{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015323117921385743, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.705357142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Local and national uses of a Road to Recovery evaluation.

Evaluation fellows from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services conducted an evaluation of the Road to Recovery program of the Mid-Atlantic division of the American Cancer Society. The evaluation included qualitative analysis of program operation, mailed surveys, in-depth interviews with patients and drivers, and interviews with social workers from treatment centers. Results indicated that patients and drivers were satisfied with the program. Patients appreciated the ability of drivers to provide personalized, reliable service. The recruitment of sufficient drivers to meet transportation demand was a problem. High staff turnover and a lack of electronic tracking of standard information hindered program monitoring. A Mid-Atlantic Advisory Transportation Group reviewed the findings and made recommendations for service improvement. The Mid-Atlantic division evaluation contributed to an "evaluation synthesis" in which participants from the three divisions that had conducted Road to Recovery evaluations examined study data and made recommendations for reorganizing the national transportation program. A Transportation Program Design Team then held fact-finding meetings and adopted goals and objectives for a new national transportation program. The primary lesson learned was the far-reaching effects that a single program evaluation may have for various stakeholders and for an organization.