'- 
Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL

DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS OF AOA'

DISCRETIONARY FUND PROJECTS

stRVICEs. 
-.r-
Richard P. Kusserow
l. 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
JUNE 1991
1y 

d3a 
 ;. 

Deparment of Health and Human Services 
OFFCE OF

INSPECTOR GENERAL

DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS OF AOA'

DISCRETIONARY FUND PROJECTS

tRVICES. 
Richard P. Kusserow 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
'0 
OEI-04-91-0011O 
1y~1t d3a  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE 
This inspection was conducted to evaluate the dissemiation practices for discretionar grant 
projects supported by the Admnistrtion on Agig (AoA). 
BACKGROUND 
progr 
Ttirtlge IV,  of the Older Americans Act authorizes a  of discretionar funds to support
education, researh, and demonstration projects. All grant applicants ar required to 
submit a plan describing how they wil disseminate their project results. Although AoA no 
longer has a unit devoted to dissemiation, its sta contiue a number of dissemination activities. 
FINDINGS 
Accordig to the Older Americans Act, an integral par of the Title IV program is dissemination 
of information gaied from the grant projects. AoA's dissemiation efforts do not assure that this 
information reaches other organizations who can use it. 
var 
AoA relies priarly on grantees, whose capabilties  widely, for dissemination of 
project results. 
In evaluatig applications, the value assigned to dissemination activities has declined. 
AoA' s expanded guidace to applicants has had little impact on actUal dissemination 
activities. 
AoA does not adequately assess project outcomes to determine the utility of the 
information to others. 
AoA pursues a broad dissemination strategy with too limited resources. 
RECOMMENDATION 
AoA should assur the establishment and adequate funding for a permanent function, responsible 
for dissemination of results of discretionar fund projects.  COMMENTS 
drt  Assistat 
The  report was circulated for comment to the Commssioner on Aging, the 
Secrtar for Legislation (ASL) and the Assistat Secreta for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE). 
The ASL had no comments; ASPE concured with the fmdings and recommendation. AoA 
found our report to be accurate and the recommendation relevant. In her response, the 
Commssioner on Aging also summarzed the agency s curent and planned dissemination 
activities.  .................... ....... ................ .......... ............. ............ ....... .......... ................... ........................ ...... ................... ................................................................ ................................................ ................................ ........
.......................................................... .... 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIV SUMMARY 
INRODUCTION.................................................................................................... .. 
Purose ...... 
Background.............. .................. ............ .................................... ..........................

Scope.... .... .... .... .......... 

....................................................................................... 3

Methodology ................ ..
FIN IN GS .................................................................................................................. 4

AoA Relies Prmarly on Grantees, Whose Capabilties Var Widely, for 
Dissemination of Project Results ...................................... ............ ...................... 
In Evaluating Applications, the Value Assigned to Dissemination Activities 
has Declined.. .......... .................. ........................................................................... 
AoA' s Expanded Guidace to Applicants Has Had Litte Impact on Actual 
Dissemination Activities...... ...................... ............ .............................................. 
AoA Does Not Adequately Assess Prject Outcomes to Determne

the Utiity of the Information to Others ..............................................................

AoA Puues a Broad Dissemination Strategy with

Too Limited Resources .............................................. .......... ................................

RECO MMEND A TIO N 
AGENCY CO MMENTS 
APPENDIX A:  AoA Comments............................................................................ 
 ... ' " , "

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
Ths inspection was conducted to evaluate the dissemiation practices for discretionar fund 
projects supported by the Admistrtion on Agig (AoA). 
BACKGROUND 
The Admistrtion on Aging was established in 1965 by the Older Americans Act (OAA). 
Through formula grants, AoA gudes and assists states and communities to develop and 
implement services for elderly persons. The agency also admnisters a discrtionar funds 
progr. 
Discretionar Funds Program
AoA 
progr 
Title IV of the Older Americans Act authorizes a  of discretionar funds to support 
trning, education, research and demonstrations, as well as dissemination of information. For 
FY 1991 , $25.  mion has been alocated to the Title IV program. This is two percent more 
of 140 new  awarded. 
than the 1990 budget, when a tota  grts were 
progr, 
discrtionar funds  as stated in the Older Americans Act, is 
The purose of the Title 

