drive North, Columbus 43229 (614) 466-6190
George F. Denton, Director
K.E. Tope, Chief, Division of Business Administration
Chillicothe Correctional Institute, Chillicothe, med, adult, 1498
acres: 944
Grafton Honor Farm, Grafton, min, adult, 1782:1471
Lebanon Correctional Institution, Lebanon, med, adult, 1750 acres:
1694
London Correctional Institution, London, med, adult, 2989 acres: 2765
Marion Correctional Institution, Marion, med, adult, 1208 acres: 930
Ohio Reformatory for Women, Marysville, med, adult, 259 acres: 212
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, Lucasville, employee operated,
1819 acres: 887
Ohio State Reformatory, Mansfield, med, adult, 1000 acres: 890
167
-------
OKLAHOMA Department of Corrections, 3400 N. Eastern, Oklahoma
City 73111 (405) 427-6511
F. Warren Benton, Ph.D., Director
Wilson Lamar Galloway, Director, Agricultural Production
McLeod Honor Farm, Ferris, min, adult, 5190 acres: 1200
Oklahoma State Penitentiary, McAlester, min, adult, 1875 acres: 140
Oklahoma State Reformatory, Granite, min, adult, 5760 acres: 1450
Vocational Training Center, Springtown, min, adult, 1225 acres: 50
Lexington Regional Treatment Center, Lexington, min, adult,
1625: 20
OREGON Department of Human Resources, Corrections Division,
2575 Center St., NE, Salem 97310 (503) 378-2467
Robert J. Watson, Administrator
Oregon State Penitentiary Annex Farm, Salem, min, adult, 2000 acres:
850
PENNSYLVANIA Department of Justice Bureau of Correction, Box 598,
Camp Hill 17011 (717) 787-7482
William Bo Robinson, Commissioner
State Correctional Institution, Muncy, med, adult, 450 acres: 334
State Correctional Institution, Dallas, med/max, adult, 1200 acres:
350
State Correctional Institution, Camp Hill, med/max, adult, 750 acres:
430
State Correctional Institution, Rockview, med/min, adult, 6950 acres:
3200
State Correctional Institution, Graterford, med/max, adult, 1700 acres
1200
State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, med/max, adult, 750 acres:
450
State Regional Correction Facility, Greensburg, min, adult,100 acres:
44
RHODE ISLAND Department of Corrections, 75 Howard Ave., Cranston 02920
(401) 464-2611
Bradford E. Southworth, Director
Medium Security Facility, Cranston, adult, 7 acres: 7
SOUTH CAROLINA Department of Corrections, 4444 Broad River Rd., Box 766,
Columbia 29202 (803) 758-6444
William D. Leeke, Commissioner
Fred W, Atkinson, Director, Division of Support Services
Wateree River Correctional Institution, Rembert, min, adult, 6674 acres:
2300
168
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA (cont.)
MacDougall Youth Correction Center, Ridgeville, min, adult, 921
acres: 442
Walden Correctional Institution, Columbia, min, adult, 1045 acres:
406
Givens Youth Correction Center, Simpsonville, min, adult, 63 acres:
45
SOUTH DAKOTA Board of Charities and Corrections, Capitol Bldg., Pierre
V 57501 (605) 224-3478
| James Smith, Executive Director
Lt. Robert Tidemann, Total Farm Supervisor
South Dakota Penitentiary Farm, Sioux Falls, min, adult, 1027 acres:
830
TENNESSEE Department of Correction, llth Floor, 1st American Center,
Nashville 37219 (615) 741-2071
C. Murray Henderson, Commissioner
Bobby Tidwell, Farm Manager
Cockrill Bend State Farm, Nashville, min, adult, 2400 acres: 1140
Ft. Pillow State Farm, Ft. Pillow, min/med, adult, 5779 acres: 2650
Taft Youth Cen.ter, Pikerville, min, juvenile, 950 acres: 800
Turney Center," Only, min, adult, 1650 acres: 200
TEXAS Department of Corrections, Box 99, Huntsville 77340
(713) 295-6371
W.J. Estelle, Jr., Director
James V. Anderson, Asst, Director, Agriculture
Coffield Unit, Tennessee Colony, med, adult, 5188 acres: 484
