text:
Translating research into action: an international study of the role of research funders
Robert K. D. McLean ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8084-48171,2,
Ian D. Graham3,4,
Jacqueline M. Tetroe5 &
Jimmy A. Volmink1
It is widely accepted that research can lead to improved health outcomes. However, translating research into meaningful impacts in peoples' lives requires actions that stretch well beyond those traditionally associated with knowledge creation. The research reported in this manuscript provides an international review of health research funders' efforts to encourage this process of research uptake, application and scaling, often referred to as knowledge translation.
We conducted web-site review, document review and key informant interviews to investigate knowledge translation at 26 research funding agencies. The sample comprises the regions of Australia, Europe and North America, and a diverse range of funder types, including biomedical, clinical, multi-health domain, philanthropic, public and private organisations. The data builds on a 2008 study by the authors with the same international sample, which permitted longitudinal trend analysis.
Knowledge translation is an objective of growing significance for funders across each region studied. However, there is no clear international consensus or standard on how funders might support knowledge translation. We found that approaches and mechanisms vary across region and funder type. Strategically tailored funding opportunities (grants) are the most prevalent modality of support. The most common funder-driven strategy for knowledge translation within these grants is the linking of researchers to research users. Funders could not to provide empirical evidence to support the majority of the knowledge translation activities they encourage or undertake.
Knowledge translation at a research funder relies on context. Accordingly, we suggest that the diversity of approaches uncovered in our research is fitting. We argue that evaluation of funding agency efforts to promote and/or support knowledge translation should be prioritised and actioned. It is paradoxical that funders' efforts to get evidence into practice are not themselves evidence based.
It is widely accepted that research can lead to improved health outcomes. However, uncovering health knowledge through research can be challenging, costly and time-consuming, and may fail to produce meaningful advances. Still, the expected positive benefits associated with knowledge creation have led governments, foundations and private institutions across the globe to dedicate envelopes of their tax-base or endowment to this endeavour. Around the world, recent estimates suggest that over US$ 100 billion is spent on biomedical research alone in a single year [1].
That being said, the benefits of knowledge are rarely achieved by its creation alone. Knowing what to do with health-related knowledge – how to access it, appraise it, tailor it for context, apply it in the practical world and know when it is not appropriate for practical application – is an entirely different challenge. Evidence indicates that health knowledge continues to be converted into practical applications in a slow and inconsistent way [2, 3]. The rush of publicly funded organisations to address this issue has been well documented in primary research and systematic reviews [4, 5]. Further, research funding agencies have also answered the call. Effectively, research funders have financed another charge for unlocking the power of knowledge, by increasing their focus on the conversion of knowledge into action. In this paper, we refer to this as knowledge translation (KT). Simply put, KT is the process of turning the knowledge that is generated in research studies into use in the real-world. For example, an improved product or device, a new policy or practice guideline, or a more accessible and thus equitable programme. The most broadly accepted definition of this process is offered by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), which uses the term KT to articulate to their Canadian constituency a support of:
"A dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and ethically-sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians, provide more effective health services and products, and strengthen the health care system." [2]
The primary objective of the research reported in this manuscript is to provide an international overview of the state of health research funders' efforts to promote and support KT. To address this objective, the research takes a broad view, looking across an international sample of 26 funding agencies to identify trends and themes, rather than taking a deep dive into the particular practices of any single agency. In addition, the data collected and analysed in this manuscript builds on our previous work [6], which allows for longitudinal trend analysis. In our 2008 project, 33 health research funding agencies from around the world were reviewed to learn more about their KT roles and activities [6]. In this follow-up, we have replicated the study design from 2008, and have been able to include 26 of these agencies. A full account of our methods, findings and conclusions are provided in the following sections of this paper.
We believe the results of this study hold immediate practical value. The primary intended users of this study are health research funders. We hope this international stock-taking will facilitate evidence-informed reflection and debate amongst funders. Secondary users of this work will include health and science policy-makers, as well as researchers interested in KT (both those interested in the study of KT, but also those wanting to learn more about how they are being supported by funders to do KT).
Why focus on funders?
Health research funders are just one of many actors in the pursuit of translating knowledge into action. Many actors, including but not limited to researchers, governments, patients, activists and taxpayers, have grown increasingly concerned with research being solution-oriented, and each plays an important role in ensuring an effective balance is struck between the creation of new knowledge and its application to health needs.
Research funders are rarely in the business of research implementation. However, we argue that the role of the research funder in KT is particularly pertinent. Funders control access to resources and therefore hold a position of power. This power can be used to stimulate and incentivise action on the part of the research community, including researchers, brokers and research users.
Evidence shows that funders contributing to KT have potential for impact. In spite of identified roadblocks in the knowledge-to-action pathway, studies examining the return on investment of public research have shown ample evidence of value [7, 8]. In simpler terms, research is a good investment in the public good. For example, one study performed by the Council of Economic Advisors to the President of the United States [9] demonstrated that the average social return on government investment in research and development was above 50%, a figure that was at the time, and still is, far greater than other areas of investment, including private sector research and development [9]. As impact assessment models that better capture the hard to measure 'social impacts' of research continue to evolve, we expect to see investments in research appearing even more attractive. Understanding how KT is supported by funders will help to ensure these investments generate the greatest return for people and society.
At the same time, the two primary stakeholders of the health research funder (the public and the academic community) have voiced clear interest in improved application and coordination of KT interventions by funders. The first stakeholder group, the public (often the research funder's funder, and always the intended long-term beneficiary), has asserted a concern that governments pay greater attention to ensuring the practical utility of research they fund [10]. The second group, the academic community (the research funder's primary beneficiary) has increasingly turned to funders to support their desire and build their capacity to meet this growing public call for knowledge translation [11, 12].
This research was undertaken with the intent of providing a comprehensive account of the international state of KT support offered by health research funding agencies in high-income countries. We adopted a longitudinal study design, wherein data from the same cohort was gathered across subsequent intervals in time. To do this, we purposefully grounded our study design in the work of Tetroe et al. [6] and McLean et al. [13].
Theoretical frameworks
Two theoretical frameworks were employed to support data analysis. One to categorise KT activities and a second to classify evaluation activities at funding agencies.
The first, in which we categorise, describe and provide our assessments of funding agency support for KT, is derived from the work of Lavis et al. [14]. In their 2006 paper, Lavis and colleagues propose a framework for assessing country-level efforts to link research to action with a view to "inform country-level dialogues about the options for linking research to action" [14]. This framework was applied in our data analysis as it provided an internationally recognisable system for KT activity classification and interpretation. The framework outlines three components into which we classify funding agency KT activities, these are (1) push activities, (2) pull activities, and (3) linkage and exchange activities (Box 1). For the reasons above, we believe this is a useful and rigorous means of analysing the KT activities of funding agencies. We caution that this framework does not facilitate a specific review of 'priority-setting activities' or 'responsive grant-making', i.e. when funding agencies strategically prioritise topics, disciplines or objectives for the research they fund. The KT activity classification framework employed here includes funding that has been 'strategically prioritised', but it does not examine the act of priority-setting separately.
To conduct an analysis of evaluation activities, we developed a new framework for funding agency evaluation activity classification. The framework is derived from theory and guidance on best practice in evaluation [15,16,17,18,19], as well as the work of Mintzberg on organisational strategy [20], and that of the Canada's International Development Research Centre on how strategy and evaluation interact [21, 22]. Mintzberg argues that organisational strategy is not just what we say we do, it is also what we do [20, 22]. Because evaluation is used by organisations to understand what has been done, in essence, evaluation activities can be used to shine light on a picture of organisational strategy. In this research, we aimed to utilise this dynamic conceptualisation of organisational learning and strategic management by developing a framework for the analysis of funders' KT actions.
Box 2 below provides further explanation of the framework that was developed and used for data analysisFootnote 1. In short, it outlined three areas of strategy, namely (1) the 'the intended strategy' (what was planned), (2) 'the realised strategy' (what actually occurred), and (3) 'the emergent strategy' (the lessons learned and adopted into practice) of the funding organisation.
Longitudinal design and sampling frame
Our research was designed to provide a follow-up on the work of Tetroe et al. [6]. We drew our sample of funding agencies from the sample contacted in this 2008 study. With this approach we were able to undertake analysis of the same cohort at two discrete intervals in time. In the Tetroe et al. [6] study, a judgement sampling approach was employed to select funding agencies based on particular criteria of interest to the research team undertaking that study [23]. These criteria were (1) nationally scoped agencies and other disease-specific voluntary health organisations and (2) agencies that represented a continuum in or contrast in their KT support activities.