to, 
expand the Nation s knowledge and understading of aging and the aging process, 
progrs 
to design and test innovative ideas in  and services for older individuals, 
and to help meet the needs for trned personnel in the field of aging though 
(1)  education and trning 
(2)  research. .. 
(3)  demonstration projects ..- and 
(4)  dissemination of information...acquired though such programs... 
Including dissemiation as an integral par of the program establishes that the information gained 
from the projects should extend well beyond the initial grtees- Effective dissemination 
promotes utiization by others in the field, and avoids subsequent researchers  reinventing the 
. wheel." The authorizing legislation recognizes the need to disseminate project results in order to 
gai full benefit from the resoures expended on each project. 
In prepartion for the reauthorization of the OAA in 1991, the House Subcommittee on Human 
Resources of the Select Committee on Agig is holdig a series of hearngs. One hearng, in 
progr, 
September 1990, focused on the Title IV  parcularly the effectiveness and usefulness 
of dissemination efforts. The General Accounting Offce (GAO) presented testimony on a 
survey of all state agencies on aging to determne their use of Title IV results. GAO said  While  Title IV dissemination is having some positive impact, it is not achieving maximum results ... 
AoA does not have a comprehensive dissemiation strategy. 
Disseminaton Practies in Other HHS Agencies 
Dissemination of project results is important to many HHS agencies which support research and 
demonstrtion projects. The Deparent has no standad process to assure effective 
dissemination of the results of grant projects. Dissemiation is handled differently by the 
varous operatig divisions of the Deparent. 
For example, each of the National InstitUtes of Health maintai public informtion offices. 
These offces, to varing degres, disseminate the results of projects funded by their agencies. 
However, accordig to the National InstitUte on Aging s (NI) Public Information Offce, NIA 
funded by other branches of Nl, generaly do not rely on the Institute to 
grantes, lie those 
dissemiate the results of their projects. Rather, 
grantees seek to publicize their own results,
which commonly focus on medical and biological issues, in professional 
jourals and forums. 
Under the Public Health Service, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau has a cooperative 
agreement with the National Center for Education in Maternal and Child Health at Georgetown 
University to handle dissemination of the grants funded by the agency. 
In the Health Care Financing Admnistrtion (HCFA), grantees can, with approval from HCFA
dissemiate the results of their own projects, but ar not required to do so. HCFA routinely 
sends all approved fmal project reports to an information clearnghouse. 
In another example, the Offce of Human Development Services (OHDS) 
instrcts applicants 
that dissemiation is an essential priciple of its grt progr. However Federal 
, in the 1990 
announcement, dissemiation activity was drpped as an evaluation criterion for rating 
Register 
grant applications. 
SCOPE OF THIS INSPECTION 
This stUdy evaluated dissemination of the results of AoA' s discrtionar fund projects. It 
examned both the grtees' and the agency s dissemination activities. All AoA discretionar 
grants admistered by the AoA central offce, and completed between April 1 , 1989 and March 
, 1990 were included in the scope of the study. Grants that were completed within this time 
for fiscal years 
period had responded to the announcements published in the  Federal Register 

1985 though 1988. 
For informtion about dissemiation activities of the agency, OEI staf interviewed professionals 
within and outside AoA who ar familar with the discretionar funds program. AoA staff 
included regional and centr offce administrators and project offcers from the Title IV 
progr. 
Outside organizations included: the Gerontological Society of America, the 
Association for Gerontology and Higher Education, the National Institute on Aging, the 
American Association of Retired Persons, and all information clearnghouses used by AoA.  METHODOLOGY 
A list of the grts completed between April 1, 1989 and March 31 , 1990 was obtaned in August 
1990 from OHDS' s Grants Management Information System (GMIS). Those 88 grnts were 
classifed by tye (researh, traiing, and demonstrtion). A sample of 30 was selected for study. 
The remaider of the 
Since there were only 5 research grants, all were included in the sample. 
sample was selected using a random number generator. 
grt 
OEI staf examned the project fIes for each  to determne what dissemination 
commtments were made when the grant application was accepted for fundig, and what 
dissemiation activities were subsequently reported in the quarerly progress report and the final 
report. Since the offcial fies, which are maintaned by OHDS, ar sent to archives when the 
project closes, the project offcers' fies were used for this stUdy. The project offcers usually 
maita a copy of al items that ar in the offcial file, but they  to have copies
ar not  required 
including the final reports. In fIes where the final report was missing, the 
of al offcial papers 
project offcers provided inormation on the projects' dissemiation activities. In some cases, the 
confi 
or supplement the recollections of the project 
grantees were interviewed by phone to 
offcers.  FINDINGS