Ferguson Unit, Midway, med, adult, 1577: 440
Eastham Unit, Wei don, max, adult, 4279 acres: 682
Ellis Unit, Huntsville, max, adult, 4044 acres: 389
Wynne Unit, Huntsville, med, adult, 446 acres: 57
Central Unit, Sugar Land, med, adult, 1784 acres: 341
Jester Unit, Richmond, min, adult, 2617 acres: 575
Darrington Unit, Rosharon, med, adult, 3727 acres: 319
Ramsey Unit, Rosharon, max, adult, 6451 acres: 721
Retrieve Unit, Angleton, med, adult, 3149 acres: 666
Clemens Unit, Brazoria, med, adult, 4551 acres: 380
*UTAH Department of Social Services, Division of Corrections,
2525 S. Main St., Suite 15, Salt Lake City 84115
(801) 533-5331
Ernest D. Wright, Director
Utah State Prison, Draper, min. to max. adult, 300 acres: 100
169
-------
VERMONT Agency of Human Resources, Department of Corrections,
79 River St., Montpelier 05602 (802) 828-2452
R. Kent Stoneman, Commissioner
Residential Treatment Facility, Windsor, min, adult, 900 acres
VIRGINIA State Department of Corrections, 22 E.Cary St.,
Richmond 23192 (804) 786-8575
Jack F. Davis, Director
Robert C0 Oliver, Superintendent, Agriculture
Southampton Correctional Center, Southampton City, min, adult, 2780
acres: 1235
Bland Correctional Center, Bland City, min, adult, 2127 acres: 1557
James River Correctional Center, State Farm, min, adult, 6528 acres:
3887
Caroline Correctional Unit, Caroline and Hanover Ctys., min, adult,
1688 acres: 795
Baskerville Correctional Unit, Mecklenburg City, min, adult, 371 acres:
270
Fluvanna Correctional Unit, Fluvanna County, min, adult,105 acres: 70
Wise Correctional Unit, Wise County, min, adult, 45 acres: 25
Dinwiddie Correctional Unit, Dinwiddie City, min, adult, 208 acres:
115
Chatham Correctional Unit, Pittsylvania City, min, adult, 202 acres:
160
Halifax Correcti-onal Unit, Halifax County, min, adult, 134 acres: 65
WASHINGTON Department of Social and Health Services, Adult Correc-
tions Division, Mail Stop 26-1, Olympia 98504
(206) 753-2500
Harold B. Bradley, Director
Honor Farm, Monroe, min, adult, 800 acres: 750
WEST VIRGINIA Department of Public Institutions, Division of Correction,
State Capitol Bldg., Charleston 25305 (304) 348-2091
Calvin A. Calendine, Commissioner
WISCONSIN Department of Health and Social Services, Division of
Corrections, P.O. Box 669, Madison 53701
(608) 266-2471
Allyn R. Sielaff, Administrator
Fred M. Whitemarsh, Farm Supervisor
State Prison Farm, Waupun, min, adult, 750 acres: 602
State Reformatory Farm, Green Bay, min, adult, 1636 acres: 1491
Correctional Institution Farm, Fox Lake, min, adult, 865 acres: 531
Winnebago State Farm, Winnebago, min, adult, 827 acres: 668
170
-------
*WYOMING State Board of Chanties and Reform, Capitol Bldg.,
Cheyenne 82002 (307) 777-7405
Donald Glidden, Secretary
Wyoming State Penitentiary Farm, Riverton, min, adult, 900 acres
171
-------
YOUTH SERVICES CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND FARMS
ALABAMA Department of Youth Services, 2388 Fairlane Dr0,
Bldg, D-Suite 29 Executive Park, Montgomery 36111
(205) 832-3910
George M0 Phyfer, Director
Beef Cattle, Roebuck Campus, Birmingham, min, juvenile, 154
acres: 50
ARKANSAS Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services,
Division of Rehabilitation Services, Junvenile
Training School Section, 1320 "E" Brookwood Dr.,
Po00 Box 3781, Little Rock 72203 (501) 371-2651
Youth Services Center, Pine Bluff, open, juvenile, 360 acres: 25
CALIFORNIA Department of the Youth Authority, 714 P Street, State
Office Bldg. No. 8, Sacramento 95814
(916) 445-2561
Pearl S0 West, Director
CONNECTICUT Department of Children and Youth Services, 345 Main St.