Data collection protocol
Website reviews and agency templates
A data collection template was developed to gather information from the website and accessible publications of each funding agency. These templates were based on the data collected in the Tetroe et al. [6] study (keeping to our objective of conducting longitudinal analysis) and the theoretical categorisation of KT activities provided by Lavis et al. [14]. Templates were populated with information such as mandate, annual budget, types of KT support activities and KT evaluation activities. Following this initial web-based documenting process, the templates were sent via email to senior representatives of each agency for validation, updating and addition of data that were not available on the agency website or in accessible publications. The agencies were then asked to return the completed template to our study team, at which point a telephone interview was scheduled between the study research team and the agency.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews
We aimed to conduct telephone interviews with at least two representatives of each agency, including one senior representative of the KT function and one senior representative of the evaluation function. It should be noted that, in some cases, the two senior officials were the same individual, in some agencies an evaluation function did not exist, and in others a larger group of representatives desired to take part in the interview process and we agreed to this. The interview protocol was based on the completion of the agency template and a series of follow-up questions based on the flow of the discussion and emergent data of interest. This approach allowed us to complete the deductive learning exercise driven by the predefined template, but also to complement these data with new information on why and how any KT activities were being implemented in the eyes of the funding agency, and to allow the interviewer to probe further on issues of particular interest [24].
All interviews, except the CIHR interview, were conducted by telephone in either French or English. The CIHR interview was conducted in-person in the CIHR Ottawa, Canada, office. On average, interviews lasted between 30 and 90 minutes. Notes from any French language interview were translated into English by two bilingual members of the research team independently, and independent translations were cross-checked for consistency and accuracy. To minimise the threat of description or interpretation bias following the interview, the notes and the completed agency templates were returned to each agency for validation.
Ethics approval for this project was granted by the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
The following section of the paper reports on the results of our research and preliminary interpretation. The section is divided into three parts. In the first, we present an overview of the 26 agencies included in the research. In the second, we explore the role of KT at the funding agency, in other words, how funding agencies have positioned KT for their agency in a qualitative and quantitative sense. In the third, we outline the KT initiatives being offered and undertaken at the funding agency, taking stock of and analysing actual KT strategies, programmes, funding mechanisms and evaluations of these efforts.
Agency overview (region, focus, funding source, budget)
Table 1 provides a brief overview of the regions and agencies included in the study. It also displays those which were not in the study, but were involved in the t1 period research (from here forward the Tetroe et al. [6] project will be referred to as t1 and this project as t2). The seven agencies not included in this report were removed from the sample due to an inability to schedule an interview or an interview request being declined. Although it would have been possible to proceed with using publically available data, it was deemed that this would lead to questions about accuracy. Further, a brief description of the focus of each agency is included as well as the agencies' overall annual budget at the time of contact.
Table 1 Overview of funding agencies studied
The position of KT at the funding agency
KT can be supported by a funding agency in a multitude of ways; however, the way that KT is positioned within the funding agency – explicit or implicit – is an important indicator of the level of significance it holds and the impact it may eventually have. We have used five measures to allow us to identify and investigate the intended role for KT at each of our sampled funding agencies. Then, by aggregating data, we can examine regional, global and longitudinal trends. Our five measures are (1) language used to describe KT, (2) mandating KT, (3) a senior agency members' priority rating of KT, (4) human resources devoted to KT, and (5) financial resources devoted to KT. Results related to each of these measures are reported in turn in the following sections of the manuscript.
KT terminology
As a follow-up to the t1 study, we looked to identify terms that funding agencies were using to describe the concept of translating research into action – what we refer to in this paper as KT. Through agency website scans and follow-up interviews with agency staff, we identified a total of 38 terms in use by the 26 agencies studied.
In the t1 study, 29 terms were identified, and therefore, over time, there has been an increase in the number of terms used to describe the KT concept within funding agencies, even though the number of funders studied decreased by seven between the two study periods (Table 2). One might interpret this growth in terminology over time in a number of ways. On the one hand, it could be seen as a popularisation of the concept, as further definitions are being used. On the other, it could be interpreted as a lack of coordination and consistency in KT conceptualisation from one agency to another. We discuss our understanding vis-à-vis other findings of our research in the Discussion and Conclusions section of this paper.
Table 2 Terminology used to describe 'Knowledge translation' (KT) over time
Mandating KT
Perhaps the most palpable indicator of KT's intended prominence at a funding agency is whether or not the agency includes the concept in its mandate. A mandate is the publically stated raison d'etre of an organisation, and is often legislated by an external body such as a Parliament or Board of Directors. To assess this, we scanned agency mandates to look for terms or concepts describing KT – not specifically the term knowledge translation. We validated our result for each agency in the follow-up interview with the funder. Of the 26 funding agencies involved, we identified that 20 (77%) included the concept of KT directly in their agency mandate. This result indicates that the majority of research funders in our sample publically declare that KT is a part of their core mission. However, data also indicates that the inclusion of KT in the mandate is an emerging trend. As Fig. 1 shows, the number of agencies including KT in their mandate has increased from t1 to t2.
Change in knowledge translation inclusion in agency mandate over time
Every global region studied demonstrates an increase in the inclusion of KT in funding agency mandates, save Australia, where mandate inclusion did not decrease but remained unchanged. At the individual agency level, we found that none of the agencies that included KT at t1 had removed the concept at t2.
Stemming from terminology and mandate reviews, we aimed to collect data on additional indicators of the intended role of KT at the health research funding agency. Table 3 displays the results for the three additional measures of KT positioning at funding agencies, namely (3) self-prioritisation of KT, (4) human resources devoted to KT, and (5) financial resources devoted to KT.
Table 3 Agency knowledge translation (KT) prioritisation, human resources and financial resources
KT prioritisation
KT prioritisation is unique to this period of data collection. The intent of introducing this data point was to capture, and subsequently compare, a challenge which arose quite frequently in the qualitative aspects of the t1 research. The difficulty we observed was that agency representatives reported in the interview stage that KT was of a certain priority at their agency, although they did not have precise written policy, budgetary or other 'hard' documented evidence to support this claim. Given that our interviews were performed with senior officials of each agency (in many cases up to the VP level), and that the vision of a leader may potentially be used to judge the importance of an idea, we designed a simple categorical tool for the collection and classification of these claims.
In interviews, we discussed why and how they reached the agency score they did. We found that, when respondents were given the opportunity to explain the numeric rating given to their agency, they frequently asserted that KT was becoming an increasingly important global objective and that the interviewee's individual funding agency was well-attuned to this trend and following suit. This finding is aligned to the data presented earlier demonstrating the growing trend of embedding the KT concept within the agency's mandate. The generally high scores of KT prioritisation across agencies and regions indicate a trend of increasing KT importance within our cohort. However, when compared to other proxy measures of the 'KT role' at an agency (staff and budget), we did not see any particularly compelling patterns emerge.
Human resources devoted to KT
In examining human resources devoted to KT, each agency was asked to self-interpret and self-classify who was considered KT staff. Through semi-structured interviews, we then aimed to identify underlying reasons for these classifications. Interestingly, there is a divergence in who is defined as KT staff across agencies. To give an example, in the United States agencies, definitions of staff varied substantially. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation held a broad view, including its nine evaluation staff as KT staff, suggesting that a focus on learning and programme improvement are both an evaluative duty and a part of the agency's KT approach. In contrast, the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute reported its dedicated Implementation Science Team, a group that works directly on issues of KT conceptualisation and programming with the organisation and with its research community. Many agencies included communications groups in their calculation of KT staff. Further, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality suggested that the embedded nature of the KT work at their organisation meant that all employees should be counted as KT staff. This variation in interpretation of who constitutes KT staff was not restricted to the United States. We did not discern any trends in types of staff (e.g. communications, evaluation, considering all staff as KT) being classified as KT in one region but not in another.
Although not indicative of any generalisable difference in resource support (given our purposeful sampling approach and differences in regional sample characteristics), the data illustrates that the United States currently devotes the largest human and financial resource contributions to the KT objective at the funding agency level.
As human resources devoted to KT was not a variable collected in the t1 study, we were unable to perform any comparative analyses across time.
The over-arching finding of this line of analysis is that there is no generally accepted view of who constitutes KT staff at a research funding agency.
Financial resources devoted to KT
Given that financial resources devoted to KT were measured in both the t1 and t2 studies, we performed various comparative analyses on KT budget data received from each agency. However, none of these proved, in our view, to provide enough insight into KT spending trends at funding agencies to warrant further demonstration and/or data tables in this manuscript. Furthermore, we concluded that there was limited value in presenting changes in KT spending per region or per agency given multiple, significant confounding factors that would limit the ability to interpret such analysis (e.g. changes in total agency budgets versus KT budgets, currency inflation, regional variation in inflation, currency conversation and exchange rate fluctuations over time). That being said, one trend did emerge, namely that, across all regions, the number of agencies that could provide a precise budget figure for KT did not change significantly. In other words, the number of agencies earmarking KT funds remained generally the same across time.
For a closer look at this issue, we unpacked the more recent t2 data further. In summary, less than half of all agencies interviewed (11 of 26) were able to identify a specific amount devoted to KT. Ten of 26 reported that the KT spending of the organisation could not or should not be seen as an independent budget line, but instead that KT was embedded-in across the organisation's expenditures. Seven of 26 agencies were unable to provide any funding details related to KT, which was in contrast with the fact that only one of 26 was unable to publically disclose any budget information. In sum, these data indicate that earmarking KT financial resources is not the norm across any region or the sample at large. To better understand the return on KT activities, this may be a useful area of data for agencies to track more closely in the future.
KT initiatives
In this section, we turn to the specific programmes, mechanisms, modalities, activities, etc., that funding agencies were using to support KT.
