a

'4DOMMENT RESUME.,'

ED 21g 489 CE 033' 118-1,.-

1.AtIliOR - Peterson, Kristina; Leinbach, Deborah ,

":,:11TLE The Products and Uses of Research.Siponsored by .the'Administration on Aging. . ,

4..'-:.;.NTITUTION American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral',°

- Sciences, Washington, DC. Gerontological Research4Inst.' .

.

.

SPONS AGENCY Administration on Aging'(DHHS), Washington, D.C.0 puB

.DATE Jul 81.-.,.. ,

14 .0ONTRACT,..

AoA-90-AR-2173 . . '

MOTE'' . 53p.; Not available in paper, copy-due to small',:.- print. r

1

EDRS PRICE MFOI Plus'Postage..PC Not Availab from EDR.DESCRIPTORS *Aging (Individuals); *Gerontology; Information

Dissemination; Information Utilization; *ResearchProjects; *Research Utilization; *Social ScienceResearch; Tables (Data); Trend Analysis

IDENTIFIERS *Administration on Aging;.*Older Americans Act7 1965-'

ABSTRACT o . .

.

Base on infOrmationgathered from over 100Administration on Aging-supported research, this report documents

-4 some of..,-

the prodUctsand uses of research sponsored by theAdministration on Aging and supported with funds provided under TitleIV-B of the Older.AmericanS Act. Following an introductory sketch of

e its products, uses and users, statistics are provided concerningspecific products of Title IV-B research;e9namined next'are the usesof Title IV-B research as well' iS some c relates of its use. A . .

. summary and conclusions follow: Appended to the report are proteduresfor data collection-and analeysis; National Institute of Mental Health(NIMH) final report guidelines;a0 i bibliography of congressionaltestimony,:pUblished books, tesiodUision coverage, and newspapercoverage trom2Titlely-B support., (MN) ,

a

. 0

s. . . .

ItIc************************i********************A************

.M'-' Reproductions supplied by EDRS `are the best that made *

.,,,..._

,- ,

, frot'the original document. , _*

***********************************************************************-' 4 I 0 ' ---a..,:_ 4 f

. #'

o

0

a

4.

The PrOducts -arid LJe of Rd8earch.Sponsored b9 the

aAdministr \ton.on Aging

qt

US. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RES9URCES INFORMATION-.CENTER IERICI

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organization,originatilkit.

EJ Minor change% have been made to improve

reproduction quality..

.. Points of view or 'opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent official NIE

position or policy.

4

.

Kristina Peterson

Deborah Leinbach,

"PERMISSIONTO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAVHAS BEEN GRANTED BY .

Remit& Inv*.

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Juhi- 8

iiiGerontological Research Institute .

AMERICANA INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH '..

t, 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington DC 20007t

2a.

a-

,

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

PREFACE

CAPSULE SUMMARY -

1. IRIBODUCTION

I I. THE PI DUCTS OF TITLE IV:B.RESEARCH

i

iii

.1

3

III: THE USES OFkTITLE IVB'RESEARCH

I V. SOME FORRELATES OF USE 11

Number and Tylies of Products , 12,

Elapsed Time Since Project Award 17

Size of the Award 19

Nature of G /antee Institution 20

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 23

APPENDIX A: Procedures-for-Data Collectionand Analysis .. 25

APPENDIX B: NIMH.Final Report Guideline; 33

APPENDIX C: Congressional Testimony, PublishedBooks, Television Coverage, and

4

, Newspaper Coverage from Title IV-BSupport - 43

TABLE 1''-'7-'Protiiiicts.ind-Uses of Title IVB Research

.

- TABLE 2

The Products of AoA Res4rch

.,

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 3 c.

Number of Products Per Award.

TABLE 4

The Uses of AoA Research'.

4,

.

: 4

- 5

8,

, ,,,63\

TABLE 5 .no : Number of Uses Per Award .11

._

, 6v TABLE 6

4 The Relationship Between the Types of Uses,

and theNature of Products )), . , , 12

TABLE 7 . ..

The Relationship Between Products and Usesby Congress and Practitig,ners 13 i-

TABLE 8

The Relationship Between the Combination ofProducts and Research Applications *., 14

TABLE 9

The R nship Between Final Reports andResearch pplications .15

TABLE 10.

The Timing of Each of the Major Types oft ..Products and Uses, i 18

'TABLE 11

The onship B amen Number of Productsand Size of the vow rd

r- 19.

TABLE 12Site of Award an Use 20,

TABLE 13

Products Per Ai, rd for Oniversity andPrivate Non-Prof t Grantees , 20

TABLE 14

Use-iTer Award or Uhiversity and'PrivateNon'Profit Gra tees 21

PFiEFAC4

This report is part of,a series that examines AoA'sresearch,.- program. The purpose flereis to document someof thevield

from Title IV-B funds.. .tit is designed to complement related ./Wbrk-.of Gerontological Research Institute (GRI) on the

- utilization of AqA-sponsored retearch, which is supported nderAoitt,' Award No. 90-AR-2173.,.,

The inforrnAion for this report was provided by over 100Aogsupported researchers, who responded to our in

sending a list 4 all the pirod'u6ts from their Title/IV-0research projects.Several people were also interviewed bytelephone during January and Februiry,1981.. Especially helpfulin this regard were-614 yr% Block,:Carroll Estes,;hichard

,, Douglass, Sandra Howell, and Raymond Sternberg, who provided. the details for the vignettes in this report.All'of the above

assistance notwithstanding, the authors alone are responsible, for;the content of this report.

A 't

CAPSULE SUMMARY -,

Critics and supporters of social research programs bothask: "What is the practical utility of federally sponsored.'research?" This report helps to answer that question forthe Administration' on Aging, (AoA). It summarizes thefindingsfrom a study, of the products .end uses of rpearch

.furided under Title IV-B df the Older Americans ktt..

tOne major finding is that final ieporti are only'a small:portion of the yield Of Title IV-B funds. Our study showsthat g'rantees produce many other products. In all, wediscovered 1,149 pt.oducti in a sample of 99 Title IV-BprojeCts:

Aseco'nd major'finding is the extensive use to which Title1V-B. research has been put. Some of the uses were made by .the original researchers. 1148st were made 'by'practitioners,policymakers, journalists, and others. The case for..the effective-ness of AoA's research program was persuasive. 574

A,third finding is the apparent timportance of oral presenea,

Itions in getting resear finangs used. The str association, .

between oral presentations and research utilizatio is stri ing. -

in.cOnfrast, the final report appears to be ielativ IN/ unimportantin the utilization process. Projects that produced qhly a finalrepo;-I had no documented instances of utilization.

This report represents one of the few efforts that has beepmade to inventory the fLill range of products and uses of asocial research program. .The' findings merit attention. Theymay help policymakers`and administrators to increase the

.payoffe"Of their sponsored research.

. ill-.

1: INTRODUCTION

Critics and supporters of social research programs both ask:"What is the practical utility of federallysponsored research?"This report helps to answer that question for the Administra-tion on Aging (AoA). It summarizes the findings from a studyof the products and uses of research funded under Title IV-Bof the Older Americans Act.

. ., One major finding is that,fing reports represent only a small

portion of the yield of Title IV-B funds. Final reports are not- -as often assumedthe.only product of research. Qur study of

. .AIDA grantees shows that they produce mart other pioducts.In all, we discovered 1,149 productsin a sa Ole of 99 IV-B

. projects. We found 23 differept types of products.

Aiecond Major finding is the extensive use to which IV-Bresearch has been pin. Some of the uses were made by theoriginal researchers. Others were made bypractaioners,policymalCers, journalists, etc. We found 228 documentedinstances of use in the sample, We found 17 different types

are shown in Table 1.

a

A thirdlipcliiig is the apparent importance of oral presenta-tions ih getting research findings used. We cannot determine ifthe oral presentetionscaused" utilization;-but the strong ass=ciation betweqn the two is striking. In contrast; thq final reportappears tote relatively:unimportant in the utilization ,processPrOjects that produced only a final report had no docahentedinstinces Of,utilization. ,

,

TABLEProducts and Uses ohitle IV -B Research

.Category

PRODUCTS OF RESEARCH

Written

Oral

TOTAL

1 USES OF RESEARCH ..Uses tac' knowledge distributors

Uses bY Prictitioneis.policymakers;" 'other researchers °

- Uses bY original researchers

.TOTAL

Number Percent

566

583

49.3%

50.7%

' 1,149 100.0%

.

