Evaluation Logic Model 

LogicModelthumbnail

Donahue Institute

Established in 1985, the R&E Group maintains a research staff of 30, inclusive of quantitative and qualitative research managers, graduate research assistants, and project support staff, in three MA offices, including one in Shrewsbury, nearby to the UMMS.  Their staff routinely develop and conduct evaluations for federal, state, and local clients in a range of areas including primary, secondary, and higher education, public health, and economic development, among others.

The R&E Group Director, Eric S. Heller, EdD will serve as Principal Investigator and be supported by Senior Research Manager, Steven F. Ellis. Combined they have over 40 years experience designing and implementing complex research projects, including work on federal initiatives for the Department of Veterans Affairs, SAMHSA, and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Mr. Ellis recently led the Institute’s study of factors affecting cancer care practitioner’s adoption of research-based practices for NCI.

Tracking and Evaluation

The UMCCTS is deeply committed to a rigorous tracking and evaluation function.  The evaluation goals include

  1. supporting Center oversight through rigorous measures of accountability,
  2. supporting continuous program improvement through ongoing formative feedback relative to Center implementation and outcomes, and
  3. providing ongoing summative assessment of Center outcomes.

Through pursuit of these goals, the tracking and evaluation provides ongoing value to the UMCCTS and the many diverse stakeholders who are or will become engaged with the Center and its research.

The evaluation plan was developed by the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute’s Research and Evaluation Group (R&E Group) in collaboration with UMCCTS leaders and program office representatives. The Institute maintains oversight and management of tracking and evaluation activities, working with staff of the UMCCTS in its final design and implementation. This approach ensuree close collaboration and bi-directional communication, allowing the evaluation to maintain needed flexibility within a complex and evolving program environment.