The NIH-funded Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) program is currently funding 18 academic institutions to strengthen the research environment and contribution to health disparities research. The purpose of this multiphase mixed-methods study was to establish a uniform evaluation framework for demonstrating the collective success of this research consortium. Methods included discussions of aims and logic models at the RCMI Evaluators’ Workshop, a literature review to inform an evaluation conceptual framework, and a case study survey to obtain evaluation-related information and metrics. Ten RCMIs participated in the workshop and 14 submitted responses to the survey. The resultant RCMI Evaluation Conceptual Model presents a practical ongoing approach to document RCMIs’ impacts on health disparities. Survey results identified 37 common metrics under four primary categories. Evaluation challenges were issues related to limited human resources, data collection, decision-making, defining metrics, cost-sharing, and revenue-generation. There is a need for further collaborative efforts across RCMI sites to engage program leadership and community stakeholders in addressing the identified evaluation challenges and measurement. Program leadership should be engaged to apply the Evaluation Conceptual Framework and common metrics to allow for valid inter-institutional comparisons and consortium-wide evaluations. Stakeholders could ensure evaluation metrics are used to facilitate community impacts.

In 2020, evaluators within the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMIs) program proposed a conceptual framework identifying four primary evaluation targets: scientific productivity, scientific collaboration, professional growth, and research resources. This study extends prior work by capturing the contextual and process-oriented dimensions of program impact. This reflective practice-based project examines how non-quantitative approaches complement traditional metrics to better characterize RCMI outcomes. Evaluators representing ten RCMI sites participated in a multi-site case study guided by three questions addressing: (1) qualitative evidence of impact beyond metrics; (2) challenges and successes in implementation of non-quantitative methods; and (3) potential expansion of evaluation targets. Evaluators provided descriptive responses, generating a 22-page dataset that was analyzed thematically. Thirteen non-quantitative evaluation domains emerged: investigator consultations, investigator productivity, investigator success, community partnerships, intra-RCMI collaborations, implementation of team science, career progression, programmatic support, mentoring support, impact on RCMI affiliates, intellectual resources, physical resources, and faculty hires. Key challenges included inconsistent data capture and limited evaluation resources, while successes highlighted improved cross-site learning and visibility of program impact. Findings support retaining the original evaluation targets while expanding the framework to include institutional transformation, equitable research environments, and longitudinal societal impact. A conceptual map was developed to depict how mixed methods that include non-quantitative approaches can yield RCMI evaluations that expand upon the current approach, which relies primarily on quantitative data. The authors recommend quantitative targets and non-quantitative strategies to provide context, communicate evidence of success, and inform programmatic changes to deepen the findings and strengthen the rigor of RCMI evaluation practices.