\ .

%,

84 36.8%,

109 47.8%

35 15.4%

228 100.0%

The information fpr this study was provided by the TitleIV-B researchers who carried out these project's. We asked theinvestigators to send-an annotated resume or a list of products z.and applications of their IV-8 research. This report is basedon responses for 99 awards, or 22 percent of the total awardsmade by AoA between 1968 and 1980. The procedures we usedfor collecting and analyzing the.data are discussed in Appendix A.

This study represents one of the few times that an attempthas been made to gather information,on the uses of research.Because of the fundamental importance of promoting utiliza-tion in the management of researctr suc Jr) °matronshould be assembled on a regular,basis.

, Inquiries were made bf the Nanonal,Science io'pndation. the National. -Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Justice, the National ,

Institute of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities,and the National Institute, qf Mental Health. Only the NationalInstitute of Mental Health (NIMH) maintains a systematic informationsystem to monitor the products and results of its research. Othersrequire that geantees report on all of the written docPments of theirresearch, but pot on the known applications. The form used by NIMHin documenting known applications and products is included inAppendix B. The information is used as a tool for describing the -

accomplishments-of NIMH pnd developing new research priorities. An .

example is the report of NIMH's Division of Extramqral Research Programs,"Major Accomplishments, 1970-1980: Priorities and Plan for Extra-mural Inveitments. FY81."....

Iry

a

e

,

ThJ

Oti

11: THE PRODUCTS OF TITLE IV-B E3 RCH'

The numbet and variety of the prod is from Title IV-8research-are quite large much larger tha wd had expected.

- The,99 awards in our sample produced 2 published reports,364 unpublished re orts, and 583 oral resentations of theresearch results.2 more detailed.breakdown is prgsented inTable 2.

Thp number of products per award varies from one to 74..Table 3 provides the complete distributio, for the awards inour sample. Although mose(67) of the awards produced tenor fewer products, the sample also incleiderour projects thatgenerates over 50 products. The median number of productsper award is7.

The 202 published products include 100 journal articles and18 book's. Tdgether, these articles and books account for tenpercent of the products. (The list of books for which we havetitles is provided in Appendix C.)

The 364,Unpublished_documents in the,sample include final...reports and interim reports, to AoA,as welas handbooks,Manuals, and other reports. They constitute 32 percent of theproducts. The 89 final, reports are not only a minority ofproducts (eight percent), they alsO are a minority of thewritten products [16 percent). Treating final reports as thetypical product of-research clearly is inappropriate. "1

.s

2"Uppublishad" repbris include final reports. "Published" reports areonly those produced by a publishing house,,university Press,pr theU.S. Government Printing Office.

3

4

7

-

TABLEQThe Products of AoA Research

/IV* of Product I.

Percent of NumberNumber of Total Products of AwardsProducts IN 1.149) IN 991

WRITTEN !UNPUBLISHED) IN 90 Awards)

Final Report to AoAInterim Report to A

Other `Noon'Ilendbrols or Manuel

Other Unihiblished Materiel

89 77 71

24 2.1 14

. 189 16:4 50

49 4.3 1213 . 1.1 7

SUBTOTAL 364 31.6

KRIS (PUBLISHED OR ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION)57 ) fa.

Newspaper Article 7 .6 2'0 Newsletter Artedo 8 .7 5

Journal Article 100 8.7 38

Oh. Book / 18 1.6 15

Chapter(s)of Book 44 3.8 22

Meettine Article 2 .2 2

.Handbook or Manual . 10 .9

Other Publishedlotetoriel 13 6 1.1

SUBTOTAL 202. 17.6

ORAL PRESENTATI(;NS (N7 7Ay.avds)Formal Conference Preeniation .. 277 24.1

&her Cimfrmsocel,resentation : 57 5O

Congressional Testimony - 17 , 4.5Putlie hionFoderal Testimony

.. 91 '.7.9

,------..thher_EtataLTestirnony,(AokosurttencJi.2Courson) Taught

...' Guest Lecturer

Media APCertmes

Videotape

Other

68

15

12

21

8

. 1.4

3.8. 17

49 4.3 10

5 .4 3

13 1.1 2

SUBTOTAL 583 50.7

O

This column Intl the number of awards for which each type of product was reported.

104

O

TABLE 3

) Number of Product Per Award ra

'44IL

No. ofProducts

Nd. ofAwards

1 8- ..2 , 10

3

4 9

5

.6r 9

7- .1

7 t. 58 2

2,910

11,

11 3 I

12 313 216 2.

17 2

18 2

19 2

20. 1 r21 224 1

'2931 1.

32 1

24 1

35

37 2

1

1

53., 1

c'43 1.

74'

4

V

There were more oral presentations of. the research (51 per-

cent) than all other products combined. This is the.most commonform of dissemination in the sample. It is also a kind of activitythat the Gero'ntological Research Institute has found to beespecially effective in increasing the utilization of research. In

case studies of highly utilized research, a recurrent chatacteris-

tic,was frequent face-to-face communication between the pro-

ject staff and thvotential users of the research.3

O

, . . _

..: 3see Robert K. Yin and Ingrid Heinsohn, The Uses of Research Spon-sored by the Administration on Aging (AoA), Case Study No. 1: .

Transportation Services for the tlderly, September 1980; Robert K.Yin and Ingrid Heinsohn, The Uses& Research Sponsored by the .Administration on Aging (AoA), Case Study No. 21 Older Americans

. , Resources and Services (OARS), November 1980;and Roberla_C.A'

Cronin and Ingrid Heinsotin, The Uses of Research Sponsored by the

t Administration on Aging (AoA), Case Study No. 3: Volunteer Sur- $

veys of Nursing Homes, May 1981. 4

,1.2e

-

(

III: THE USES OF TITLE IV-B RESEARCH. .

The findings from research have been-applied innumerous practical settings. The'survey'revealed 228 instancesof use.4 There are 84 cases oVthe pirojeclis beirig cited in the s

- media: There,are 109 cases of the research findings being usedby practitioner's, policymakers or other researchers. And thereare 35 cases of projects leadteg to related research awaris.

'. Table 4 summarizes the number and diversity of research api3li-cations.

-L.

- All of the major television yetwerks have broadcast iteintsstories based on research supported by'AoA. Local stations,ina number of .cities--inciuding Baltithore,,,Sacramerito'

, Washington, D.C,Aew'Y.ork Cityalso have featured AoAresearch findings.: Thirteen of the 99 projectsWere used as a

-basis-Jornewspaper-itdries:Both of-the major wirelervices,. as well as several leading newspapers across-the country, have ,

ptibli'sherd articles based on Title IV-B research. One project...wascliscyssed in a-U.S.-NeWs and Worldii'eport article. 'Two6thers were used as the basis,fbr articIANNewsweek./(Appendix C gives details on the projects that received mediaattentidhl.

4The data on uses of Title 4171:1 reseea@rch are likely to be underestimates oactual use. For various.reasonsiresaiclieis are often unaware of allthe instances in which their research are applied. Also, ourcoding procedures were designectioiiciid'oyer-counting. If therespondent reported, for example,_that thcs researCb had been used by

-,aeveratdifferentiesearcherCaSthe,tiasieforotherresgareh, only oneWas coded. Only if die,uieiiivere'clearlY diffprent were they,

cckelecCmore than once.

-

rof044.0/.04..