Accordig to the Older Americans Act, an integral par of the Title IV program is dissemination 
of information acquired from the grant projects. AoA's dissemination efforts do not assure that 
this inormation reaches other organizations who can use it. 
AOA RELIES PRIARILY ON GRANTEES, WHOSE CAPABILITIES VARY 
WIDELY, FOR DISSEMIATION OF PROJECT RESULTS 
AoA has relied on its grtees to tae the lead responsibilty for dissemination of project results, 
accordig to AoA offcials. One of the distinguishing charcteristics of AoA's discretionar 
funds progr is the wide varety of grantees, raging frm smal nonprofit community 
organzations to major national gerontological associations and universities. The capabilities of 
these organzations to effectively dissemiate their project results var. Despite the range of 
demonstration grts to "include provisions for 
abilties, the legislation requires al research and 
the appropriate dissemiation of project results." Furer,  announcement 
the  Federal Register 
indicates that al applicants wil be evaluated in par on how they plan to disseminate their 
products. The result is most grtees submit minimal dissemination plans while some plan more 
extensive activities. 
Experts generaly attrbute the dierence in dissemiation activities to the resources and 
reputation of the  with a wide network of contacts, sufficient resources, 
grtee. Some grtees, 
and experienced sta, dissemiate their project results extensively and effectively. For example, 
one grtee, a national business organization provided the funds to publish the project s report 
on retiment planning and send it to the human resource executives of leading corporations in 
the U. S. Ths organization also had the connections to anange presentations at forums such as 
breakast meetigs of business executives acrss the countr. However, most  not 
grtees do 
demonstrte such capabilties in their dissemination activities. 
IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS, THE VALUE ASSIGNED TO DISSEMINATION 
ACTIVITIES HAS DECLINED 
The criteria for evaluating applications ar published in the  Federal Register
 announcement of 
the availabilty of discretionar funds. A panel of expert from outside the Federal Government 
comments on and scores the applications. The criteria and the value assigned to each one have 
changed over the year, but generaly include: 
need for, or objectives, of the project 
methodology or approach 
results or expected outcomes/benefits 
plan 
dissemination! utilzation 
level of effort or staff background and resources  AoA requies projects to include a dissemination plan. However, the relative importance of the 
dissemination crterion in the proposal-ratig process has declined. In 1987 each of the criteria 
was wort the same amount - 20 points. Over the year, the point values assigned to the five 
crteria have shited. The  points in 1983 
dissemination crterion has been reduced from  20 
though 
1987, to 15 points in 1988, and only  10  points since 1989. 
AOA' S EXPANDED GUIDANCE TO APPLICANTS HAS HAD LITTLE IMPACT ON 
ACTUAL DISSEMIATION ACTIVIES 
tie 
At the same  that AoA has been reducing the value assigned to the dissemination criterion 
the agency has been giving the applicants more substative guidace on dissemination. 
for the dissemination crterion instrcted 
Pror to 1988, the guidelines in the  Federal Register 
applicants to describe: 
the methods for sharing their findings, 
the steps to promote utilization of products, and 
the specifc audiences to be adressed. 
Starng in 1988, the instrctions became more deliberate and precise. In 1988, applicants were 
asked to add: 
a description of why the proposed steps are expected to be successful in

disseminating the products and findings;

reasons why specifc audiences wil benefit; and

detailed steps to get the products adpted by the audiences.