Figure 2 presents the classification of agency initiatives across the three parts of our analytic framework, namely push, pull, and linkage and exchange (see Box 1 in the Methods section of this paper for a full description). Given the sampling approach employed, we caution against advanced quantitative comparative interpretation. We consider these data as categorical.
Number of push, pull, linkage and exchange programmes by country
Most agencies favour linkage and exchange (or integrated KT (IKT)) and push efforts over pull efforts. There were a substantial number of IKT programmes supplementing the funders' support for traditional programmes of curiosity-driven research. Qualitative interview data did not provide any clear conclusion on why these trends toward push and linkage and exchange efforts existed.
Although any regional analysis should be made with caution, a pattern does emerge with regards to programme distribution across category, namely that agencies and regions offer a general mix of programming, which is consistent with what is considered by Lavis et al. [14] to be a favourable approach.
At t1, more attention was paid to the activities the funding agency required of researchers vis-a-vis the activities, either planned or unplanned, of the funding agency in support of KT. To address this, we restructured our classification of programmes in Fig. 3 by grants, awards and fellowships. Note that a single programme – the base unit in our above analysis (Fig. 2) – could include a series of grants or awards or fellowships. It should also be noted that Fig. 3 showcases programmes that were strategically designed for KT and does not include grants, awards or fellowships that were not designed specifically for KT, but may support KT due to the independent decision of a grantee to undertake KT.
Number of knowledge translation (KT) grants, awards and fellowships by country
The primary finding of this analysis is that the funding agencies are more involved in KT grant dispersion than other forms of KT support activity like awards or fellowships. To facilitate more precise interpretation, a comparison of how this trend in KT support varies from other areas within the health sciences would be a valuable area of additional study, e.g. investigating how the balance of grant, award and fellowship opportunities for KT compare to the balance of opportunities available for clinical trials, laboratory science, vaccinology and health systems research.
The final area of findings reported in this manuscript describes an investigation of the evaluation of KT being conducted at funding agencies. Evaluation is selected as a focus area for two distinct reasons. First, KT evaluation has been identified as a significant gap in published expert opinion, theoretical research and empirical research [6, 14, 25,26,27,28,29]. Second, in the t1 research, there were no evaluations identified in any of the 33 agencies studied; however, nearly all 33 agencies articulated that plans and designs for evaluations were underway. As a result, a specific follow-up on progress with evaluation was prioritised for t2. In other words, an objective for t2 was to provide more than a stock-taking of programmes and practice at funding agencies, it was also to dig into the evidence guiding these efforts.
Given our specific focus for this study – KT activities/support at the funding agency – we purposefully reviewed evaluation undertaken at the funding agency level only, that is to say, an evaluation that focused on the KT programmes and activities of the funding agency. We did not include any evaluation being done by funded researchers in their own projects or the health interventions of others, even if this evaluation was funded by an agency in our sample (e.g. a large body of work being performed through the National Health Services – Service Delivery and Organization, e.g. [30, 31])1. Our aim was to learn about funding agency programmes and practice specifically. Table 4 illustrates evaluation activities being conducted of funding agencies' KT programmes and practice; it utilises the Intended, Realised, Emergent (IRE) framework articulated in Box 1 of this manuscript.
Table 4 Intended → Realised → Emergent (IRE) Framework classification of agency knowledge translation (KT) evaluation activitiesa
Data indicates that funding agencies are putting considerable effort and resources into thinking through KT theories and objectives but much less into carrying out critical evaluations of these efforts/resources. Indeed, 23/26 funding agencies had a defined and planned KT strategy to some extent (recall 20/26 are currently including the concept in their agency mandate), yet only 7/26 had evaluated KT efforts and only 1/26 could demonstrate that evaluation results had been used to guide KT programmes or practice (i.e. to support evidence-based decision-making). In other words, a commitment to KT is evident, but learning-focused programming of KT was rare.
A deeper dive into the three components of the IRE framework helps to further understand the agencies' KT strategy. See Box 2 in the Methods section of the manuscript for a full description of the IRE conceptual framework.
Intended strategy
In terms of 'intended strategy' there is a strong base of activity and effort in our sample of funding agencies. The majority of this effort was in setting a KT definition and outlining a series of KT goals. A minority of agencies had derived implementation theories (e.g. a theory of change) to describe the intended process and results of their KT efforts. One of these was the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science team. This agency has worked to articulate a theory of KT implementation, integrated a research translation continuum, and developed a set of contingencies and considerations into their KT support processes. Another example was CIHR, who had articulated a KT Funding Program logic model, and initiated an evaluation of the organisations strategic intentions for KT, by using this model in the evaluation design to outline expected KT results and critical assumptions.
Realised strategy
In terms of 'realised strategy', we have included all evaluation activities related to the assessment of realised organisational KT strategy. Table 4 indicates a decline in activities as we move from 'intended' to 'realised' strategy. Some insight into why this was the case was uncovered in the qualitative interviews. While the vast majority of agencies asserted that they deemed the evaluation of their KT funding to be a paramount endeavour, they also informed the research team that they did not have a firm grounding in how to undertake this task. Generally, it was suggested by agency representatives that research evaluation was a difficult undertaking; however, evaluating the translation of research into action was the most difficult component of this problem.
Emergent strategy
'Emergent strategy' is not surprisingly deficient when considered in relation to the trend of decreasing activity moving from 'intended' to 'realised' strategy documentation. At the time of data collection, only one agency (Alberta Innovates, a Canadian public Provincial funder) was using KT-specific evaluation results to inform decision-making and action.
As health policy, practice and programming continues to lag behind research-generated knowledge, KT remains a crucial objective within the health system. As has been argued in the past [32], the funding agency role in supporting KT has merit for a number of reasons. In this manuscript, we premise this argument on the position that incentive-setting power funders occupy, given the control they hold over financial resources. Playing the role of financier to the research enterprise places funders in an influential position to stimulate action around a particular topic such as KT. As Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has recognised:
"…the scientists whose research and ideas have transformed our lives in the past two hundred years have, for the most part, not been motivated by the pursuit of wealth. This is fortunate, for if they had, they would have become bankers and not scientists. It is the pursuit of truth, the pleasure of using their minds, the sense of achievement from discovery – and the recognition of their peers – that matters most. Of course, that doesn't mean they will turn down money if it is given to them." [33]
Positioning KT with funders
The purpose of this research was to take stock of how various funders are supporting KT and how well they are doing. In general, the 26 funding agencies whom we engaged demonstrated that KT is a high and a still growing priority. As mandates are changed (and maintained) to include the concept of KT, we interpret this to mean that governments and other health research funders are concerned with making research useful and actionable.
Previous studies on the role of the funding agency in KT (e.g. [6, 25, 34]) have argued that a common definition and/or classification of KT would be beneficial, and some suggest that a systematic framework to knowledge translation would contribute to conceptual clarity in the field [25]. We do not find evidence to disprove this hypothesis, but the findings of our research give us limited reason for concern. We suggest the diversity of experience across funders, by country, region, agency size and by agency type, is a representation of the diversity of context in which these organisations operate. We see no reason to conclude this is problematic. In our opinion, it is more than likely beneficial that programmes and strategies are contextually grounded.
At the same time, some trending in funder practice is evident. This study has identified further divergence in terminology over time (since 2008). It also uncovers a convergence of KT initiatives which funders are using to further their KT agendas. The prevalence of push efforts and linkage and exchange (or IKT) efforts, and the preference towards grants to support these, appears as a trend across our global sample. The emergence of IKT programming in particular represents a notable shift from traditional research funding approaches that have tended to favour the researcher over research users. Without robust evaluation data we cannot examine the evidence base for why these programmes and mechanisms are favoured, or appraise their effectiveness. However, we can offer some interpretation. First, and perhaps most likely, the similarity in programming and grant making activities might represent the emergence of an accepted framework for KT support based on informal exchanges between agencies. If this is the case, we note some concern that, in the absence of evaluations, the convergence of KT support activities may represent an emerging groupthink process rather than the co-development of a set of proven good practices. Secondly, although we would argue unlikely, these international patterns could be coincidental. Again, further evaluation would help to shed better light on the issue.
KT evaluation – still, an area for action
In the 2008 t1 study, we identified a significant gap in funders' execution and ability to execute evaluations of KT efforts. As a result, in this t2 research, we set an intentional focus on the issue of KT evaluation in order to learn how evaluation practice had evolved over time and to collect complete evaluations in order to investigate the possibility of synthesis and meta-evaluation.
We aimed to better understand and analyse evaluation activities by developing and applying the IRE framework (Box 2). This tool allowed us to identify, and subsequently investigate, evaluative and strategic strengths and weaknesses across agencies. In essence, the IRE framework enabled us to look beyond a simple count of evaluation reports or the potential undertaking of a synthesis of evaluation findings. Using the framework facilitated meaningful conclusions about the evaluation and strategy process. We would encourage those agencies who wish to improve their evaluation and strategy functions to consider a conceptual framework such as this, in particular for identifying areas for organisational improvement and/or cross-agency exchange, and we suggest the results of this research may provide some starting points. For example, applying the IRE framework highlighted how 'intended KT strategy' is relatively well developed across our sample of funders. Therefore, 'intended strategy' activities such as designing KT funding programmes, setting an organisational KT strategy, or developing KT theories of change, would be an immediately actionable and data-rich area of cross-agency learning and exchange.