Hartford 06115 (203) 566-3536
Francis H. Maloney, Commissioner
Long Lane School, Middletown, open, juvenile, 217 acres: 6
HAWAII Department of Social Services and Housing, Corrections
Division, P.O. Box 339, Honolulu 96809
(808) 548-6441
Michael Kakesako, Administrator
Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility, Kailua, Oahu, med/min, j'uvenile,
504 acres
IOWA Department of Social Services, Bureau of Child Advocacy,
Robert Lucas Bldg0, Des Moines 50319
(515) 281^5126
Larry Jackson, Director
Iowa Training School for Boys, Eldora, juvenile, 225 acres: 160
KENTUCKY Department for Human Resources, Bureau for Social Services,
403 Wapping St., Frankfort 40601
(502) 564-7220
Jack C. Lewis, Commissioner
172
-------
MARYLAND Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Juvenile
Services Administration, 201 W. Preston St. 5th
Floor, Baltimore 21201 (301) 383-2600
MASSACHUSETTS Department of Youth Services, 73 Tremont St.,
Boston 02108 (617) 727-2733
John Ao Calhoun, Commissioner
MISSISSIPPI Mississippi Department of Youth Services, 407
Wool folk State Office Bldg., Jackson 39201
(601) 354-6512
Jimmy R. Russell, Executive Director
Oakley Training School, Raymond, open, juvenile, 1029 acres: 844
Columbia Training School, Columbia, open, juvenile, 2570 acres: 866
MISSOURI Department of Social Services, Division of Youth
Services, 402 Dix Rd., P.O. Box 447, Jefferson City
65101 (314) 751-3324
Max Brand, Director
Training School for Boys, Boonville, juvenile, 580 acres: 70
NEW HAMPSHIRE Juvenile Institutions and Services, Box 303, Manchester
03105 (603) 625-5471
Michael Morello, Superintendent
New Hampshire Youth Development Center, Manchester, min, juvenile,
100 acres: 5
NORTH CAROLINA Department of Human Resources, Division of Youth Services,
401 Glenwood Ave., Raleigh 27603 (919) 829-3011
Ray T, Shurling, Director
OKLAHOMA Department of Institutions, Social and Rehabilitative
Services, Sequoyah Memorial State Office Bldg.,
Oklahoma City 73125
Boley State School, Boley, min, juvenile, 225 acres: 5
Girls Town, Tecumseh, min, juvenile, 147 acres: 5
Helena State School, Helena, min, juvenile, 110 acres: 90
OREGON Department of Human Resources, Children's Service
Division, 516 Public Service Bldg0, Salem 97310
(503) 378-4374
Richard S. Peterson, General Superintendent, Juvenile
Correctional Programs
MacLaren School, Woodburn, min, juvenile, 279 acres: 129
173
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA Department of Youth Services, 1720 Shivers Rd., P00.