4

TABLE 4

The Uses'Of AbA Research

NumberType of Use of Uses

Percent Numberof Total of Awardstti .. nar IN 991

USES BY KNOWLEDGE DISTRIBUTORS IN 19 Awards)

Newspaper article (by othprs)

Neyntstteikarticle ,,. 0

Magazine article

TV or Radio Coverage (not involving appeara&es)

Other

50

11 ,

3

13

7

2124.8

1 3

5.7

3.1

5 '',.- 13

'53

4

1

SUBTOTAL 84 36.8

USES BY PRACTITIONERS. POL1CYMAKER S.OTHER RESEARCHERS (N 32 Awards)

Cited in Others' Court**Atributedlo or Cited in Other Researchers' %Irk

. Used as a Barn foe a Coaftrence

Usid as a gam for Lofslative Action (Federal)

Used as a Basis for Legislative Action (Non-Federal)

Used a Basis for New or DrIferent'Prectices in Programas.Sganagement or Personnel Training by Practitioners

Used by MA for Subsequent Research Agenda

Other

7

31

9

5 . f12

41

3

1

3.1

.13.6

3.9

215.3

18.0.

12.4

4

19.

6

5

.5

18

2

.1

SUBTOTAL 109 47.8

USES BY QRIGINAL RESEARCHERS (N 16 gvards)

Follaw-on Grant froin AoA

Related Grant ftom Another Agency

Billeted Grine from iinA C.Other , a

8

lb-

. 6

3.5

7,0

2.2

2.6

8

9'4,3

SUBTOTAL 31 15.3

This column lists the number of awards for, which each type of use was reported.

.

4r,

a

e.

tr

14'41

One third of the project staffs (32 of 99) report that theirfindings have been used by,practitioners, policymakels or otherresearchers. Of.these, the largest number Of uses is 41"contributions to new or different practices in program manage-ment or per'sonnel training." Some illustrative examples oksuchuses are:5

The Ft. Lincoln Family Medicine Ceriter and the.D.C. General Hospital used the findings from aGeorgetown University project ("Maintaining theElderly in the Community," 90A1381 ) to develop

- trainingcourses and assessment procedures for theelderly. '

The Department of Labor and.the Social SecurityAdministration used the findings from an UrbanInstitute project ("The Adequacy of Private

'Pensions," 90A1652) to develop policy positionsOn income security.

Xnursing home in Missouri has adopted therecommendations =for modifying policy and prac-.tice provided by a University of Missouri projecf("Environmental'Constraints on Spatial Org'aniza-

' tion of Social Interaction,",90AR2058).

The Area Agencyp,n Aging in K'ansas City,' Missouri, used the datafrom a University of

MissoUri project ("Urban and Rural DifferencesAmong Hispanic Aged," 90AR2077) to trainits employees.:

Klumeroussocial service' agencies in Californiausedthe findings on program development of aealifornia'State University project ("Techniquesof Social Service Provision to the'Minarity Aged,"90A1832 and'90A1298).

ther examples may be found in the three cake studies cited above.

z.)

-;*

The California Multi - ,Service Senior Programadopted recommendations on program manage-

ment pl*oVided by a University of SouthernCalifornia project ( "Research Dissemination andUtilization," 90A319).

, A number of Title IV-13'projectsx(ed to,applications in bdthpolicy and practice. Some of the ways that Title I V-B research hasbeen used are illustrated in the,following-vignette:

aVignette No. 1

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology project, directedby Dr. Sandra Howell, surveyed elderly living in subsidizedhousing todetermine their preferred living environment.Among the principal findings are that (1) the elderly preferseparate rooms to large,multi-purpose rooms; (2) they havemore furniture than other people, (3) their needs sometimesrequire two bedrooms, and (4) they prefer small communityrooins.

The. research has led to applications in both policy and prac,tics. As a direct result of the project's findings, the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)Changed its floorplan designs. New housing contains one-bedroom apartments withan average of 100 more squarefeet and smaller, more numerous communitrrooms. Further,The State of Massachusetts now requirei tliatfive to eight -percent of alt HUD-subsidized housing unittcontaintwobedroomt.

Architects not associated With HUD have also applied thefindings to their.designs. Hewett's suggestions affectedconstruction in Maverick Square, East Boston, and theremodeling of Glouchester Elementary School in Boston foruse by the elderly.

During the latter stages of the project, 20 architects partici-pated with Howell in a pilot study of knowledge transfer,The architects were from private arahitecturat firms,state housing agencies, a State Agency on Aging, and acity planning department. Howell presented the pro-jects findings to the group, and provided technical assis-tance as they designed new housing. The architectsincorporated the project's findings into their finaldesigns.

16

t

A

.t

IV: SOME CORRELATES OF USE4 ,

The numbet of use repotted for ;the projects in our sample, ranged from none to 29, as showriiii Table -5. In another

study, we are idedtifying the factors that account for theselarge differences (with special emphasis on the factori thatAoA or the grantees may be able to control). We have studied

--Title IV113 projects' that have led to extremely high rates ofutilization; some common patterns have emerged.6

TABLE 5

Number of Wes Per Award

Reported Uses , No. of Awards

5

7

9

-57

7

12

'42

1

5

3

10 1

14 2

26 1

29

ef

i'..,6See the thice case studies cited above.

The present data base does not permit comparable analy-ses. Its focus is limited to incidents of use. It does not pro-'vide the rich &tail the case studies afford about the context

in'which the research was conducted, or the special efforts.c made by AoA and the granteesito promote the application of

results. We cah, however, examine the relationships amongprojects, prodUcts, and uses at a descriptive level, with a 'View

to developing hypotheses that AoA may, wislyr pursue. Inthis chapter, we discuss fow kinds of relationships and somepossible implications.

tiumber and Types of'Products

IiVe begin with the overall relationship between products anduses. Table 6 shows the ".profile" of products (published docu-ments, unpublished documentscstand oral presentations) associatedwith the projects that did or did not lead to practical applica-tions. Projects that did result in use were more prolific'thanthe others in producing each of the three types of produas.The difference in the number of oral presentations is especially

striking./

*,

-- TABLE 6The Relationship Between the Types of Uses alid the Nature of Products

1r j

MEAN NUMBER OF PRODUCTS PRODUCED BY PROJECTS THAT WERE:

1.r

TYPE OF ; '- PRODUCT

Used byKnowledgeDistributorsIN 19 awards)

Used bYPractitioners,Pollegmakers.Other ResearchersIN 32 awards)

`...UstoLbyOrigirtal ..Researchers : Not UsedIN 16 awards) IN 57 awards)

istreftocUments <is' 1.8 2.9 3.6 \...., , 1.5

1,,,,,..... . .Unpublished Documents 4.9 5.3 5 6 2.8

... .. -

Oral Prtientstions 8.7 12.1 14.8 , 2.7

TOTAL 15.4 20.3 240 7.0

.We cannot assume..thatthe preparation of a large number of

products "causes'Thelation. Causation works both ways.Projects that have s ntrinsic interet or merit to-attract.the attention of the media, po makers, practitioners, andother researcher's are also thoke di most readily lend them-

selves to publ able articles or books, and that are mosNikelyto stimulate invi ns to conferences or Congressional hear-ings. But the magni ude of the differences between used andunused research sug`gests that this is not the only dynamic atwork. The relationships shown in Table 6 can be construed ashighly supportive of AoA's recent emphasis on disseminationon the partof its grantees.

To explore this issue further, we looked specifically at thetwo kinds of uses that are most directly related to impact onthe elderly: use in federal legislation, and use by practitioners*In all, 18 of the projects in our sample resulted in one or bothof these uses. In Table 7, the number of products producedby these projects is cdmpered with the number of productsfrom studies that did not restdt in either of these uses. The

- I.differences are not large for written products. But, for oralpresentations, the difference is substantial. dies that were21used by Congress orby practitioners were a ciated withthree times as many oral presentations as those that were notapplied to legislation or practice.

, I

TABLE 7 .