Our data shows a substantial base of intended KT evaluation activities across the agencies and global regions in the sample. However, findings also highlight a significant lack of progress in undertaking targeted evaluations of KT, communicating results of these evaluations, and using findings of these evaluations to inform funder practice and policy. At the time of data collection, only one of the agencies in our sample had completed a targeted evaluation of KT. Though several agencies had evaluations that were underway or planned, it is important to recall the same was found in the t1 study (when nearly all agencies reported plans for KT evaluation). A clear conclusion is that evaluative data is not being used to measure progress against the objectives set out in earlier stages of KT programme design and planning. Given that the underlying objective of KT lies in moving evidence into action, it is paradoxical that the funders of KT do not employ this philosophy in their own work.
At the same time, this research has uncovered a lack of methodological know-how for evaluating KT as a major stumbling block for agencies who generally indicate a genuine interest in improving KT practice. As such, we suggest this is an area ripe for researcher (not just funder) focus. We also learned that funding agencies, themselves faced with budget austerity, do not always have the ability to make evaluations a priority, and especially the more challenging evaluations such as one focused on KT. Although we can understand this predicament, we do not agree that underfunding critical reflection is a sustainable cost-savings approach. We hope that identifying the persistent lack of KT-focused evaluation at funding agencies, both globally and across type of agency, will assist in kick-starting evaluative work. In our interviews with funding agencies, we heard great interest and genuine intention to undertake evaluations should the technical know-how be advanced and financial resources be available. We hope this research is used to support the cause.
Although we are confident that our methodological approach allowed us to capture an accurate snapshot of KT activities at each agency, we caution that, because we did not interview all departments or branches of each agency, we cannot claim with absolute certainty that all KT activities have been identified.
The research reported in this manuscript has focused on the intentional efforts of funders to support KT. Focusing on the intentional may not have captured all KT activities supported. KT activities may go unreported when they have occurred as a part of a funding agency programme that is not intentionally supporting KT, particularly when they occur by decision of a grantee or awardee. For example, a researcher may decide to use a portion of a research grant to organise a meeting with hospital managers to discuss their findings; this activity has been technically supported by the funding agency with the grant, but it may not have been directed or recorded by the funding agency as KT support.
The longitudinal nature of the study design is weakened by the project team's inability to include seven of the agencies included in the t1 study [6]. An inability for the research team to establish a contact at a particular funding agency meant we removed the agency from the sample. We did not want to rely on data collected from the web and document reviews alone. We have no reason to believe this has introduced any bias into the study, neither could we identify any characteristic or quality that removed agencies have eliminated or re-weighted in this sample vis-à-vis the 2008 sample.
A significant limitation stems from our sample of funding agencies being from high-income countries and focused on funding research that addresses high-income country needs. A review which includes low- and middle-income country funders was undertaken by Cordero et al. [25] as a companion to Tetroe et al. [6]. The follow-up to Cordero et al. [25] will be critical to understand the global story of funding agency support for KTFootnote 2.
A limitation in our study design relates to where we have focused attention in data collection and analysis. We have purposefully taken a broad view with this research, engaging 26 funding agencies from around the world in the study, allowing the identification of broad trends and themes for KT practice at research funding agencies. However, it does not facilitate the deep investigation of a particular funding agency's experience with KT.
We note, for reader interpretation, the timing between data collection and publication – data were collected from funding agencies for this project in 2012/13 (9 to 10 years after the data collection in t1). Readers' should interpret the findings accordingly.
In summary, our research confirms that KT is an objective of growing significance for the health research funders across the high-income regions of Europe, Australia and North America. The findings demonstrate that there is no clear-cut standard or practice for implementing KT at a funding agency. We suggest that KT is an idiosyncratic matter that relies on the many contextual factors presented to a particular research funder. There is very likely no viable one-size-fits-all solution. We suggest that the diversity of experience this research has uncovered indicates that any sweeping conclusions or directives for KT at funding agencies should be handled with caution, and also calls for evaluation of KT in these different funder contexts to learn what works, for what type of funder and why.
We suggest that the critical evaluation of KT should be prioritised and actioned so that evidence-based decision-making becomes not only the objective of KT programmes, but also a part of how these programmes operate and evolve. These evaluations should take into consideration the particular context of the agency that undertakes the evaluation, and should make this context clear in order to facilitate other agencies' interpretation of the results. To kickstart and advance high-quality evaluation, we suggest funders support KT evaluation experimentation, innovation and collaboration among each other on the topic. Funders should not feel alone, this effort may well embrace the researcher community interested in doing and improving KT. As the significance of KT grows for funders, so must the evidence base to guide it.
Box 1 Knowledge translation activity classification framework
Push – activities and programmes targeted at the 'pushing' of research-produced knowledge into the hands of appropriate knowledge users – users who may not have otherwise been aware of the research and its implications. Examples include research communications, funding opportunities or funder activities, or typical end-of-grant funds that an agency may provide to a researcher to encourage the dissemination of findings such a publication in an Open Access journal, or the creation of a plain language findings brief.
Pull – activities and programmes that facilitate knowledge users' access to research results. For example, a forum where researchers are brought to discuss an issue of importance with identified knowledge users.
Linkage and exchange – activities and programmes that support the establishment of partnerships between researchers and knowledge users through multiple parts of the process of research design, execution and/or dissemination. Linkage and exchange is also referred to as integrated knowledge translation and co-creation/co-production [35,36,37]. An example would be a research grant that required both a researcher and a knowledge user to apply in partnership for funding, representing a break with the traditional researcher curiosity-driven approach to science. This more participatory approach may also involve non-researchers (e.g. patients, clinicians, managers, etc.) as reviewers in the peer-review process.
Note: This is a very brief description of these well-developed concepts of promoting research use. Further reading on the subject could include Lomas [38] and Lavis et al. [39].
Box 2 Intended → Realised → Emergent (IRE) framework for strategy classification
Intended strategy (the planned knowledge translation (KT) strategy) – Includes actions such as defining KT, setting clear KT objectives or goals, mapping these objectives within internal and external structures, mechanisms and constraints (in a realist or classical empiricist way), defining stakeholders (intended and unintended), drawing identified factors into implementation theories for KT programmes.
Evaluator's use 'intended strategy' to first understand programme purpose and to then construct measures for programme or organisational assessment. Robust evaluations will consider intended strategy during methodological design. Typically, these intentions are developed by evaluators in constructs such as 'theories of change', 'logic models', 'logframes', etc. All of these tools hold the same general purpose of articulating a programme's intended strategy and results in more depth and detail than a stated objective.
Realised strategy (the KT strategy that was executed) – Includes the actual KT programmes, initiatives and activities of the funding agency.
Evaluators use these elements as the 'object of assessment' or 'evaluand'. Evaluation activities related to this will include actions such as designing evaluation studies, monitoring and collecting data, analysis and interpretation of data and communicating findings. Here, evaluations would identify KT support that was working as intended and that which was not as well as unpacking the mechanisms, contexts and systems that govern success.
Emergent strategy (KT strategy evolving from evaluation use) – Includes the broad range of actions related to using evaluation findings in KT programme refinement, development, overhaul or cessation (i.e. evidence-based decision-making). In other words, the evidence-based direction that an agency embarks upon.
Evaluators produce knowledge related to a realised strategy that, through the complex process of uptake and implementation, is built into the re-thinking of strategy (e.g. confirming status quo, course correction or complete cessation). In the evaluation literature, this is referred to as 'evaluation use' and is manifested in evidence-based action.
There were many evaluations conducted by the research community through the CLARHC programme of the National Health Services – Service Delivery and Organization, we reference two examples. None of these evaluations focused on the activity of the funding agency in support of KT.
This study is currently in design by authors: RKDM, JAV, IDG.
CAD:
CIHR:
IKT:
Integrated Knowledge Translation
IRE:
Intended, Realised, Emergent
KT:
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86–9.
McLean R, Tucker J. Evaluation of CIHR's Knowledge Translation Funding Program. Ottawa. 2013. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/47332.html. Accessed 1 June 2014.
Agency for Health Research and Quality. Translating Research into Practice (TRIP)-II. Rockville. 2001. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/translating/tripfac/index.html. Accessed 1 June 2014.
Mitton C, Adair CE, Mckenzie E, et al. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85(4):729–68.
Contandriopoulos D, Lemire D, Denis J-L, et al. Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88(4):444–83.
Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, et al. Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milibank Q. 2008;86(1):125–55.
Sampat BN, Lichtenberg F. What are the respective roles of the public and private sectors in pharmaceutical innovation? Health Aff. 2011;30(2):332–9.
Dalziel M, Roswell J, Tahmina TN, et al. Impact of government investments in research & innovation: review of academic investigations. J Public Sect Manag. 2012;42(2):19–32. Optimum Online
Council of Economic Advisers, President of the United States of America. Supporting Research and Development to Promote Economic Growth. Washington, DC: The Federal Government's Role; 1995.