The 1989 and 1990 announcements contan a separate section on dissemination. Applicants are 
notied that they ar expected to be awar of projects in the same area as their proposal. To help 
locate related projects, the announcement gives a list of sources for trcking CUITent and previous 
AoA-sponsored projects. Furher, these announcements provide the following principles of 
dissemination, and advise applicants to consider them in developing their applications: 
The most widely utilzed projects make dissemination and utilization a central 
aspect of the project, not a peripheral one. 
Dissemination starts at the beginning of a project. 
Potential users should be involved in planning. 
Products should be prepared with the needs of potential users in mind. 
Dissemination is a networking process. 
At a minimum, dissemination includes getting your final products into the hands 
of appropriate users and maing presentations at conferences. 
Coordination with other related projects may increase the chances of your 
products being used.
 Review of the dissemiation plans in grant applications did not reveal a qualtative difference 
between plans submitted prior to 1988 and those responding to the 1988 announcement, when 
the instrctions became more detaed. Both before and after 1988a, prl:a ns list a few stadard 
dissemiation activities. The most frequently mentioned activities  submitting to 
professional jourals for publication, applying to present results at professional conferences, 
includig project descrption in state and local newsletters, and makng presentations at local! 
professional meetigs. 
Most projects included in this study responded to the 1987 and 1988 announcements. This stUdy 
have not 
did not cover projects initiated in 1989 or 1990. However, project offcers said they 
noticed a signifcant difference in the quality of the plans submitted in the past two years, 
compard to previously. 
, 1989 and March 31, 
This review found that 90 percent of grants completed between April I 
1990 implemented the dissemination plans that were proposed at the outset of the projects. 
However, the grtees' dissemination plans do not go far enough to assure that project results 
reach those who are most likely to use them. Accomplishing this requirs the kid of efforts 
AoA has descrbed in its gudelines for dissemiation since 1988. Even though the grantees 
plans fail to adhere fully to the dissemination guidelines, the projects continue to be approved for 
fundig since the dissemiation criterion accounts for such a small porton of the overall 
evaluation score. 
Accordig to  AoA, the miimal dissemination activities of 
project offcers and experts outside 
trced to the lack of emphasis from AoA, as well as insufficient time and funds, 
grantees can be 
smal 
and lack of capabilty of  grantees. 
AOA DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ASSESS PROJECT OUTCOMES TO DETERMINE 
THE UTILITY OF THE INFORMATION TO OTHERS 
for feasibility and 
AoA' s procedurs place heavy emphasis on evaluation of grant  applications
utity of results. However, once the project is completed, the  final results 
 are not adequately
assessed for their potential utility to others in the field. 
The purpose of AoA' s grant projects is to test new and innovative ideas. Because they explore 
heretofore untested approaches, some projects wil not meet expectations. Since AoA does not 
adequately review all completed projects, those that should be replicated ar not distinguished 
ar 
from unsuccessful projects and projects whose results  less useful to others. 
The same project close-out proedure is followed for all  final reports are sent to the
projects.  All 
information clearnghouses. Here the good, new ideas may get lost in the volume of final reports 
released each year. 
Respondents most often noted the lack of resources, including staff, as the main reason AoA 
does not follow a thorough, systematic process for reviewing completed projects. Additionally,  some feel that AoA' s offcially judgig the relative utility of the projects would politicize the 
process. Despite these diffculties, a number of outside expert feel assessing project results and 
targetig them to specific users would greatly incrase the application of project results by 
others. In fact, severa experts with outside organizations said that projects must be evaluated 
and summarzed fist, before effective dissemiation can occur. One major organization said its 
policy is to review al of its own projects to determne which ones to include in their 
database/librar and to select the ones they wil disseminate more extensively. An offcial with a 
major organzation in the field of aging commented that, "trly responsible dissemination goes 
way beyond rote dissemination plans...this organization spends half of its tie on dissemination 
activities. " 
AOA PURSUES A BROAD DISSEMINATION STRATEGY WITH TOO LIMITED 
RESOURCES 
Respondents noted a number of problems with AoA' s dissemiation efforts. Congress withdrw 
authorization for the agency s internal information clearghouse in 1981. AoA has not had a 
progr 
sta devoted to dissemiation since then. In addtion, fundig for the TItle IV  has been 
reduced drasticaly from a high of $54 milion in 1980 to $26 millon this 
year. In spite of these 
reductions, the agency s staf has tred to maintai a wide rage of dissemiation activities, along 
with their other duties. 
AoA' s dissemiation activities include: 
sendig reports to inormation clearnghouses 
holdig meetings of grantees workig on similar projects 
convenig regional dissemination conferences 
publishig booklets, a magazne, and information memoranda

supportng 11 resource centers.