The Relationship Berireen Prodycts and Uses by Congress and Practitioners

TYPE OFPRODUCT

Putildhed Oocurnents

Unpubbsbed Docume

Oral Presentat

.TOTAL

MEAN NUMBER OF PRODUCTS PRODUCEb1:1Y PROJECTS THAT WERE

Used by Congressor Practmoners(N 18 awards)

Used byNeither CongressNor Prattmoners(N 81 awards)

2.7 rf1.9

'3.5 33

-12.8 4.3

190 . .' 10.0

In Table 8, weixamine)te variations in use associated withdiffei-ent "profiles" or configurations of products. Four cate-gories are considered: Projects -that gen'erated all three typesof prodticts (publishedr4ials; unpublished reports; andoral presentations), projects that omitted published materials,

o

1 . , 4

projects that omitted oral.presentations, andprojects thatomitted both published materials ar oral.-presentations.7

'TABLE 8 ,The Relationship Between the Cdibin' atien of Products and Research Applications

MEAN NUMBER OF USES OF PROJECTS THAT PRODUCEDP

Used ty KnowledgeOrstsiburors

. . 4,014i & Published & Unpublished

,fyPE OF All Three Unpublished Unpublished Only

USE IN 43 awards) IN 26 awards) IN 7 awards) IN 14 awards)

Used by Practitioners.PolleYmakars. OtherRestarehen 2.0

Used by OriginalRettarthen

TOTAL

1.4 10 00 00

.7

2 00 00

00 00

44; C00.0 0.0

"5-

,`The results provide further insights into the relationship_between the nature of research produpts and the incidence ofuse. There is a strong association between the pr&luction ofpublished materials and all three types of use (Column 1 vs.Column 2). More to the point, there is no reported use what-

___ever.of projects that.pcodgcec010 oral presentations (Coltimns

3 and-.4).'

Finally, we tufrf fo-th-e-clatilt vroductol federal researchgrants, the final project report. When we' isolate this categdrwhat are the characteristics of use? The results are shown inTable 9. The answer seems to :be that the final report a tie

contributes very little to use. This is shown by the co parisori

ofProjects that did and did not produce final iepcirts, a d accen-tuated bythelindings for projects that produced only a inal

report.

.SFOr fbur awards, we were unable to identify any unpublished pro-'duct: 'Since all grants are associated with some sort of requirementfora report to 4oA (unpublished), we chose to treat these four asexamples of incomplete data rather than as examples of projects

,.that produce no Unpublished materials at ajl.

4

TABLE 9

The Relationship Betiteen Fine! Reports and Research Applications '

MEAN NUM8ER,J3F USES OF PROJECTS THAT PRODUCd13*

""

TYPE OF USE

Report &Other ProductsIN 62)

Only OtherProductsIN 281

Only a FinalReport

r (N 9)

Final 4

Used by Knowledge Distributors 1 3 .1 0.0

Used by Practitioners, Policymakers. .ye.Other Researchers 1.2 1.2 0.0

Used by Oridnal Researchers .4 .4 0 0

.TOTAL '3.8 1.8, 0.0 It°

These data suggest that the importance of the final researchreport has been overstated. They do not suggest that finalreports cannot play a highly effective role when supplementedby other means of dissemination. This is illustrated by thefollowing vignette:

Vignette No. 2 ,,

-- ..

The Institute of Gerontology.itthe University of Michigan, completed'a 14;month research project in 1980, supported

joirfily by AGA and the Michigan Department of Social ... 404' ; Se?"vices. The work docurnented the extent and severity of 'I, . abuse.of the elderly, an underinvestigated subject prior tothat time. The project was directed by Dr. Richard Douglass.

a a

Amo,pg the products of the reseafchAe a final report, four_' conference papers and a newsletter article. Uses of the

research include an article in Newsweek and an interview on ,the radio program Voice of America. There have been more ' .than 1,200 requests for the final report, and hundreds ofrequests for the conference papers.. '

% l . . --

The research has been used by policymakers, practitipnersand community leaders. At least 20 statelegislatures haverequested the project reports to help develop legislatiop farmandatory reporting of elderly abuse. The states includeIndiana, Ohio; ;California, and Michkjan. pouglass has given .

testimony befope three state legislatures, and commented pndraft letislation for several states.

A,

, ,

The "prdject has also led to concrete innovations in practice ,, - 1-N."settings; In Inkster, Michigan, the directoiotthe local . ,

RetiredSenio? Volunteer Program wisinspired by the finalreport to develop a qpmmunity task force on senior citizenabuse. 'The group, composed of 17 represinfativ,es (tomlocal organizations concerned with the elderly, refers localresicfpnts to appropriate social service agencies. In the .

1 I:t.. 'a -5

15"Ait,

yr,,iip.i,

",. ') 4

0

A. t....

a4.. ... -.$'

.. . a

:.t ..,

..! ; ,.- a

t fuuire, the tas rce pleniaistablish.a volunteer. pek ..-. ..

. counseling ser in housinb.units'for the elderir The% c. 'have alspleen Oar prOgorns aslablished in otherstates, includin ewYork, and Ohii5; as a resultof thisresearch. . 4

. .-N

The more typical pattern--i.e., uses in which products other

than the final report play-the key roleis illustated by thg

following vignette;

Vignette No. 3 , N

A University of California project, directed by Di. CarrollEstee, evaluated the implementation of AoApolicy.at the' .State and Aria level. The research has contributeato 71products and applications.

,

The project contributed to three unpublished report4and ,13 published docuMents. The - published documentsinclude two books(The Aging Enterprise and -Technocraticde la Viillesse), three special reports to Congress, threebook chapters, and five journal articles. Estes was also theguest editor for the Genaationsapecial issue, "PublicPolicriPpblished in May -19801.

The,project was particularly active in,giving oral pre*ntaitlttions. Estes gave:testimony four times before the U.S. -House 61 Representatives Subcommittee on Labor -HEW. --Appropriations. She also testifiW twice before the U.S.,House of ReprOsentati.ves Meet Committed on Aging, andnine times before other federal ancistate:leyel

-she also organized and was thehairpersan for Pep"House andSenate Staff Conference on liesearchand ,

Training: Views from the Natiohannstitute on Aging (NIA)and NatiOnal Institute of Mental HeaJthqNIMH)."0

° °c-In addition, project staff presented'14papiet atprofelsio'naisociety meetings, including the International GerailtologicatAssociation and the Intimetional Socidlogical_kssdaialion'.**i,Estes conducted seminars` -based partially on,i'lXressearell atGeorgia State University, guest lectured for tau olhgrcourses,.made five media appearances, and gave'theikeysi.cita.address at the Gray Panthers Third Biennial --Convention. .

.

In addition to these direct products, the research led to o/innovations in policy and practice settings. Stataand Area ,Agencies changed theirplanning cycles partiallyedue to theresearch findings. Further, -the relationship between the 'California Departm,ent of Health Services and the 4-`

California Department of Aging was formalized in an 4'*,attempt teimptove the-planning, process in communityhealth services. The research also contributed to the - oOlder Californians Act, the California equivalent to the 1

Older Americans /kit. The project recetvedone follOw-on A4 grant from AoA and four related grants from, otheragencies.'"

boa-.

S'

4

.f

0

Elapsed time Since Project Award

A second set of relationships concerns the time lag associatedwith the various products and uses. Table 10 shows the relevantdata.8 It will be seen pat:

Unpublished documents and oral presentationsfollow highly similar production schedules;published reports lag behind these by roughlytwo years.

In the first three years followingthe grantaward, the uses that are madecof the research

are predominantly uses-by knowledge distribu-'tors..

o

Extensive use by practitioners., palicymakers,

and other researchers begins in the third yeai;:,following the award anctcontinues through thesixth; uses by the project staff in developingfollow-up projects folloW a similar pattern.

This sequence reinforces the findings in related reseeith thatinteractions between researchers and potential users during theearly stages of a projedrare important factors in utilizatidn.8The aggregate trend suggests that products precede applications.Findings amity presented are communicated through knowledgedistributors fairly quickly; applications to policy and practicefollow in subsequent years.

The cumulative percentages in Table 10 have implicationsalso for the prOcedures used in reviewing research projects. Theyindicate which of the many types of products and uses can beexpected at a given point in time. (Data'on the relative lengthsof these projects would refine these expectations.) Our findingssuggest that a wide array of other products should,,be reviewedin addition to the final report, and that a reasonable assessment

8This section discusses aggregate trends. It would have been interestingto examine the effects separately for projects of.yarying lepgths.'Howe*, this infpyillati.cP Wea.c.MaYaliable. .