Sutherland WJ, Bellingan L, Bellingham JR, et al. A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda. PLoS One. 2012;7:e31824.
Wilson P, Petticrew M, Calnan M, et al. Does dissemination extend beyond publication: a survey of a cross section of public funded research in the UK. Implement Sci. 2010;5:61.
Corluka A, Hyder AA, Segura E, Winch P, McLean RKD. Survey of Argentine health researchers on the use of evidence in policymaking. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0125711.
McLean RKD, Graham ID, Bosompra K, et al. Understanding the performance and impact of public knowledge translation funding interventions: Protocol for an evaluation of Canadian Institutes of Health Research knowledge translation funding programs. Implement Sci. 2012;7:57.
Lavis JN, Lomas J, Hamid M, Sewankambo NK. Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84:620–8.
Pawson R, Tilley N. An introduction to scientific realist evaluation. In: Chelimsky E, Shadish, William R, editors. Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1997. p. 405–18.
Pawson R. Evidence-based Policy: A Realist Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2006.
McDavid JC, Hawthorne LRL. Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2006.
Patton MQ. Utilization-focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2008.
Funnell S, Rogers P. Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass; 2011.
Mintzberg H. Tracking Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
Wind T, Carden F. Strategy evaluation: Experience at the International Development Research Centre. N Dir Eval. 2010;128:29–46.
Patrizi P, Patton MQ. Learning from Doing: Reflections on IDRC's Strategy in Action. Ottawa. 2009. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/handle/10625/47305.
Kuzel A. Sampling in Qualitative Inquiry. In: Crabtree B, Milner W, editors. Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage; 1992. p. 31–44.
Crabtree B, Miller W. Doing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1992.
Cordero C, Delino R, Jeyaseelan L, et al. Funding agencies in low- and middle-income countries: support for knowledge translation. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86(7):524–34.
Patton M. Search of Impact: An Analysis of the Utilization of Health Evaluation Research. In: Weiss CH, editor. Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington: Lexington Books; 1977. p. 141–63.
Lavis JN. Research, public policy, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):37–45.
Ettelt S, Mays N. Health services research in Europe and its use for informing policy. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16:48–60.
Holmes B, Scarrow G, Schellenberg M. Translating evidence into practice: the role of health research funders. Implement Sci. 2012;7:39.
Evans S, Scarbrough H. Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives: 'Bridging' versus 'blurring' boundary-spanning approaches in the UK CLAHRC initiative. Soc Sci Med. 2014;106:119–27.
Rycroft-Malone J, Wilkinson J, et al. Collaborative action around implementation Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care: towards a program theory. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(Suppl. 3):13–26.
Graham ID, Tetroe JM. Getting evidence into policy and practice: perspective of a health research funder. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;18(1):46–50.
Stiglitz J. The Price of Inequality. New York: Norton; 2013.
Smits P, Denis J-L. How research funding agencies support science integration into policy and practice: an international overview. Implement Sci. 2014;9:28.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Knowledge Translation at CIHR. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
Bowen S, Graham ID. Integrated knowledge translation (Chapter 1.2, p14–23). In Knowledge Translation in Health Care. Moving From Evidence to Practice. Oxford: Wiley; 2013.
Graham I, Tetroe J, Pearson A. Turning Knowledge into Action: Practical Guidance on How to Do Integrated Knowledge Translation. Adelaide: Wolters Kluwer/MR Books; 2014.
Lomas J. Using "linkage and exchange" to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Aff. 2000;19:236.
Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, et al. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q. 2003;81(2):221–48.
Graham ID, Kothari A, McCutcheon C, et al. Moving knowledge into action for more effective practice, programmes and policy: protocol for a research programme on integrated knowledge translation. Implement Sci. 2018;13:22.
The authors are grateful to the representatives of each funding agency that participated in this study, who took time to provide quantitative and qualitative data, and encouraged study completion and sharing of the results. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Barbara Davies, Professor in Nursing at the University of Ottawa, for her careful review and thoughtful criticisms of the manuscript and for allowing the authors to discuss parts of the research with students of her graduate course in Knowledge Mobilisation. This discussion was a deeply insightful experience.
IDG is a recipient of a CIHR Foundation Grant FDN #143237 [40]. RKDM is a trainee on this grant. JMT is a member of the grant advisory committee. JAV is an expert advisor for the grant.
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa
Robert K. D. McLean & Jimmy A. Volmink
Policy and Evaluation Division, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
Robert K. D. McLean
School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Ian D. Graham
Centre for Practice Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
Retired health researcher, Ottawa, Canada
Jacqueline M. Tetroe
Jimmy A. Volmink
Conceived and designed the study: RKDM, IDG, JMT, JAV. Performed the study: RKDM, IDG, JMT. Analysed data and drafted the manuscript: RKDM. Wrote and revised the final manuscript: RKDM, IDG, JMT, JAV. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Correspondence to Robert K. D. McLean.
Ethics approval for this study was granted by the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. All study participants consented to participation.
Data collection for this study was undertaken while RKDM, IDG and JMT were affiliated to CIHR. All opinions presented in this manuscript belong to the authors alone, and not any institution to which they are or were affiliated. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
McLean, R.K.D., Graham, I.D., Tetroe, J.M. et al. Translating research into action: an international study of the role of research funders. Health Res Policy Sys 16, 44 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0316-y
Received: 06 December 2017
Knowledge mobilisation
Research use


We look forward to connecting with you. Please fill in your contact information below.
For more information contact: Diane Hoving - Office Administrator With her Type A personality, a good cup of coffee and her giftedness in administration, Diane manages the day to day operations of the church. She is an integral part of the ministry team, working alongside staff and the many ministry leaders.


Home sellers in Bellevue can do no wrong right now. The real estate downturn that started seven years ago seems to be a distant memory, as the Bellevue market has warped into an inventory-crunched, pent-up demand, rabid marketplace of home buyers.
The average sale price of a home in Bellevue last month was 3 percent above its list price. Sale-to-list price ratios have been above 100 percent since January. Almost every home that comes on the market, and is priced reasonably, is selling right away. Multiple offers and bidding wars are the norm. The only question mark in the market right now is: Why aren't more homeowners putting their homes on the market?
As of the end of May, the median home price for sales in the Bellevue real estate market was $782,000. This includes the city of Bellevue and its smaller incorporated enclaves of Medina, Hunts Point, Yarrow Point, Clyde Hill, and Beaux Arts. This median sale price was a 13.3 percent increase over the same time last year. Double digit appreciation isn't expected to continue long-term. Most projections show slower, steady growth in the coming years.
Within the city of Bellevue itself, the median home price was just a bit lower at $747,975. That's 14.6 percent year-over-year appreciation, a rise in prices that outstrips most of the greater Seattle market. While the median home prices in the Bellevue area are high, there are still single-family homes available under $400,000. Condos can be found under $200,000 in Bellevue. They are a small part of the local market, but they do exist.
If you're looking for a home in Bellevue during this fast-moving market, you can't depend on a national website that takes days to update with new listings. You need the direct daily feed from the MLS to find homes the first day they're listed by real estate agents.
Interest Rates At Yearly Lows Again: Mortgage Backed Securities pricing has moved to the best levels in over 12 months. The last time we were here was for a couple days back on May 29th. Pricing stayed there for a short time and then moved higher quickly. Rate moved up about .25% and then slowly moved lower back to current levels. This is common behavior for a market that does not want to push rates lower but also does not have a lot of confidence in the overall economy. Inflation readings this week calmed fears that this measurement was overheating. Geo-political concerns and a stalling stock market are supporting low interest rates. There is concern of a move higher in rates based on the last visit to these levels but not much concern of a major increase.
"Help! I need somebody." The Beatles. While the Fed has been working hard to help our economy shake off the recent recession, some key reports continue to disappoint.
After six years and over $4 trillion of stimulus geared toward promoting economic growth, the final reading for 2014 first quarter Gross Domestic Product (GDP) came in at an anemic -2.9 percent. This was worse than expected and the worst reading since the first quarter of 2009, the height of the recession. The report showed that consumer spending fell to 1 percent from 3 percent, which is a big concern as consumer spending is a main driver of our economy.
Harsh winter weather early in the year was a key factor in the contraction. GDP is considered the broadest measure of economic activity, so it will be especially important to see if the second quarter data (from months with better weather) shows signs of improvement when it is released at the end of July.
Housing continues to be a bright spot as New Home Sales for May surged by 18.6 percent to an annual rate of 504,000, well above expectations. Existing Home Sales for May were also up 4.9 percent from April, reaching their highest monthly rate since August 2011. Meanwhile, the Case-Shiller 20-city Home Price Index rose 10.8 percent in the year ended in April. However, from March to April, the 20-city Index gained just 0.2 percent. A spokesman for Case-Shiller said that overall prices are rising month-to-month, but at a slower rate.
What does this mean for home loan rates? The weak GDP report, tame inflation news and a decline in Stocks boosted Mortgage Bonds last week. Since home loan rates are tied to Mortgage Bonds, home loan rates reached some of their best levels this year.