Clearinghouses 
Using clearnghouses as a method of dissemination is essentially passive. Technically, the 
reports ar avaiable, but an organization or individual must take initiative to obtain them. 
Gettg a repon out of these archives requirs famliarty with database research and access to 
the computerized soures. Additionally, users of the clearnghouses do not have a means of 
distiguishing excellent projects from those of less utiity without looking at each report. 
AoA sends all final reports and products to the following information clearnghouses: 
National Technical Informtion Service (NTIS) 
AgeLine Database 
S. Governmenr Prinring Offce

Project SHARE (closed August 31, 1990)
 The clearnghouses fIe the projects' fial reports in a computerized information system. Only 
NTS had information on the number of requests for AoA reports. Over the past ten years, NTIS 
the 
fied an average of  requests per month. 
AgeLine is a commercialy avaiable database admistered by the American Association of 
Retid Persons (AARP). AARP selects some of AoA's reports for inclusion in its database. The 
most frquent users of AgeLine are faculty and stUdents. 
The Governent Prnting Offce sends microfiche copies of projects ' fmal report to the 
advance to receive the general category of 
depository librares that have requested in 
publications that includes AoA reports. 
Cluster Meetings and Networking 
One of the priciples of dissemination is linkng people and organizations and vigorously 
encouragig netWorkig activities. AoA's formal and informal efforts in this ara are hampered 
by lack of funds and lack of procedures for apprising 
staf of signifcant projects. 
AoA has implemented the priciple of netWorkig though cluster meetings. AoA funds several 
grants in a given area, for example elder abuse, for the same project period, and convenes 
meetigs of the 
grantees to discuss the projects. Project offcers are enthusiastic about this 
approach and feel the grtees lear from each other. Factors that hamper "clustering" include 
lack of funds to bring grtees together more frquently, and the very common practice of 
approvig grtees' requests for time extensions. When extensions ar granted, "clustered" 
projects are no longer on the same schedule, and therefore the 
grntees cannot share their full 
fmal results at the fmal meetig. 
Some project offcers have linked new and former 
grantees with similar interests informally 
when there is no formally recognized cluster. However, among project offcers, there is 
considerable varation in involvement with grantees. According to AoA offcials, there is no 
provision to keep AoA staf apprised of the Title IV projects outside of each offcer s immediate 
responsibility. This general lack of an information netWork within AoA inhibits the distrbution 
addition, AoA does not routinely cover the costs for staff 
of information by staf to grantees. In 
to attend national conferences on aging. These conferences provide opportunities for 
professionals to form netWorks which facilitate exchange of information. 
Federal Regional Offices' Disseminaton Activities 
A number of AoA central and regional offce staf feel a major weakness in the use of existing 
resources is failing to include regional offces in more dissemination activities. Regional offces 
are geographically closer to the recipients of AoA funded services and have the potential to 
contrbute substantially within existing resoures. Accordng to one aging specialist, the regional 
offces could, "function as the eyes and ears of the Commissioner and be a conduit of 
information. "
 Severa respondents noted that the curnt Commissioner has formally convened a number of 
priority areas. They feel that an informal network through the
grssroots roundtables to identiy 

regional offces could build on the Commssioner s current efforts to get local input. One 
regional admnistrtor of AoA said that dissemination effort could be improved by staring at 
the begiing of the funding process. He felt regional offces could help identify research needs 
and thereby also identify the potential users of project results. 
Prgr 
Since 1983, the Offce of  Policy and Legislation in the Office of Human Development 
Services has sponsored regional meetings to disseminate information on discrtionar grants, 
includig AoA's, and to encourage formation of networks among interested pares. The 
meetigs are convened by the federa regional offces. OHDS considers the meetings to be 
successfu. However, only nie meetings ar scheduled for 1991. 
AoA Publicatons 
AoA prouces a number of publications that are distrbuted nationally. Several respondents 
noted that some of these publications would be better utilized if they were targeted to specific 
audiences. For example, a project offcer suggested that one of the recent publications, 
should be given routiely to all grtees. This booklet describes 
Dissemination By Design, 
effective dissemination priciples and practical techniques for disseminating information. A 
Many respondents suggested 
frequent suggestion concerned the  Compendium of Active Grants. 

that the compendium would be more useful if done as a cumulative volume which describes all 
arged 
completed, rather than ongoing, projects  by subject area. 
National Aging Resource Centers 
A number of AoA sta say the resource centers ar AoA's most effective means for "getting the 
word out.  AoA funded 11 resource centers acrss the countr for 3 years to provide training, 
technical assistance, short term research, and infonnation dissemination for state and area 
agencies on aging and others serving elderly people. Most of the centers ar located 
universities. Each one focuses on a specific area of aging, such as long term care, elder abuse 
health promotion, miority populations, and rual elderly. The future of the centers is uncertain 
since the funding termates in 1991.  . .. - -. . .
RECOMMENDATION

limited resources for dissemination, has engaged in a broad
The Admistration on Agig, with 
sttengthen and better 
range of activities to dissemiate results of its Title IV projects. To 

coordiate these efforts, the Inspector Genera makes the following recommendation.

AoA should assure the establishment and adequate funding for a permanent function,
projects. This could be

discretionar fund 
responsible for dissemination of results of 
would include: 
done internally or by contrct. Responsibilti 
various dissemination activities; 
providing a focus for AoA' 

in the grant application review process, reconsidering the dissemination 
criterion and the point value assigned to it; 
utility to

establishing and maintaining a process to assess project outcomes for 
others; 
developing methods to assist grantees who lack the resources and expertise to 
target replicable results to potential users; 
evaluating the role of clearinghouses in an overall dissemination strategy and 
using clearinghouses accordingly; and 
regional offces on aging in
establishing and implementing a role for federal 
disseminating project results. 
10.  AGENCY COMMENTS

The Commssioner on Aging, in commenting on the report summarzed AoA's ongoing 
dissemination activities. The Commssioner furher described AoA's plan to fund a 3 year 
grt 
cooperative agreement to evaluate and disseminate Title IV  products. Appendix A contains 
the full text of the Commissioner s comments. 
The comments from the Assistat Secreta for Planning and Evaluation concur with the report. 
Secrta 
The Assistant  for Legislation had no comments.  APPENDIX A

AoA Comments
 =: 
=: (' 
,,,,,	
'" - =:  --  ;. 
!2 
I A'  '-3 - '3 1  1"1 0 t- 15:1':.  H H S  , 0 I G - H E A D 1;1 U ART E R	
s.et 
Of 
DEPARTME  T Of HE. LTH &. HU.ItAN SEiVICES	 of 118 
Administration on Aging  Washngton. D.  20'
M ::
A \00\	 r1' m 
- m_

:=;z-
VI 
TO:	 Richard P. Kusserow

Inspector General

FROM:	 u. s. Commissioner on Aging 
I s 
SUBJECT:	 OIG Draft Report: "Dissemination of Results of AoA 
proj ects, " OEI-04-91-00110 
Discretionary Fund 
We have revie ed your report on the disseminathtiaotn t heeff orertpso rotf  is 
(AoA). We find 
the Ad inist=ation on Aging 
acc	 e recommendations for improving our
disse  e and
 relevant. 
ination system are 
At the same time, we feel that the draft report does not pay

has been

su::icient attention to the considerable effort that 

this area. 
made in  For a n  er of years, AoA has awaatirodned.
grants to projects essentially to disseminate info

Exa  ples of sucb projects include the eleven National Aging 
the provision 
Resource Centers with major responsibilities for 
of technical training and assistance and information  ination
dissemination. The usefulness of the information Qisse

o the States by these Centers was acknowledged in a recent

General Accounting Office (GAO) study presented to the House

9/11/90. Other projects funded

Select Committee on Aging on 
have disseminated in!o  ation on health promotion and senior 
centers. 
study, 
your report and the GAO 
Taking into consideration both 
agencies. 
we have begu to address the issues raised by both 
Oiscretionary Grant Program 
Our Announcement of the FY 1991 
agreement, 
year cooperative 
will include the award of a three 
for up to $300, 000 per year, to actively and systematically 
products and to examine

evaluate and disseminate Title IV grant 
gaps in 
resaeargch, idenmonsgtrat.io n,I t raining and practice in 

field of  believe that this prospective cooperativaer ea. 
major progress in this 
ag=eeme  t will assist us in making