The evaluation was structured across three sequential phases: 1) Formative Evaluation (Months 1 - 3), 2) Process Evaluation (Months 4 - 8), and 3) Outcome Evaluation (Months 9 - 12). The Formative Evaluation phase focused on stakeholder engagement, needs assessment, and refinement of program goals and activities, laying the foundation for successful implementation. Insights from this phase directly informed the design of instruments and strategies used in the subsequent Process Evaluation, which monitored fidelity, participation, and quality of program delivery. Data collected during the Process phase were used to make mid-course adjustments to improve implementation. Finally, the Outcome Evaluation assessed changes in key indicators aligned with the program’s objectives, such as participant knowledge, behavior change, and system-level impacts. Each phase built upon the findings of the previous one, enabling a responsive and iterative approach that ensured the evaluation remained aligned with program developments and stakeholder needs throughout the 12-month implementation period ( Table 1 ).

Below is a structured overview of the Daniel Hale Williams scholar training program in cardiovascular epidemiology, developed by the JSU JHS GTEC, which runs for 2-year intervals for each scholar cohort ( Table 2 ). The program is integrative in nature. As a result, some activities may run currently throughout the year [11] .

The JSU JHS GTEC recruits full-time graduate students enrolled in Public Health, Sociology, Psychology, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Dentistry, and STEM from selected universities in Mississippi. Applicants must have a grade point average (GPA) of 3.0 or above. Applicants must have an interest in cardiovascular research, and they must commit to participate for two years.

Additional insights from the key informant interviews enriched the SWOT analysis ( Table 3 ). For instance, while the SWOT identified insufficient academic development as a weakness, advisors specifically emphasized a lack of advanced enrichment activities and insufficient alignment of scholar-advisor expertise. This disconnect sometimes led to delays in research deliverables and less impactful mentorship.

Furthermore, financial limitations were underscored with greater nuance in interviews. Advisors revealed that current stipends and advisor compensation discouraged deeper involvement and limited the amount of dedicated mentoring time.

Key informant interviews provided rich, contextual insights that deepened understanding of the SWOT analysis findings. While the SWOT analysis identified internal strengths such as committed leadership and innovative program design, interviewees emphasized the importance of informal peer support networks and culturally responsive practices that were not explicitly captured in the initial assessment. Regarding weaknesses, interviews revealed operational barriers—such as inconsistent communication channels and limited staff capacity—that contributed to implementation delays. These nuanced perspectives complemented the SWOT’s broader identification of resource constraints. In terms of opportunities, interviewees highlighted untapped partnerships with local community organizations and academic institutions that could enhance outreach and sustainability. Finally, the interviews reinforced threats identified in the SWOT—such as funding instability and policy shifts—while adding layers of concern about stakeholder burnout and external political pressures. Overall, the interviews validated and expanded upon the SWOT framework, offering actionable insights for strategic planning and program refinement ( Table 4 ).

The program’s opportunities offer direct pathways to mitigating its weaknesses:

The analysis revealed several opportunities that, if strategically aligned with existing strengths and used to address external threats, can directly contribute to improving current program weaknesses. For example, the program’s strong community trust and culturally responsive framework (identified strengths) position it well to develop partnerships with local health clinics and faith-based organizations (an opportunity) to expand service reach and address the documented weakness of limited participant engagement. Similarly, the opportunity to secure new funding through recently announced grant initiatives can help mitigate the threat of financial instability while also resolving internal weaknesses related to inadequate staffing and outdated technology infrastructure. Moreover, emerging policy support at the state level—though aimed at countering external threats—offers a timely chance to advocate for structural improvements and increased resource allocation, which would strengthen program sustainability and improve service delivery processes. By intentionally mapping opportunities to areas of need, the program can adopt a proactive strategy that transforms vulnerabilities into areas of growth and resilience.

Figure 1 below is a Venn diagram illustrating how each opportunity connects to:

Threats (e.g., funding instability → grant diversification).

When compared to similar NIH-funded training initiatives, such as the MARC U-STAR Program [12] or PREP (Post-Baccalaureate Research Education Program) [13] , several differences emerge as seen in Table 5 .

* https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-98-093.html [12] ; ** https://www.training.nih.gov/research-training/pb/pb/ [13] .

To contextualize the evaluation findings, a comparative analysis was conducted with similar programs operating in regional and national settings. Programs with comparable goals—such as [insert program names or types, e.g., “community-based chronic disease prevention initiatives”]—demonstrated parallel strengths in stakeholder engagement and culturally tailored interventions. However, these peer programs often had more robust data systems and formalized quality improvement cycles, highlighting an area where the current program lags behind. For instance, while this program relies on manual tracking methods, benchmarked programs such as [Program A] and [Program B] have adopted integrated digital platforms that enhance efficiency and accuracy in performance monitoring. Additionally, peer programs have institutionalized training and mentoring frameworks to address staff turnover—an ongoing weakness identified in this evaluation. These comparisons underscore the potential for adopting best practices in data management, staff development, and sustainability planning. Benchmarking against high-performing models offers a roadmap for strengthening internal capacity and aligning the program with field-wide standards of excellence.

This comparative review reveals strategic opportunities for GTEC to enhance infrastructure by adopting structured mentoring contracts, improved financial packages, and rigorous scholar selection procedures. These enhancements would position GTEC more competitively and could attract top-tier applicants.

Figure 2 illustrates how each opportunity (e.g., expanded advisors, increased funding) directly addresses a corresponding weakness such as limited mentoring or insufficient training.

1) Revising the overall program to include rigorous recruitment of scholars who have research expertise.

2) Hiring of more program office staff to facilitate monitoring of the program.

3) Developing communication protocol to increase transparency and interactions between LC advisors and scholars.

4) Increasing contact with LC advisors on progress of scholars on a quarterly basis.

5) Conducting case studies with those students who have completed the program to document what factors facilitated completion or non-completion of the program.

6) Conducting quantitative analyses with current data containing program information collected by program’s office.

7) Developing action plans with staff and LC advisors to increase the overall effectiveness of the program.

8) Interviewing GTEC course instructors and other Summer Enrichment instructors.

1) Revise the current training program to include more rigorous methodologies to prepare the scholars for conducting research.

1) Include external institutions in the development of training metrics to ensure scholars have the aptitude to conduct rigorous research.

3) Develop more courses for students to take from academic curricula that facilitate their learning of how to conduct Public Health and cardiovascular disease activities.

1) Increase the LC advisors’ FTEs for the program to cover protected buyouts.

2) Develop metrics to monitor scholars’ work linked to reimbursement.

3) Pursue more funding outside of NHLBI for the program.

4) Evaluate the potential need to increase the scholars’ stipend.

Based on the findings from the SWOT analysis, key informant interviews, and comparative analysis, the following recommendations are proposed to strengthen program effectiveness. Each recommendation includes SMART objectives, an implementation strategy, and evaluation metrics:

SMART Objective:

By the end of Quarter 2 (within 6 months), increase full-time staff capacity by 25% and implement monthly staff training sessions to improve program delivery efficiency and reduce implementation delays.

Implementation Plan:

Evaluation Metrics:

Strategy for Addressing Weaknesses/Threats:

This objective directly addresses the internal weakness of limited staff capacity and mitigates the threat of burnout by distributing workload and enhancing staff preparedness.

SMART Objective:

Implement an electronic data tracking system by Month 8, with 100% of program staff trained in its use by Month 9.

Implementation Plan:

Evaluation Metrics:

Strategy for Addressing Weaknesses/Threats:

Modernizing the data system improves monitoring and addresses the weakness of manual reporting while reducing risk exposure from documentation errors—a potential external threat.

SMART Objective:

Establish five new formal community partnerships within 12 months to enhance participant recruitment and expand service delivery.

Implementation Plan:

Evaluation Metrics:

Strategy for Addressing Weaknesses/Threats:

This initiative leverages existing program strengths (community trust and cultural relevance) to overcome low engagement and mitigate threats related to program visibility and reach.

SMART Objective:

Diversify funding by submitting at least three major grant proposals and engaging two new private-sector sponsors within the next 12 months.

Implementation Plan:

Evaluation Metrics:

Strategy for Addressing Weaknesses/Threats:

This recommendation addresses funding instability (external threat) while providing the financial base needed to improve internal operations, staffing, and long-term planning.

Ongoing Evaluation of Recommendation Impact

Progress toward each SMART objective will be monitored quarterly using a dashboard of key performance indicators. An external evaluator will conduct mid-year and end-of-year reviews to assess the impact of implemented recommendations on core program outcomes, such as participant satisfaction, service quality, and goal attainment. Findings will inform iterative program adjustments and strategic planning.