9See the-three case studies cited above.

17

00

e

;TAB LE.10

,The Timing of Each of tileMajor Types of Products and Uses

"...:

PRO UCTS OF THE RESEARCH USES OF THE RESEARCH

. PublishedDocuments

UnpublishedDocuments

Oral ,

PresentationsKnowledge .Distributors

Practitioners,PolicymaUers.Other Researchers

s y..

Original Researchers ,

Time Lag No. of(in years) Products

Cumulative%

No. ofProducts

Curokrlatiye%

No. of CumulativeProd$cts %

No. ofUses

Cumulative%

No.'ci1(Uses

Cumulabve No.% Uses

of Cumulative%

..r. , 1

A.,.. 2 19'

3 214, .i

4 35-

5 ' 32

,6 12

' 8

8 8

9 4-'

10 2

4

2.0

150

-. 31 .3

55.1

1176.9

85.0

90.5

95 9.98.6

100.0

."..

4

65

60

27

11

7

.62

' s'' 0

0

.

.

:

.

2,2

37.9

70.9

85.7

91.8

95;5

'98.9

100.0

100.1)

100.11

'.

--,24 . 5.3

129 33.8

154 67.8

76 84.5

38 92.9

12 95 6

10 97.8

7 99.3

-3 $ 100.0

0 100.0.

:

6

13

12

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

18 8

59.4

96,9

100 0

100.0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100 0

100 0

,

k,

.'

3

9

15

9

1

0

0

0

6.0

24,0

54.13

72.0.

82.0

.98.0

100 0

100.0.s

100.0

100.0

.

a

4

1

90

1

0

0

0

1

.

9,5

28.6

47.61

52.4

95.2/

95.2

100 0

100.0

100.0

100.0

.

.

. 1

=.._.

-

TOTAL147* F 100.0 182 100,06

453 100,0 32 ,100 0 .

)50. 100.0 21 100.0

. £

.£

Ae tag is the number of years after the award is made. Thus the data for a time fagot one year represent the numbeiof products or uses that were geneiated during the first

Ye r of the award. e !' .

Data were ailable for 782 of the products and 103 of the incidents of use.r I .

o ,-

f-cannbt be made until the third year after the award. A coMpletereview of a project could not occur for the average project--until at least the fifth year after the award.

Sizp of the Award-

A third characteristic that is included in our data base (for .

88 of the 99 projects) is the size of the award. We examined firstthe relationship between size. of aw \rd and number of products.The results are shown in Table 11. As would be expected, thelarger awards are associated with larer numbers of 'products.The two largest awards .V $1.0 million and $0.9 million) generated'57 and 74 products, respectively; the 27 other "large" awards(which ranged from $204,000 to $547,000) generated an averageof 15.4 ileparate products.'

TABLE 11

The Relationship Between Number of Products and Sizeof the Award

Size ofthe Award

No. ofProducts Mean

Small IN = 29) 186 6.4

Medium (N = 30) ' - 296 9.9

Large (N = 29) 594 20.6

.Small = Under $75,000Medium = $75,000 $200,000°Large = Over $200,000 .

TIIis positive relatiOnship doesnot extend to use. As will'`z-lae seen from the tabulation in. 'Table.12, there is no consis-

';tent relationship between incidence,solusand Size of award.Indeed, the mediumsize awards result in the greatest use in

I

3r-

C

%

-TABLE 12 ?Size of Award and Use

AVERAGE NQ. OF USES BY:

Practitioners,Size of Knowledge Policymakers, . Originalthe Award Distributors Other Researchers Researchers

Small (N 29) .

Med ;um.; (N 30)

large (N 29)

0.7

1.1

0.8

as

0.6

at

Nature of, grantee InstitUtion?.

The final characteristic we examined was the institutional'affiliation of the grantee. Specifically; we compared awardto universities with awards to non-profit research institutionswith respect to both products and,use. TlfSg'were 60 awardsto universities and 31 to non - profit research,institutirsns;4the

other eight awards were to,pUbliq or social service agencies (6)anifto-Private foundations (2).

1TABLE13 ",Products Per Award for University and Pate Non-Profit Giantees

University Orontes/ NonProfit GranteesIN- 60) (N31)

Published

Unpublished

Oral

2,6

3.8

- 8.1

-

The results with respect to the number-of products per award .are shown in Table 13. The twp groups of grantees were equallyprolific in producing unpublished documents. But, in each ofthe other two categories, the difference isfarge. Researchersat universities, when compared to those in non-profit researchfirms, produced per award:

twice as many published journal articles,

three -times as mangy( 7al ptesentations,

Ithree times as many formal conference presen-Aations,

_?-.;five times as many chatiters irf publiihed books,

o

six times as many informal conference presenta-

-O .tenfari- es as many public, non-federal testimonies.6

These f dingsare consivent-with thehe,avy emphisis onpublic iionSend'profeliiiinakiiiibility in university settings.

TABLE 14S: - .

Uses Per Award for University and Private NonProfit Grantees

University Grantees NonProfit GrinteesInstances.oUse 60) ..._,

By Knowledge Distilbutors . 1.1

1.6

.--BrOrigidarResealers 0.4

By Practitioners, Policymakers,Other Researchers

0.5

t0.2

0.3

. The,differets in incidence of use are equally triking., . O' ..

; These are showain Table 14. Projects that were carried outat universities received twice as Much Coverageby knowledgik

.,,. . . .

applicationsdistributors, and led to eight times as many applications by.practitioners; policymakers and other researchers. Some of the

. specific finding's of interest are OM the 60 universit based,.

jproects produced: t. ,--,- . ,

, 7 ., '" . 40 newspaperarticles, and ...- : .

38 adoptions of new pr.clifferAt approachesby praC'titionbrs.

The'piCtule that emerges frornahese data is kin at all consis-.

;'.tenty:n4'th the stereotype of aloOfscholars,exploring esotericAbpfd- .. .

The apparent difference between the products developed .at the two kinds of institutions must be interpreted cautiously.It well,May be that a factor other than the nature of theinstitution--e,g., a differerice in the types of research carried 'out byithi two kinds of institutions -- underlies the findings...BLitthe-fact-that-university-rased research is used much more widelythan some believe is real.

Id

go-

1 .

1

V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report represents one of the few efforts that has beenmade to inventory the full range of products and uses of asocial 'research program. The findings merit attention. Somecommon assumptions about researchere reinforced.by the,data. Others wertcontradicted.

The questicin that began the study was What is the practicalutility of federally sponsored research? The focus of our inter-

.- est was the discrete instances of utilization..The findings revealthat uses occur in larger numbers than might have been.pre-dicted., There wereAl documented instances of use bypractj-

,,ti,oners. There were 17 documented instances 'of use in--thelegislative process. Doubtless there were, many other undocu-xnented cases fostered by the extensive media coverage theseprojects received. In these and other types ()Luse, the case forthe effectiveness pfAoA's research program yvaspersuasive.

The findinAs on-the roleof the final report also differ fromthe Commonly held assumptions. We found that final.reports .

constitute only eight percent of the-PrOducts in t4e sample. In,.addition to final reports, the projects produced 4"77 other writtenproducts and 583 oral presentatrons., Moreover, Our data pointto the relatively'minor role of the final reRort in the utilizationof research., -Final, reports Can,o14jran effective role Mien ,com-t)ined,with other products. Etut,.the projects:in the,samples thatproduced opli,,firatieriorts:led to no practical applications.

,

incontrasttoihe:fipilings.oh,the-final:re6orti-our analyses,,indiCete- that oi:al:presentationsAre."closelY,ass§ciated with,researckutilizalikn.'Proje4s-that had:'beeptised by ,DongressCr,praCtitioners,:forexaiiile;wer!,:pteserited orally three times

,

more often than projects that were not used to these ways. Theti g of events reinforces this link. Oral presentations tendedto o ur prior to the reported applications of the research. Thisis consistent with findings in related research on the importanceof interactions between researchers and potential users duringthe early stages of a projectz;Such interactions appear to#ntiancethe likelihood that research will be used in policy or practice.