Box 21487, Columbia. 29221 (803) 758-6592
Edward C. Thomas, Deputy Director
Department of Youth Services, Columbia, juvenile, 1144 acres: 58
TEXAS Texas Youth Council, 8900 Shoal Creek, P00«, Box 9999,
Austin 78766 (512) 475-5681
Ron Jackson, Executive Director
Gatesville State School, Gatesville, juvenile, 1242 acres: 191
VIRGINIA Rehabilitative School Authority, Division of Youth
Services, 302 Turner Rd., Richmond 23225
(804) 745-0550
William E0 Weddington, Director
174
-------
LOCAL CORRECTIONAL DEPARTMENTS AND FARMS
CALIFORNIA Los Angeles County Sheriff's Wayside Honor Rancho,
29300, The Old Road, Saugus 91310
min, adult, 2900 acres: 900
Orange County Branch Jail, James A. Musick Facility,
13502, Honor Farm Rd., El Toro 92630
min, adult, 100 acres: 70
Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, Pleasanton 94566
min, adult, 1100 acres: 400
Sheriff's Rehabilitation Center, P.O. Box 32, San Luis
Obispo 93406, min, adult, 5 acres: 1.5
FLORIDA
Jacksonville Correctional Institution, 4727 Lannie Rd
Jacksonville 32218 , med, adult and juvenile, 1000
acres: 300
GEORGIA
Worth County Correctional Institution, Sylvester 31791
med, adult
MINNESOTA
The Northeast Regional Corrections Center, Rt. 2, Box 119,
Saginaw 55779 , min, adult, 3200 acres: 800
NEW HAMPSHIRE Coos County Farm, W» Stewartstown 03570, min, adult,
1100 acres: 150
NEW JERSEY Essex County Correctional Center, Box 349, Caldwell 07006
min, adult, 90 acres: 50
NEVADA
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept0, Vegas Valley Dr., Las
Vegas, min, adult, 86 acres: 71
NORTH CAROLINA Guilford County Prison Farm, P.O. Box 16, Gibsonville 27249
min, adult, 800 acres: 700
OHIO
Dayton Correctional Farm, 16135 Gettsbury, Dayton 45402
min, adult, 150 acres:50-75
Toledo House of Correction, Rt. 2 Box 22, Whitehouse 43571
min, adult, 310 acres: 211
175
-------
VIRGINIA Petersburg Correctional Harm, Rt. 1 Box 161, Disputana
23803, min, adult, 287 acres: 120
City Prison Farm, Clearview Dr., Martinsville 24112
min, adult, 300 acres: 65
176
-------
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND FARMS
Bureau of Prisons 320 First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20534 (202) 724-3250
Norman A. Carlson, Director
Hubert W. Teufel, Farm Administrator
8800 N.W. 112th St.
Kansas City, Missouri 64153 (816) 243-5681
Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno, OK, min, adult, 3595 acres:
1146
Federal Correctional Institution, La Tuna, TX, min, adult, 640 acres:
289
U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, KS, min, adult, 2241 acres: 1256
U.S. Penitentiary, Lewisburg, PA, min, adult, 5193 acres: 1699
Federal Correctional Institution, Lompac, CA, min, adult, 43248 acres:
2070
U.S. Penitentiary, McNeil, WA, min, adult, 4409 acres: 175
Federal Correctional Institution, Petersburg, VA, min, adult, 1340
acres: 776 .
U.S. Penitentiary, Terre Haute, IN, min, adult, 2641 acres: 1875
Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana, TX, min, adult, 693
acres: 398
177
-------
OFFICES
- ATLANTA -
2700 CUMBERLAND PKWY
SUITE 150
ATLANTA,GA 30339
(404) 433-2644
- DENVER -
2600 S. PARKER ROAD
SUITE 160, NO. 6
DENVER, CO 80232
(303) 751-4962
- IOWA CITY -
230 E. BENTON
P.O. BOX 287
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
(319) 351-8789
-SPRINGFIELD-
22 DOWNING DRIVE
CHATHAM, IL 62629
(217) 483-2751
-WASHINGTON, D.C. -
1522 K STREET, N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
(202) 223-9136
National
ield
Research
Center, Inc.
National Field Research Center, Inc. (NFRC) is a multi-
disciplinary consulting firm headquartered in Iowa City,
Iowa with branch offices situated in Washington, D.C.;
Atlanta, Georgia; and Denver, Colorado.
NFRC has maintained an impressive record of active
accomplishment in areas as diverse as systems design,
management, survey/evaluation and program assessment.
The wide range of disciplines represented by the staff,
and the educational qualifications held by each, pro-
vide for such diversification.
Over the past six years, National Field Research Center
and its affiliates have provided consulting services to
federal, state and local governments, as well as to the
educational community and the private sector. Profes-
sional assistance in the form of research, systems de-
sign, and program implementation stands as an identi-
fiable product.
NFRC brings together a closely cooperating primary unit
of highly trained and experienced consultants, each of
whom is able to provide expertise from initial planning
through project completion. To complement the full-time
staff, a resource pool of specialists is maintained in
the areas of finance, administration, operational re-
search and systems analysis. It is the excellence and
diversification of this combined staff which allows NFRC
to provide quality, professional service to all of its
clients.
Dr. Darold E. Albright
President
1.2700 CUMBERLAND PKWY., SUITE 150
ATLANTA, GA 30339
(404) 433-2644
------- |