The takeaway is that now remains a great time to consider a home purchase or refinance. Let me know if I can answer any questions at all for you or your clients.
Existing Home Listings May Bring Some Relief In Tight Supply: New NAR data shows more homeowners are putting their homes on the market for sale. The numbers for May are the highest in over 2 years. Despite the gains most markets are still below normal levels. There were 2.28 million existing homes for sales in May which is up from 2.15 million one year ago. In the 5 years leading up to the 2007 peak, there was an average of 2.77 million existing homes for sale. Industry experts confirm that many potential buyers are on the sidelines waiting for more favorable options and possibilities of actually getting an offer accepted. Increased inventory is good news and appreciation rates are still strong so we may see more.
Housing Recovery Reflected In Latest Builder Report: Confidence among U.S. homebuilders rose in June by the most in almost a year, a sign the residential real estate market is stabilizing after reeling from severe winter weather earlier this year. The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo sentiment gauge climbed to 49 this month from 45 in May, the biggest gain since July 2013, figures from the Washington-based group showed today. Readings greater than 50 mean more respondents report good market conditions. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey called for 47.
Current sales, the outlook for future purchases and prospective buyer traffic all improved this month, this week's figures showed, indicating mortgage rates close to historically low levels and a strengthening job market are sustaining demand.Improving sentiment comes as the world's largest economy picks up this quarter following a contraction in the first three months of 2014. The increase "is a welcome sign and shows some renewed confidence in the industry," NAHB Chairman Kevin Kelly, a homebuilder and developer from Wilmington, Delaware, said in a statement. "However, builders are facing strong headwinds, including the limited availability of labor."
The gain this month in the index was the first this year. The measure of the six-month sales outlook improved to 59 in June from 56 which is the highest since January.
By region builder confidence improved in the Midwest, West and South.
Seattle Area Prices Continue To Show Strength: The April Case-Shiller Report was released last week and shows continued strength in housing prices ruled most markets. The strength of our housing market is reflected in appreciation rates double the 20 city index average. Year over year appreciation was 11.2% for King and Snohomish Counties and is the 14th consecutive double digit month. Prices increased 2.3% from March to April rebuffing ideas that pricing increases were slowing significantly. Area prices are still 14% below peak levels of 2007. Case-Shiller chairman, David Blitzer, analysis concludes that the markets still have a way to go for full recovery. He points out that price increases are being driven by non-traditional factors: unusually high investor activity, very low existing and new construction inventory and declining foreclosure inventory. He pointed out that first time buyer activity remains below normal levels. First time buyers are often competing with investors. Local foreclosure rates have fallen to 1.4% of all homes with mortgages from 2.1% last year this time.
Interest Rates Move Back Toward Yearly Lows: The factors influencing interest rates would typically suggest lower interest rates. Turmoil in the middle east, Fed statements that the economy still needs support to achieve a self sustaining recovery, elevated unemployment and still tepid recovery measurements all suggest that rates could move even lower. The restraining factor currently is increased inflation measurements. The most recent version showed inflation right at Fed targets of 2% annual increases. Rates have been typically below this number and current levels may be a temporary bump. For now we are in a holding pattern around current levels without an observable trend up or down. .
"You're hot then you're cold." Katy Perry. Inflation is heating up, while the housing market shows signs of cooling. Meanwhile, the Fed continues to taper its massive Bond-buying program at a steady pace.
The hot housing market from 2013 is cooling off as the second half of 2014 approaches. May Housing Starts fell by 6.5 percent from April to an annual rate of 1.001 million units. Housing Starts measure the number of new residential construction projects during any particular month. Meanwhile, Building Permits, a sign of future construction, declined by 6.4 percent to an annual rate of 991,000. In addition, Freddie Mac's 2014 Economic and Housing Outlook revealed that single-family housing remains weaker than Freddie Mac projected six months ago, while multi-family dwellings appears to be on track.
There was some positive housing news, as the National Association of Home Builders Housing Market Index rose to 49 in June, up from 45 recorded in May. The reading for June is one point shy of the 50 threshold, the level that's considered good for new construction conditions.
On the inflation front, the Consumer Price Index for May came in hotter than expected. This is significant because inflation erodes the value of fixed assets like Mortgage Bonds. And since home loan rates are tied to Mortgage Bonds, hotter inflation could spell trouble for home loan rates as we move further ahead this year. Also of note, the Federal Reserve announced that it will continue to taper its massive Bond-buying program. Beginning in July, the Fed will purchase $15 billion in Mortgage Bonds and $20 billion in Treasuries per month, an overall decrease of $10 billion.
What does this mean for home loan rates? Tensions overseas, the Fed's Bond-buying program and weak economic reports have been key factors in helping Bonds and home loan rates improve this spring. However, hotter inflation could spell trouble and it's something to watch closely in the weeks and months ahead.
Extreme Eastside Market Demands Extreme Measures: Any self respecting Real Estate professional would not typically recommend their buyers to waive inspections, to not bother making an offer on a home unless the are willing to exceed their price range, write cheesy motivation letters to the seller, or ( gasp ) ignore the appraised value. For buyers to compete in the Bellevue, and some other Eastside, markets; that is exactly what it can take to win against highly motivated offers. Forget that, in spite of going to crazy measures, your offer may be blown out of the water by a cash offer that can close in days. In the first 3 months of this year, 39% of all Eastside sales were cash. Data and anecdotal stories describe very difficult circumstances for buyers in these markets. Even the lower appreciation rates this year compared to '13 can mean a big pricing increase in actual dollars. Eastside prices in April were up 7.2% from one year ago. As recently as February 2012 the median value was $362k. Currently that number has risen to $535k. This is creating a sense of urgency on the part of buyers. For now interest rates have trended down but if that changes it will cause even more motivation. Agents relay that they have not seen many homes sell without a bidding war for months. Multiple offers of at least 15-20 are typical with some seeing many more. Bidding wars are pushing sales prices over $100k above listing price. Agents are having to add new skills to their repertoire to keep buyers engaged in the hunt under very discouraging circumstances. Contact me about options to put your buyers in a position to make a cash offer.
Negative Equity Still A Major Factor Affecting Markets: A recently released report by Corelogic shows a much improving situation overall with more homeowners recovering usable equity in their homes. While over 300000 homeowners returned to positive equity in the first quarter, only one in five homeowners have sufficient equity to sell and purchase another home. Currently 12.7% of all homes with mortgages are underwater. That improved from the same time last year which was at 13.4%. At current appreciation rates another 1.2 million homes are expected to emerge from negative equity over the next year. Another interesting reading from their report is another 10 million homes have less than 20% equity. Most of the total equity is concentrated in the higher end part of the market. Washington ranked #30 out of all 50 states but about #30-#20 states all were at very similar levels.
Interest Rates Edge Higher After 12 month Low: There has not been strong economic data that one would look for to cause rates to move higher. New inflation data at the business level is also tame. The rate pricing moved modestly higher this week in spite of the lack of typical market pressures. This seems to be due to normal trader and market behavior. It is common for market pricing to move away from new levels not seen in a long period of time. This seems to be the case here. All in all it seems market conditions continue to support low interest rates. The stock market rally has stalled for the moment. A big move lower in the stock market would likely push rates lower than the recent low points.
"You've got to be careful if you don't know where you're going, otherwise you might not get there." Yogi Berra. It's safe to say the Fed is closely watching where our economy is going, as economic reports continue to be mixed.
Retail Sales for May rose by 0.3 percent, led by demand for cars, trucks and home improvement products, though spending eased at most other retailers. The 0.3 percent was less than the 0.7 percent expected and was the lowest level since January's reading. Retail sales account for about one-third of consumer spending, and are the main driver of U.S. economic activity. Growth in this area is a key factor in our economic recovery.
In housing news, RealtyTrac reported that there was a 5 percent decrease in all types of foreclosures from April to May, with a heavy concentration in the northeast and along the west coast. There was also a 26 percent decrease from May 2013 to May 2014. In addition, Fannie Mae's May 2014 National Housing Survey revealed that tepid household income and concerns surrounding the U.S. economy are weighing on the housing sector.
And in labor market news, after hitting lows not seen since 2007, weekly Initial Jobless Claims rose by 4,000 in the latest week to 317,000. While the labor markets continue to overcome obstacles, the sector is still under a cloud of uncertainty with so many people looking at long-term unemployment.
What does this mean for home loan rates? Remember that home loan rates are tied to Mortgage Bonds, so when Bonds improve, rates improve. The weakened Euro, the Fed's Bond-buying program and the tepid economy have been key factors in helping Bonds and home loan rates improve this spring. While Bonds and home loan rates struggled in the latest week, they remain at some of their best levels of the year.
Lack of First Time Buyer's Holds Back A Strong Housing Recovery: Economists and analysts continue to ask why housing is not leading us in to a stronger recovery with so much support from the Fed and time since the turn down. Even Fed Chairperson, Yellen, has made note that housing is not recovering as strong as hoped and they have really spent all their bullets. A recent Wall Street Journal article points out that first time buyers are purchasing at 88% of the average level over the last 10 years. There are many head winds facing first time buyers in the current environment. Recent data points out that income fell most for the age group of 25-34 from 2007 to 2012. Recent appreciation has made homes less affordable, many have credit issues to resolve, inventory is tight in most markets, many have high student loan debt and much tighter credit requirements are all factors. First time buyers are currently 16% of all transactions while they were 22-25% during the 2001 to 2007 period. The good news is we seem to be at the bottom and heading up. NAR chief economist, Lawrence Yun, suggests the market is improving but it may take a few years to get back to normal.