Our data also suggest that research conducted in "the hail'sof ivy" is by no means limited to abstract, theoretical exercises.Indeed, the prdjects carried out by universities generate alarger number of products and are used more often by precti-,tioners than the projects carried out by othehnstitutions. Thisfinding is not surprising, given the incentive structure. Upiver-sities encourage their staff to write journal articles and publish -able' materials. The fact that a research project his ended doesnot effect these incentives, More vigorous dissemination 'ofresearch results Outside the university setting may require incen-tives.

The study also,showed that different _kinds of prodUcts and

uses occurrId at different times, over a period of sixtr More

years. This casts doubt on the conventional practice of eValuat-ing researc on the basis of the final report submitted atltheend of the rant. If one putpose of the evaluation is to extractall.useful in ormation, an adequate review would encompassall of the products noted in this report, and could not reason-ably be and rtaken until the third year after the award. 'A com-prehensive view could not be undertaken until after the fifthyear.

c.

These fi dings are only suggestive. But they would seemto be suffici ntly provocative to encourage future data collec-tion on thes topics. More complete data would provide bettersamples and more reliable analyses. In paiticular, proceduresshould be e ablished by the major sponsors of researchlomonitor such data on a continuing basiL ThNationalInstitute of Mental Health's procedure for collecting informationon its sponsored research could serve as a model. Collecting'the data wo Id be relatively inexpensive. The results *aid helppolicyrriake and administrators to increase the payoffs of theirsponsored r search.

3024

Jr

_e

0

1Notes on Data Collection Procedures

,,..

Of the 441 research awards made by AoA from 1968 through1980, names and addresses were available for 193 different inves-

tigatorsocovering 231 awards. (Some of V researchers had

more than one award.) Some of the letters had incorrect or.inadequate addresses, and we ultimately received a total of 99

responses out of the 154 letters "accurately" sent. The response

tate for correct mailings, therefore, was 65.percent.

. , .We telephoned a random sample of 13 of our non-respondents

. to dettrmine if th'ose who responded represented a special cate-gory of researcher's. They did not. When asked their reason for

not responding, eight said that t t4ey hid been too bbsy, threehad asked someone else to help r pond, one never received our

letter, and one said the project was over but had never produded

anything.

We were also unable to use the information for 22 of theawards for which we received a resOgnse. Eight were eliminatedbecause the respondent(s) said that the project was ongoing and

they could not yet predict the full range of producis. Fourteenwere eliminated because the inforthation provided was too vague

to use.

27

4

Sampel4etter to IV-13 Researchers ,

Air (Dater,

WER.C.AS NS;T:..TES ;CR QESEARCsTHE apiavoiat SC,EN:CES

V56 'brows Jeleso, Sveet, +vas.^9tc, DC 7.007 ?02345000

4

(Address)

Re: (Title and Award Number of Project).

Dear

The Office of Raiiitr-tiajDemonairatiOn end Evaluation, Admipisti.ationon Aging, made an award to-the American Institutes for Research (AIR),to establish a Gerontologieal-ReiiarchInstitute. One of AIR's tasks isto nondlict an external review of /V -B research pioducts.* The results ofthe review are intended to assist AeA in planning for the utilizationand dissemination of IV-B research, reports and findings. Ttie first stepin conducting the review is to devplop a cOmprehemsive inventory of IV-B

-Products and-ifie-exterail uses of these pioddai.1%- ,

* BeCaluse research'findings,are packaged,in a mariety of ways anddisseminated and used by multiple udiences,, AoA'is not always aware ofthe ,full impactiof a,I1/78 project. We know, for example, that some ofthe more important research findings

or in testimony). before state and federal legislators ratherare presented at professional

thanin-finel,reports. BUt we ,often,hear-of these activities only' through informal channels. To ens ethat thalull spectrum of IV -Bresearch produeis, activities",, and uses can be included in the externalreview, we-hope-to enlist your coo ration in idelitifying the outcomesof this research.

We are interspted in two type of information --(1) direct productsof Ybur tv=ireselich, such, as re rts, presentations and journal articlesand (IL) external uses of these, 'products, such as media coverage orthe ciiaeion of the research by others. The following lists are prrdidedto assist you in reviewing the overall products, pctiyit s and uses ofths reseirCh. The.itams are suggestive ;Aber than e austive. Please.inaiuse in your response all 'Of the appropriate it regardless ofwhether they'fit,the categories given do the foil g page.

,

Page two

Direct Products of the Research

Journal article or other major publication

Manuscript submitted_for publication

Final or interim IV -B report

Book or book chapter

Presentation.ai professional conference

How -.to -manual, instruments, tests

Testimony before-federalaor.state legislators

Testimony befre -federal, state, area on localagencies (agencies on aging or other human serviceagencies)

External Uses of Research Findings

Citations by other researchers

Media coverage (press, radio, television or popularmagazine)

__Fractitioner prOgram:developmentor modifidatiol of paicy or practice)

Contributions to furthet research

Follow-on grant award

legislatiye use o% findings

Adoption of recommendations

We assume that most of these items ate listed on your current vita.You need only send us a copy, with the appropriate items marked. If thereare any items not on the vita please list theMf. For, your convenience,we have enclosed A stamped envelope addressed toAIR.

Please note thatwe are writing to.you'as the PrinciparInvestigatorof record. If responsibility for the project has been transferred to

another Individual, we would appreciate your forwarding this letter tothe appropriate person.

Sincerely,

Robert K. YinDirectoraCerontologidal Research Institute

RKY/jb

Iya

i..LS; 4

D t

Charactetistics of the Sample

The projects included in this analysis are not necessarilyrepresentative of all Title IV! projects.1 It isimpossible toascertain the charadteristics of those projects for which wereceived no response. And we dortot haye complete informa-tion on all of the IV-B prbjects that would provide'en estimateof sample bias. The 99 awards e mined here should not,therefore, be considered a represen .tive sample of all IV-Bprojects, in the traditional sense of t t term.

4

-The extent to which our sample do not cover specificcategories of projects can be seen in Tablas A-C. The distribu-tion of projects by the year,of the first a and is given for boththe projects included in our sample and a I Title IV-B projects.The probortions are similar for most of the years, but the sampleover-represents the recent years (1?76 through 1979), and under-represents earlier years.(1966-1969, 1971 and 1974). Similarly,the 99 awards do not reflect exactly the distribution of the awardamounts for all Title IV-B projects. The award amounts of theprojects in our sample are generally higher. Thirty percent of the99 awards were for over $200,00b while only, 15`percent of allTitle IV-B awards were in this category. ,

,,,,,,..-..0..necParacteristic,that is more accurately represented by thesample is the proportion of projects conducted by the variouscategories of research organizations. The organization conductingthe-research is classified as'one of five types-:

university or other institution of higher education,

non-profit research firm,

profit-making research firm,

public agency or social service agency, or

1We use the terms "award" and "project" interchangeably in this reportfor convenience. We know that some projects had more than one award(e.g.,the Duke OARSproject had two). When.we were aware of suchcases, we used only ones)f the award numbers to identify the project for.this sample. It is possible, though, that the'nuniber of avrards discussedin this repoi-t is slightly higher than the number of projects, ctuallyrepresented by them.

Q

private foundation.

4In both cases, over half of the awards represented were conductedby university researchers, about seven percent by public or socialservice agencies, and 22 to 30 percent by non-profit research firms,Only the profit-making research firmsare unrepresented in thesample.

A. Distribution of Awards, by Year of Award ,

Year ofAward1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

01971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

UnknoWn

TOTAL

PERCENT OF AWARDS

Awards in Sample(N = 99)

0% .

0

2

1

2

2

,23

0 .

9

All Awards(N = 441)

1%

3

2

2

2

3

0

0

"5d

10

7

12

13

5

29

100% 100%

4.

4.

Award years were unknown for 9 of the awards in the .sample, and 128 of the total. We suspect that the unknownyears fall primarily before 1975, when AoA's record keep-ing-procedures changed.

,

;

2r

1.

4

.

. .

B. Distribution of Awards, by Size of AWard*

PERCENT OF AWARDSAmount ofAwird

Awards in Sampte(N = 99)

-All Awards'(N = 441)

Under $100,000 35% 27%

, .$100;000 199,999 24 19

$200,000 -,. 299,999 18 9

. $300,000..- 399,999 3 3_

$400,000---499,999. 5- 2-

$500,006 and over 3 1

Unknown 11 38

TOTAL 100% . 100%

C. Distribution of Awards by Type of Organization

PERCENT OF AWARDS, IAwards in Sample All Awards

Type of Organization (V. 99) 441)

University 61% 55%

NonProfit Research Firm 31 22

Profitklakirig Reselkt, Firm,

Public or Social Service Agency 6 6

Private Foundation 2 4

Unknown 1 12

TOTAL 100% 100%

32

APP.ENDiX B: NIMH Final Report Guidelines

4.

O

FORM APPROVE0OMB NO 6$ R1452

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFAREPUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE or MENTAL HEALTH0IvISION OF-EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS

FINAL REPORT GUIDELINES

Month Year

(CW;Tralcg

INSTRUCTIONS

PHS policy requires that grantees submit a "terminalprogreG report" (final reportl within 90 days aftercompletion of the grant.

Please complete this series of items as this final reportThe report will be filed with your applications. reportsand other grant business on NIMH's central files It willPre read by staff in research program atlas. and may beread by other Institute staff concerned with Programanalysis. communication. evaluation and planning Thereport will be used for information aboui your research.le.. to describe and summarize the information (proce-dural as well as substantive) resulting from NIMHsupport. and to relate that information to mental healthproblems and research Your report will ofteribe usedapart from your application, however, othu documents.such as publications and applications, will be availablefrom the project file if needed.

Send copies of this report and all appendices a: Indicated below.

Small. Grants (R030 s All Other GrantsSend 3 copies.'Send 20 CoP;ei

o

TO,

These guidelines have been designed with relatively smallresponse spaces to encourage brevity However, do notrestrict your response if more space is needed be camplate, using additiOnal labeled pages inserted wherenecessary (sample page Included) Extensive descry.VMS and discussions, if desired, should be made inaddition to Your signory response to the item, andshould be placed as etandices. Discussions of issues notcovered) by these guidelines are also welcome as appendices. Use clear, concise language, avoiding highlytechnical language where practicable (Ma will van, fordifferent types of research), appendices could be moretechnical than responses to the items

All publications Kunio!' from this 'Project. and notpreviously submitted, should be submitted With thisreport (or as soon as SeidOhe . see the Section onDissemination. Publications should not be used on lieu ofresponses to particular items.

Mental Reilth S ices Development Branch

irDivision of M tal Realth'Service ProgramsNational Inst ute of Mental Health5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-17Rockville, Mar/land 20857,

Send two copies iete7 u, wry IHNRIanduavo

ADMINISTRATIVEDATA:

"(NOTE: Three's 74lure elw.sed, re* Melow inrorrnetremft

ef-S

ADM 442Rev. 245

1. GRANT NUMBER

1- '1-A4 1-H I 4 1- 1

SCSI (OBI (071(01101/ (T01(111 (521 (1St 1141

FOR NIMH USE ONLT

.I

aranehiSemonI

2 TITLE OF GRANT

3. NAPA% dr PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

SIGN/IsTURE Or PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

SPONSORING INSTITUTION

. NAME AND POSITION OF PERSONREPORT IF OTHER THAN ITEM 3

35

FONTINUE ON REVERSE SIDE

s.:

AIME OP ,THE PROJECT:

PROBLEM

Ammo)

GRANT NUMBER

esaibe briefly the spiv& aims of your project, Indic/lung major changes in direction ,from thiosumnal any

.0

rWeri the Smrpursued.as originally/ormu/ared?

Ost

co Yes.2 No

1131

TYPE OP.

. r RESEARCH:

8. - In general, how would you sAirseterizi your research?(Rank anY multiple answersusing "1" aimoss appropriate)

- , ,' liar Hypothesis development Inv Gath;ring of data: e si.. Surveys

1171 ?iypothesis testing

Its Development or refirrnaentof methodology

(20 Other (*way?: -:

- ....9 <,

PAGE 1

Jt

a

.

Lz

a

eAI,

4

a

10. Did you have siriticant tschnial methodological difficulties? t(Exatriphai: necessary mevurement tools undeveloped:unexpected inadequatthilata basal!ryes, describe, and explain how you dealt with them.'

'1;2 (2112 ONO

r. i

It. *Pt. ....1.,,,;:.. - ...

11, Did, you Mee sigetffatrit peeves/ ofXratipnei difficulties? ,,, ., i (Examples: trouble watt equipment; losi of sample or data; difficulties with cooperating .

unitil ,.' , t U YesIf yes: describe, and explain hol; you dealt with theme

, ..., 6431 4227

' . ...

ADM -442Rev. 2.75'

PAGE, 3 CONTINUE ON REVERSE SIDE

;

a a'

a

iI

4' "RESULTS 4-

/COns..4411

.

O

GRANT NUMBER

91dyz?!183:07riii!th?911rectIll rel±tedl?1h40 specific alms ("serendipitous findings"))

If yes. describe: 1 0 Yes

2 0 NO °31 ,

14, 'vHow do the overall results of your project it into these desatptions?,(If you had multiple expectations or hypotheses, base your response 0 Confirming your hypotheseson the predbminant trend of the results). or expectations 1241

0 Disproving your hypothesesOf expectations 1251

a.

'15. Did your reseugt result io significant methodological developments?

-If yes, downy:

0 Inconclusive 1251

I 0 Yes20 No

CONTINUE ON REVERSE.SIOE...-

GRANT NUMBER

nianicA N3:

a

'.

16. Wnsid Var cleseribei eim'ple`iiiiX;i1s7rilear(Rank any multiple answers, using '1- as most appropriate),

Up a new lino of research

1291 IV COntibut1R9 to the knowledge baseof the field

1301 (5Providing facts ready for applicationM a field

13R 0 Indicative of a "dead-end" line of pursuit

17 Do you have immediate plans for further research in this areal

if yat rartcbe e_

I 0 Yes,a2,

2 0 No :

18. Beyond youipwn plans, whet is your opinion of the future directions this research areashould take?'

19. Do you have specific suggestions (oxperknenteeautionsi eta) for other researchin thlsWeatIf yes, describe:

I DYes2 ON°

1331

PAGE4

40

isooticaytotes'

Mextetuedl

GRANT NUMBER

20. 't r3 Yes

2 0 No

C3So.olic t tit.rtidn

_J General held impact

In services R 6 D we are particularly interestedin any practice or policy. utilization of yOur '

findings - not by researchers but by serviceproviders. Arc you aware of uses of yout

findings? yes, describe, and check the type

of impact;Which best characterizes the impactof your research at'this time. Please use

' continuation page.if appropriate.

DISSIMINiatON:

21.

4s.an appendix, hit off pubhcavons load artrcles accepted for pubkation) rewlhng fromti see . Send any pobticabons which have not already been submitted as appendices,

withgeeht number indicated on each (See instructions, page 1. reparthrqvugwormon of books)

22.

Did you engage in any activities to promote thediffusion and utilization of your project results?Examples of such activities are speeches, conferences,action consultations, etc: If }fee, plegse describe and/or

list each Activity. Please continuation page if

appropriate.

Oyes2 LiNo

23. The official PHS policy indicates that if results incorporated in the report havebeen submitted for publication but not yet published, contents of the reportwill, as far as possible, be held as restricted information for src,months unless-the investogato, agrees to in earlier release Do you request this restriction?

t Oyes2 7.7-1Nd 131"

APPENDicES: See Insmiction.1.13.1Sre 1, Peogr43h 3.

2

CC

z017.

17.

,8N

ruhacv

reOgr.

zLL

kogN,

APPENDIX C: Congressional Testimciny,Published Books, TelevisionCoverage; and. NewspaperCoverage fromjitle IV-BSupport,

4,

I. CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONYI

Bello's, N.S. Testimony before the U.S. Senate, Special Committee

on Aging, October 1. 69.

