THE RESEARCH REPORT DOCUMENTED AN EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF THE RELATIVE MERITS OF FACT FINDING AND ARBITRATION AS DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS. THE REPORT'S FINDINGS WERE CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE POSITIONS OF POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS UNIONS, THE NEW YORK CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, THE NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYER LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATION, AND THE GOVERNOR IN THE DEBATE OVER WHETHER TO EXTEND, TERMINATE, OR MODIFY THE STATE LAW REQUIRING COMPULSORY INTEREST ARBITRATION FOR POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS. THE RESEARCH STIMULATED AND FOCUSED THE DEBATE, BUT IT WAS THE POLITICAL POWER OF THE POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS THAT PROVIDED THE VOTES NEEDED TO INSURE THAT SOME FORM OF ARBITRATION WOULD BE EXTENDED. ONCE THE POLITICAL BALANCE OF POWER WAS CLARIFIED, NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE INTEREST GROUPS REVOLVED AROUND THE EXACT SHAPE THE ARBITRATION PROCEDURES WOULD TAKE. THE RESEARCH DID NOT CHANGE THE POSITIONS OF THE INTEREST GROUPS. RATHER, THE GROUPS USED THE RESEARCH TO SUPPORT POSITIONS THAT REFLECTED THEIR PHILOSOPHICAL AND PARTISAN VIEWPOINTS, EITHER CITING FINDINGS THAT WERE FAVORABLE TO THEIR POSITIONS OR CHALLENGING FINDINGS THAT WERE NOT. ALL OF THE PARTIES TO THE DEBATE GAVE ATTENTION TO THE REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE EFFECTS OF CHANGING FROM FACT FINDING TO ARBITRATION, BUT LITTLE ATTENTION WAS GIVEN TO THE REPORT'S DISCUSSION OF THE OVERALL DETERIORATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. (LKM)