Objectives/Goals: Build systematic evaluation capacity within a CTSA hub’s Community Engagement program to assess community-engaged research partnerships, programs, and capacity-building activities using mixed methods while advancing translational science through continuous quality improvement. Methods/Study Population: The University of Minnesota CTSI’s Community Engagement program (CEARCH) developed a comprehensive evaluation approach combining participatory approaches with systematic data collection. The CEARCH Management Council, composed of faculty and community partners, guides evaluation strategy. Methods and data sources include surveys, focus groups, program evaluations, grant progress reports, partnership assessments, and environmental scans. Tools include evaluation logic models, running evaluation inventories, REDCap and Zoho data management platforms, and an accessible dashboard tracking grant impacts, community partnerships, training and consultation outcomes. Results/Anticipated Results: CEARCH established systematic tracking of multiple evaluation domains: grant programs (demographics, topics, satisfaction), partnership metrics (meeting frequency, satisfaction, project numbers), training data (attendance, satisfaction), and impact. Visual dashboards and infographics display pilot grant outcomes including dissemination activities, significant outcomes, and stakeholder engagement. Community Health Collaborative Pilot Grants demonstrated diverse community-engaged research across health topics, populations served, and Minnesota regions. Evaluations identified needs for improving partnership processes, defining capacity readiness, and documenting community-identified assets, needs, and priorities. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This case demonstrates how translational science organizations can build sustainable evaluation approaches for community engagement programs. Systematic evaluation infrastructure enables continuous quality improvement, documents translational impact, and strengthens authentic academic-community partnerships.
Koch et al. (Wed,) studied this question.