Block, M. "Domestic Violence and the Older Woman:" U.S.Senate, Committee on Domestic Violence, Boston, MA, April

1979.

Block, M. "Protection from Domestic Violence." U.S. Senate

1979. D

Brody, EN. Testimony to the O.S. HoUii of Representatives,Select Committee

. -

Clark, R.L. "Early, Retirement Ineentives and Government'Policies.': Hearings before the U.S. House of- Representatives,Committee on Ways and Means, SubEommittee on Oversight,

--_,

September 10, 1980.

Cowgill, D.O. -"The Future.Location of the Elderly PopulationWithin Metropolitan Areas." Statement at the Joint Hearingbefore the U.S. House of Representatives, Select ComMitteeon Population and the Select Committee on Aging on the

Consequences of Changing U.S. Population: Demographics-of Aging, May. 24, 1978.

Cunningham, C.' ,'Crimes Against the Aging:" Testimony before

. the U.S. Senate, Joint Congressional Committee, SpecialCommittee on Aging and the U.S. House of 'Representatives, t

>Select Committee on Aging, February 1978.

Gerbner, G., GrosS, L., Signorielli, N., & Morgan, M. "AgingWith Television: What Viewers See and What They See."

House pf.RePresentatives, SelectComniittee on Aging',LOs Angelet Hearing, April 26, 1980.

.

.

Raitano, I. Testimony beforethe U.S. Se ate, Co Mime on-Funding for Family Care,of Chronica amily Members.

;

8

=/ -

Revise J. "Home Care Services for Older Americans: Planningfor the Future.'_'_Iestimony_beforejhe U.$,,Senate,, SpecialCommitteen Aging, May 1979.

Schmidt, W. "Health Care for Older Americans: The 'Alte4:0441-tives' Issue... Testimony before the U.S. Se2tgai$,Spe

Committee on Aging, 95th Congress, 1stsSestion, November23, 1977. ,

.ter

Steinberg, R. Testimony at hearings for the reauthoriiationof the Gitipr Amprieang Act, U S Setiate Hni-na, ResourcesCommittee, Subcommittee on Aging, 1978.

Storey, J. Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, .

;Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, September'10,'1980.

II. PUBLISHED BOOKS.-

Dowd, J.J. Stratification Among the Aged: An Analysis of Powerand Dependency. Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole,1980. :

Fogel, R., 'Hatfield, E., Kiesler, S,, &Shang, E. (Eds:) Aging:The Family, Stability and Change. New York: AcademicPress, forthcoming.

-Gilbert, N. & Specht, H. Coordination of Social Services: An

Analysis of Community Orgagizational and Staff Cparactei-istics.. New York: Praeger, 1977.

.

Holmes, M. & Holmes, D. (Eds.) The Handbook of HumanServices for Older Parsons. ftew York:. Huma encts Press,

1979.

K-utzat E.A. The Benefits of Old Age: Social Welfare Policiesfor the Elderly. Chicago: University of-Chicago Presi, 1981.

_A_

_

Lawton, M.P. Community Housing Choices for Older mericans.

New-York: SpringerPublishing Co.,.1981.

Lehner, T.J. The Older Americans, Issues in .State,Serviees.Lexington, KY: ,The Council'of State Governments.

46

47

ova'w;

4

, $ager,A. Planning Home Care for the Elderly. Cambridge, MA: ....

Ballinger2;r1,98,1,,__,... --T.,. i..,.:...,-,..._....... ..2,..:,-3........,

b12 '6

Schmidt, W.C., Jr. &M1

iller, K.,.et. al. Guardianship andthe Ballinger, 1980.Elderly.

. ,

Schutz, H.G., Baird; P.C., & Hawkes, G:13. Lifestyles and Con-',t sumer Behavior of Older Americatis.-Alew York: Praeger, . ..

1977. -

,

Diego, CA: Campanile Press, forthcoming.

III. TELEVISION STATIONS 0EATURED'AoA-FUNDEII-RESEARCH

.

BaftimOre, MD - Channel 11 0

-Baltirriore, MD - WBFF, Channel 45 '!,Baltimore, MD - WBAL(NBC), !-!Hello,:13altimore" .. °

program ,

Betliasca, MD-- Channel 20, "Newsprobe" program

. z Canada --Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Los eogelesXA - ABC News ,.,

LOS Angelds, CA - CBS NewsNew York, NY - NBC NeWs , . ,

*.,New York, NI* - CBS News ' . .;New York, NY -- NBC, "Prime Time Saturday" 0;6v:tam .:.

New York, NS( - .NBC, 'fPrime of. Your Life" program : "'..

Sacramento, CA - "Sacramento M'agazirie". prograni . -° -Washington, DC - D.C. Education Television, ,'N8ver Giver :

-,,, . , .. .., . t, -

Washington, DC -- WDVM,(CBS), "Morningbreak".Prograth,..

programDC - WRC (CBS); "Sunday "Supplement";

,..er...-:program. . ..,.

National - NBC, "Quin y" programNational - Newsweek Broadcastin§1,7today's.Woman". program , I!,

.

IV. NEWSPAPERS THAT FEATURED AoA-FUNDED RESEARCH..-

Associated Press

United:Press International' ;°

Ann Arbor NewsBaltimore Sunqay Sun:Christian Science Monitor

olumbia, Missouri Dailyo .Columbia,-Missouri Times .

Detroit Free PressEllicott City. Mauland_rtmesKansas City StarMiami HeraldNew'York TithesOregonian "Oregon JouknalPrince George's JournalSacramento ObserverTampa TribuneWashington Post '

-s Washington Star

0

V. PROJECTS.THAT RECEIVED TELEVISION AND RADIOCOVERAGE

Reducing the Effects of Crime .Against the Elderly(931375190)

M'altreatmentand Abuse of the Elderly (90A1664)

The Ratteted.Elder_Syndrome:(90A1614). _

Incentives and Family.Environments for the Elderly.(90A316) .

. ,

i Individual and. CotiimUnity'Competence: A Study:Ofthe Successfulness of COping Mechanist* of th*Red

.'-(90A520 ).

, Life Stylei-ofthe Aghig:atid:dolisuirier Behavior' (9q446):-; -

7.4,,+,1,,,..4

Yoga and RelaxationMeditation as Preventive He;Ith-Caidli3-(1315-61c Hispanic, and-White-Older-Persons 4,

(90AR2056)

Condeptualizing Quality Terminal Care for the Elderly(90AR2063) .Retirement Age PolicieS and Employment Opportunities

(90A1739)

_Funding Practices, Policies, and Performance of State

and Area Agrcies: AStudy of the Correlates_of SeniorPower, Environmental, and Organizational Variable(90A979)

The Minority:Retiree: An Untapped Resource(90AR2108)

The Impact of Suburbanilation on the Needs of Older. -

Americans (90A1366)

VI. THE PROJECTS THAT PRODUCED OR HAVE BEEN THEBASIS Of NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Home Health Care Among the Black Elderly (90A1291)

Inform'al Social Networks in Support of Elderly Blacks,in theBlack Belt of the U.S. (90A1290)

Techniques of Social Service Provision to the Minority=Aged-(90A1298)

Aging with Television (90A1299)

Aged and Pre-Aged Women: Analysis of Needs (90A1015)

0.

AmericalAialues'and the Elderly (90A1325)

, The impacts)! Subuibanization on the Needs of.OlderAmericans (90A1366)

The Battered Elder Syriciroine (9OA1674)

ag.

. -Retirement Age policies anthEmployment Opportunities

' .ri **I

A Study of PrOgrams Affecting the Elderly asConstituents: A National Aging Policy (90A660)

Yoga and Relaxation - -Me itation and PreventivCare for Black, Hispanic, and White Older Persons(90AR2056)

O

Impact of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1064 onNursing Home IntegratiOn in Three East Coast States(90AR2072)

I

0.

'Reducing the Effects of Crime Against the Elderly(90P75190)

Multidisciplinary' ter of Gerontolo64(90A1234)

1,

A.