An aerial view of a housing development in Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
Mike Trafton bought a house in a suburb of Boise, Idaho, where he plans to retire. He made the deal without signing a stack ofmortgage papers.
Trafton, 55, and his wife Cindy, 54, paid $400,000 in cash for the 3,200-square-foot house in Eagle after selling their 4,400-square-foot home in a Portland, Oregon, suburb for $680,000. Like a growing number of baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, the Traftons had no desire to get a mortgage.
U.S. home-price gains have restored $3.8 trillion of value to owners since the beginning of the real estate recovery in 2012, according to Federal Reserve data. A record number of Americans are using that equity to pay cash for properties, avoiding a mortgage process that has become even more onerous in the wake of the 2007 housing collapse. In the first quarter, 29 percent of non-investment homebuyers used cash, the highest on record for the period, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
The majority of people making all-cash deals are baby boomers mostly because America's largest-ever generation is beginning to retire, said Lawrence Yun, chief economist of the National Association of Realtors. In 2012, there were a record 61.8 million Americans over the age of 60, according to the Census. That compares with 46.6 million in 2000.
Lending for mortgages to purchase homes fell to $115 billion in the first quarter, the lowest in three years, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. In the first three months of 2014, buyers plunked down $105.1 billion of their own money for properties, compared with $84.7 billion a year earlier, according to Bloomberg data. The share of purchases made by investors, who typically pay cash, dropped to the lowest first-quarter level since 2010.
About 10,000 Americans turn 65 every day, according to the Pew Research Center in Washington. Between 2010 and 2020, the group of Americans age 65 to 74 will jump 51 percent, according to Census projections. Combined U.S. home equity, the value of real estate unencumbered withmortgages, rose to a six-year high in the fourth quarter, according to the Fed.
Just as they transformed societal norms and politics as college students in the 1960s and 1970s, the generation will change the housing market as they age, said William Frey, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who specializes in demographics. About 16.3 million Americans older than 60 owned their homes free and clear in 2012, according to Census data. In 2009, that number was 12.1 million.
This generation will likely stay in the housing market longer than the prior one, said John McIlwain, a senior fellow at the Urban Land Institute in Washington.
Last month Snetselaar purchased a one-bedroom home for $450,000 in Heritage Sands, a community under construction on the south shore of Massachusetts' Cape Cod designed to look like a collection of cottages from the 1940s. Snetselaar, 64, said she'll continue working as a professor at College of Public Health at the University of Iowa for another five years or so, and then retire to the house in Dennis Port.
Snetselaar said when she sells the five-bedroom Iowa City home where she raised her children, she probably will use the proceeds to pay off the mortgage she needed to finance the Cape Cod house. She bought her first home in 1974, when the median U.S. price was about $36,800.
About 39 percent of boomers want to retire to a rural community -- either a farm or a small town, according to the Better Homes poll. About 27 percent plan to move to an adult community where activities such as rock climbing and yoga are available. And 26 percent said they want to retire to acity.
Going without a mortgage bestows "peace of mind," said Trafton, who watched families in his Oregon neighborhood lose homes during the real estate bust.
When considering the mysteries of what attracts the ultimate buyer, few will deny that "curb-appeal" is a sort of magic bullet. The term is a buzz word for the enticing image of your home as seen from the street, and is similar to the adage of "judging a book by its cover." Buyers who rely upon this might overlook a treasure in the rough, but savvy sellers know curb appeal is a key tool to finding a buyer more quickly.
Interest Rates Move Slightly Off One Year Lows: Whenever a market traded asset moves to levels not seen in a long period, they tend to move back the other direction. This is because of how traders tend to behave. This is exactly what we saw last week. Interest rate pricing moved slightly higher but is still close to recent low points we had last week. At the heart of the recent drop in rates seems to bets that the stock markets are overbought and due for a large move lower. History of market rallys and a lack luster economy support that bet. There are more investors shorting ( buying positions that will pay off if the market moves down) now than we have seen in the last 8 years. It is a large number. Employment numbers are improving but most of the new hires are in lower wave positions. This is not suggesting a strong recovery that would tend to move rates higher. For now it seems the market is supporting these lower rates with a possibility of lower rates if the stock market does falter.
"The spotlight's hitting something that's been known to change the weather." Elton John. The Jobs Report always has the power to change the "weather" for the markets and home loan rates. Read on to learn what May's report revealed.
The Labor Department reported that 217,000 new jobs were created in May. This was in line with expectations, though a decrease from the 282,000 job creations that were reported in April. The Unemployment Rate remained steady at 6.3 percent, the lowest level since September 2008.
However, digging further, it's important to note that many low paying jobs dominated the new hires in healthcare, bars and restaurants. In addition, the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) was unchanged at 62.8 percent, matching a 35-year low. The LFPR measures the proportion of working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for one, and it should be moving higher in a recovery. All in all, the Jobs Report for May was a decent one, but nothing that will push the nation into full employment.
In housing news, research firm CoreLogic reported that home prices, including distressed sales, rose by 10.5 percent from April 2013 to April 2014. April marks the twenty-sixth consecutive month of year-over-year home price gains. However, as CoreLogic noted, "The weakness in home sales that began a few months ago is clearly signaling a slowdown in price appreciation. The 10.5 percent increase in April, compared to a year earlier, was the slowest rate of appreciation in 14 months."
What does this mean for home loan rates? Mortgage Bonds continue to remain at some of their best levels of the year, thanks to the weakened Euro, the Fed's Bond-buying program and the tepid economy. Since home loan rates are tied to Mortgage Bonds, as Bonds improve, rates improve. In recent weeks, home loan rates have hit their best levels this year!
1. The house is fine, but I could make it look bad.
As the housing market recovers, more buyers and sellers are getting reintroduced to one of the most nerve-racking rituals in real estate: the home inspection.
An inspection, which usually occurs after a buyer has made an offer, is meant to be an objective analysis of a home's condition. Twenty years ago, 75% of purchased homes were inspected; today, it's 95%, according to Bill Loden, president of the American Society of Home Inspectors, a Des Plaines, Ill.-based industry trade group.
Inspections aren't a big financial burden: A review of a 2,000 square foot home typically costs around $450, with the buyer footing the bill. But what can make an inspection so stressful is that a long list of trouble signs, without proper explanation, can sabotage a deal. And real estate pros complain that some of the inspectors themselves are overzealous. Many of the nation's 25,000 inspectors used to work in construction, or still do, and their expertise can lead them to bombard buyers with encyclopedic lists of minor problems.
A thorough pro will look at the foundation and the framing to make sure nothing is cracked, warped or rotting, and examine the roof for problems with shingles and gutters. Inspectors should also look for plumbing leaks and make sure the water heater, wiring, heating systems and fireplaces are safe.
So what constitutes going too far? A less helpful inspector might dwell on things like surface mold, chipped paint or other superficial problems, or present buyers with a long litany of issues, with no context about their relative importance and no estimate of the cost of fixing them.
The trick is finding an inspector who can relay the critical information and put it in context, says Dave Moersen, of HomeCheck Home Inspectors in Gaithersburg, Md., who's a veteran of more than 4,500 home inspections. "I used to think this job was 95% technical knowledge and 5% communication, but now I think it's the other way around," says Moersen. "Homeowners just want answers."
Bohdan Mastykaz, a Redfin real-estate agent in Miami, says the best inspectors take pictures and include them in their report to the buyer: "Pictures make everything black and white, and it's far less subjective that way."
2. Get the house, not the inspection.
Most realtors and real estate lawyers recommend including inspection contingencies in purchase contracts. But in most cases the law doesn't actually require an inspection. And in hotter markets, some buyers are opting to skip them. In a competitive bid situation "an offer for $880,000 with no inspection contingency will likely win over a $900,000 offer with an inspection contingency," says Mark Colwell, a real-estate agent with Redfin in San Francisco.
Of course, skipping an inspection can leave you in a different kind of hot water. If an inspection turns up a home defect, the seller will be under pressure to either drop their price or fix the problem. If the buyers waive that option, and find a defect afterward, they're on their own when it comes to repairs.
Only about two-thirds of the states have laws regulating home inspectors, according to ASHI, and even where regulations exist, the range of rules is wide. In Maryland, for example, home inspectors are regulated by the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation; they have to take a 72-hour pre-licensing class and have a license renewal every two years. In New York, home inspectors need a 140 hour pre-licensing course. But in California, there's no license needed and no classes are required; and in Virginia, there are no field training or experience requirements.
States that do have regulations on the books typically require home inspectors to take part in as many as 250 home inspections, as observers, before they apply for a license. But those "inspections" just can be a variation of "following Joe around," and there's no guarantee your home inspector is getting the knowledge needed to do a good job when flying solo.
