Grantee-Specific Project LAUNCH Evaluations

Grantees design and carry out evaluation activities to assess the implementation of their Project LAUNCH projects and to determine the outcomes associated with project activities within their states, tribes, communities, and the District of Columbia.

Each grantee engages an evaluator to conduct grantee-specific evaluation activities. In some cases, the evaluator is an employee of the grantee; in other cases, the state-, tribal-, or community-level program hires an independent contractor or consultant.

In all cases, the grantee-specific evaluator supports the state-, tribal-, and community-level teams by doing the following:

• Writing a grantee-specific evaluation plan. Each Project LAUNCH grantee prepares an evaluation plan that lays out the steps leading from the grantee-specific logic model to the evaluation questions, designs or plans to answer each question, data collection, and, finally, data analysis and reporting.
• Developing the logic model and determining the evaluation questions. A logic model graphically explains how a program will be delivered and the changes or outcomes that are expected as a result. The logic model is a tool that helps evaluators focus the evaluation on the questions of highest priority and on the variables and performance indicators that are most important to measure. Resources on developing logic models can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/eval/resources.htm#logic%20model.
• Selecting and/or creating evaluation instruments. Grantees will evaluate implementation and outcomes of Project LAUNCH at the state, tribal, and community levels. This includes infrastructure development, program or /service delivery, and outcomes for children and families. Instruments may be developed for the evaluation or obtained from other sources. For example, publishers of evidence-based curricula often recommend or provide instruments to be used in conjunction with their products, and the local evaluator and the implementation team can jointly decide which, if any, of these tools to use for assessing implementation fidelity, client satisfaction, and/or outcome measurement. In other cases, evaluators may need to research and recommend other established tools or develop new instruments tailored to the needs of the grantee-specific evaluation. See the Fact Sheets for a number of common evidence-based practices that include information on evaluation tools.
• Designing processes for collecting data. Because Project LAUNCH children and families often participate in multiple evidenced-based activities, tracking participation and measuring outcomes can be challenging. Project LAUNCH local evaluators can assist state, tribal, community, and District of Columbia leaders in developing systems for efficiently gathering data through their intake and service delivery activities and for recording data through spreadsheets or electronic databases. When appropriate, evaluators may also collect their own information through surveys, observations, interviews, and focus groups.
• Developing the IRB submission. The grantee-specific evaluation may involve IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval to ensure that specific rules and regulations designed to protect human subjects in research are followed. IRB approval may also be required to collect the data needed for the cross-site evaluation (CSE). The local-level evaluator can develop the IRB submission, based on the grantee-specific evaluation plan that is developed.
• Sharing and helping state, community, and District of Columbia Project LAUNCH leaders interpret grantee-specific and CSE results. State, community, and District of Columbia Project LAUNCH leaders may use evaluation findings in a number of ways, for example:
  
  • Reporting to state and community child wellness councils and decision-makers
  • Identifying needed improvements in service delivery during the life of the grant
  • Advocating for new policies or policy changes
  • Making the case for continued support

  Evaluators can support state, tribal, community, and District of Columbia leaders in these efforts by reporting evaluation findings in a user-friendly, timely manner and by answering questions about the meaning and implications of results. In addition to the final results of the grantee-specific and CSEs, evaluators can share emerging findings during the course of the evaluation in order to make “mid-course corrections” to service implementation. Evaluation findings should be shared with a wide audience that includes service providers, policy-makers at the community, state, and tribal levels, and other stakeholders, including community members.