If a not-so-sharp inspector misses a defect that eventually costs you, you could sue. But there's no national requirement that inspectors carry any standard of liability or errors-and-omissions insurance, and insurance rules vary by state. In practice, even an inspector who is found liable for damages may not have to ever pay up.
You may be able to rest a little easier if your inspector be a member of ASHI or the National Association of Home Inspectors (NAHI); those organizations require their members to meet certain standards of practice and ethics to remain in good standing. While hiring a certified home inspector may not protect you from a bad inspector, at least it gives you a place to complain.
4....and my credentials are pretty easy to obtain.
"Certified" membership in ASHI requires a minimum of 250 professional fee-paid inspections, as does the same status in NAHI. But you can be a noncertified ASHI member or a standard NAHI member with just 75 inspections under your belt.
Both organizations require some of their higher-level members to pass the National Home Inspector Examination, but neither organization verifies each candidate's inspections, typically just selecting a handful at random to audit.
ASHI's Loden says while his group can't police every one of its members, they've removed several from their organization for violations of ethics rules or concealing criminal convictions "When we find people violating our membership standards we try to take care of it, and in states where inspectors are licensed we refer them to the regulatory agency and the real estate board so agents know not to use them," he says. NAHI did not respond to requests for comment.
5. I'll cut corners to keep the agents happy.
The inspector ideally should work only for the client. But home inspectors also try to build relationships with agents and brokers to get more business, and that can give them an incentive to play down any problems with a house.
Sometimes, the buyer's agent tries to lean on the home inspector so as not to blow a deal, says HomeCheck's Moersen. "I've had calls from buyers agent's the day before my inspection telling me to lay off the HVAC system or the electrical system." Some agents have gone so far as to "weed out" inspectors who they say cause them the most aggravation, he adds: "If you kill a deal, you'll still hear from the agent, but if you kill more than two, you won't hear from them again."
Experts say homeowners should be wary if an agent or broker recommends just one inspector to them, of if an agent tries to discuss the inspection directly with the inspector and cut out the client.
ASHI has developed what it calls a "Client Bill of Rights," which requires, among other things, that home inspectors' future referrals from a broker or agent not be contingent on their report findings.
6. Feel free to watch.
It happens: Some home inspectors are so thorough they can scare a client out of a deal. One way for a buyer to avoid that fate is to accompany the home inspector room-to-room during the actual inspection, says Paul Reid, a real-estate agent in California's Inland Empire region.
You'll learn a lot about the home that way, and you won't be surprised when the home inspector comes up with a long list of fixes. "A lot of times buyers will say, 'Do I need to be there for three hours?' and I tell them 'Yes,'" Reid says.
Of course, you may have to nag to be allowed to tag along. Mike Tebeau, of National Property Inspections in Frederick, Md., said that some inspectors don't like it when homeowners follow them around the house because it gets them off their routine. But he says that he actually prefers it. "More than likely they've been in the house before and they can point out things that they want me to look at. They're really a second set of eyes."
7. You should bring me in earlier.
Traditionally, inspections don't happen until after the buyer has made an offer: the practice is so standard that most inspectors don't think to question it. But having a home inspected before submitting an offer is a relatively frequent practice in San Francisco and Seattle, and some real-estate agents think it's a practice worth adopting more widely.
Researchers at the real estate group Redfin in San Francisco say that offers paired with pre-inspections were successful 21 % more often than other offers, and that San Francisco home buyers whose offers included a pre-inspection were more than twice as likely to win a bidding war as those without one.
"It tells the seller that you already know what's wrong with the home, you still want to buy it, and you're not going to ask them to pay for repairs later," says Colwell, the Redfin agent. Of course, doing the inspection early also means the buyer will have less leverage to get the seller to either fix a problem or drop the price.
8. To find a serious problem, you may need someone else.
Inspectors admit that there are some problems they aren't in a good position to detect. "An inspector can look at the exterior of an addition or a recently-remodeled basement, but without pulling the permits, there's no way of knowing what's behind the walls," said Moersen.
Interest Rates Move To Best Levels Over The Last Year: The last time we saw mortgage bond pricing as favorable as this week was June 2013. That was right after the big QE taper announcement. A good summary for the factors affecting rates is below in the next section. Interest rate directions are very favorable right now. The main factor we can see that will spoil the party is if inflation shows a solid trend higher as we approach the Fed's 2% target.
It's been said that every cloud has a silver lining. And while some key reports from last week could mean stormy skies ahead for our economy, the "silver lining" from the worse than expected news was that it helped home loan rates improve. Read on for key details.
Perhaps the biggest "cloud" for our economy last week came with the second reading on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the first quarter, which came in at -1.0 percent after the initial read of 0.1 percent. This is the first negative reading for GDP since the first quarter of 2011. GDP is the broadest measure of economic activity, and it will be important to see if the number improves as we head further into 2014. In housing news, research firm CoreLogic reported that there were 46,000 completed foreclosures in April, down 18 percent from April 2013. Before the housing market decline in 2007, completed foreclosures averaged 21,000 per month between 2000 and 2006. In addition, the Case Shiller 20-city Home Price Index grew at an annual rate of 12.4 percent in March. Overall, the report showed that housing prices are rising at more normal levels after the big gains seen in 2013.
Also of note, signs of inflation are starting to creep into our economy. Core Personal Consumption Expenditures (the Fed's favorite read on inflation) rose to 1.4 percent in April, after a 1.1 percent rise in March and a 0.9 percent gain in February. April's reading is the highest 12-month rate since March 2013.
What does this mean for home loan rates? Remember that home loan rates are tied to Mortgage Bonds, so as Bonds improve, rates improve. Mortgage Bonds have improved lately for many reasons, including our tepid economy, the weakened Euro and the Fed's big Bond-buying program. In addition, the uncertainty with Russia and the Ukraine has caused investors to move their money out of Stocks and into less risky assets like Bonds.
But rising inflation is something to keep an eye on. Inflation is the arch enemy of Bonds, as inflation reduces the value of fixed investments like Bonds. If inflation continues to heat up, Bonds could worsen, which would impact the improvement we've seen in home loan rates.


text:
About Bitcoin Warrior |
About Bitcoin Warrior
Donate to Bitcoin Warrior
Learn About Bitcoin |
Bitcoin: A Simple Explanation
Keeping Your Bitcoins Safe – Bitcoin Wallets
Your First Bitcoins
Trading Crypto: Bitcoin Exchanges
Bitcoin Beginner's Glossary
Satoshi Nakamoto's Whitepaper Introducing Bitcoin
Bitcoin for Business |
Accepting Bitcoin
Advertise with Bitcoin
Bitcoin for People
Bitcoin Charities List
Fun and Useful
Bitcoin Deals and Discounts
Submit Your Bitcoin Business
Employers to Face Rising Minimum Wages On January 1
Employers to Face Rising Minimum Wages On January 1, Despite Continued COVID-19 Struggles
More than 80 jurisdictions are poised to raise their minimum wages in 2021.
25 States Plan To Raise Their Minimum Wages
Washington, D.C. (Dec. 18, 2020)— Today, the Employment Policies Institute released a new comprehensive guide to state and local minimum wages. The chart shows 25 states and 56 cities and counties plan to raise their minimum wages in the new year, showing no mercy for businesses struggling to stay open during the pandemic.
The highest state-level rates will be in California ($14 per hour), Washington ($13.69 per hour), and Massachusetts ($13.50 per hour). Many of the states and cities with the highest wages are also scheduled to increase annually.
Emeryville, CA is projected to reach $17 per hour according to inflation estimates, while six more California and Washington cities will also top $16 this year, including Sunnyvale, CA and Seattle, WA.
Fourteen states have additional increases scheduled for 2022 and beyond, including seven states on track to raise their minimum wages annually until they reach $15.
The full list of U.S. states, counties, and cities raising their minimum wages can be found here.
The Adverse Effects Of Raising Wages
The adverse effects of raising minimum wages are well-documented by economists, and the preponderance of research supports this conclusion. In 2019, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that a national $15 minimum wage would result in the loss of 1.3 to 3.7 million jobs. Economists at Miami and Trinity Universities updated this analysis in October, finding that a $15 minimum wage across the country would cut over 2 million jobs – nearly half of which would be in restaurants and bars.
Many of these local areas have already surpassed the $15 mark, and more states are on the path to reach $15 in the near future.
"Minimum wage increases are demonstrated to cause job losses even in times of economic health," said Michael Saltsman, Managing Director of the Employment Policies Institute. "These states and local areas are increasing the cost of labor as businesses are dealing with forced closures or a drastic drop in revenue. Employers and employees will pay the price for these misguided good intentions."
Founded in 1991, the Employment Policies Institute is a non-profit research organization dedicated to studying public policy issues surrounding employment growth. In particular, EPI focuses on issues that affect entry-level employment. Learn more at EPIOnline.org.
The post Employers to Face Rising Minimum Wages On January 1 appeared first on ValueWalk.
Previous articleBinance CEO Hints to Add SegWit Support Soon
Next articleWarp Finance loses $7.7 million in flash loan Defi hack
Bitcoin Warrior
© Copyright BitcoinWarrior.net 2013-2018

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl