Background: The Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) Grant Program aims to increase the number of highly effective educators by supporting the implementation of evidence-based practices that prepare, develop, or enhance the skills of educators. The three central goals of this program are: (1) Recruit, prepare, and retain effective and diverse educators with local ties to serve in underserved schools; (2) Build a sustainable pipeline of aspiring teachers; and (3) Advance the field of education by enhancing, evaluating, and disseminating a research-based approach to teacher preparation that improves students' outcomes and provides a sustainable model for others. SEED's implied theory of change assumes evidence can be used to solve a specific program. Grantees are expected to draw from research evidence to design programs that address the insufficient number of highly effective educators. Implicitly, SEED assumes that the grantees will effectively implement evidence-based practices, and if they do so, the program will generate positive outcomes. This implementation evaluation is aimed at documenting the extent to which the grantee and its Educator Preparation Program (EPP) partners adhered to evidence-based practices. Information regarding fidelity to the evidence and implementation challenges will provide important context when interpreting the results from the impact evaluation of this study. Research Questions: This evaluation is intended to (a) measure impact on teacher and student outcomes using a rigorous quasi-experimental design that meets What Works Clearinghouse standards with reservations, and (b) provide formative feedback on the extent to which SEED is implemented as intended and meets specified performance objectives. We address (b) through two questions aimed at understanding implementation and providing feedback for continuous improvement. (1) To what extent is SEED implemented as intended? (a) Are participants receiving intensive, integrated pre-service in-service induction support? (b) What obstacles inhibit, and what factors enable, successful implementation of the program? (2) To what extent is SEED meeting performance objectives regarding: (a) attracting and retaining diverse participants, (b) improving teachers' capacity to use culturally responsive teaching methods, and (c) increasing teachers' capacity to meet students' social-emotional learning needs? The implied theory of change assumes grantees implement evidence-based practices as intended, and that doing so results in meeting performance objectives. Setting: This SEED program is being implemented in a majority Black city in the southeastern region of the United States. Participants Across the three EPPs, there were 120 active participants in SY 2023-24. Most participants (90%) are currently teachers of record, enrolled to obtain a graduate degree or licensure. Program: This SEED program aims to expand and enhance one city's non-traditional EPPs and resident induction with strategies found to have evidence of effectiveness. The grantee seeks to attract candidates, particularly people of color and local residents, through financial incentives and recruitment strategies. Strategies to develop effective educators include coursework, coaching, and feedback as part of field experiences. For participants in teaching positions, continuing support includes coaching and feedback, professional development, and mentoring, consistent with the strategies described in Young et al. (2017). Research Design: We drew upon culturally responsive and equitable evaluation principles and have been reflective throughout the study. Through a case study approach, we aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of each EPP. We collected administrative data on all program participants from each EPP. We sought to ensure diversity in perspectives by interviewing EPP employees and school staff and surveying participants. Interviewees included EPP staff, clinical faculty and coursework instructors, instructional coaches, and school-based mentors. To minimize non-response bias, we offered incentives to program participants who completed the survey. Data Collection and Analysis: To gather perspectives about how partners have been implementing SEED to date, we posed questions on program management, recruitment, instruction, coaching, and mentoring. We conducted 15 interviews per EPP with 23 interview participants, ranging from 15 to 60 minutes in length, in-person and virtually. The study team thematically coded interview data to identify common patterns and unique attributes of each case. Most survey items were closed-ended to reduce burden on participants and maximize response rates, which ranged from 75 to 100%. We conducted validation checks on both the online and paper-based versions of the survey and re-coded as needed to ensure consistency. We analyzed the data in Excel, using pivot tables to cut across different groups and variables of interest and generate tables and visualizations that summarize the data collected. Findings: Participants appear to be receiving intensive, integrated pre-service and multi-layered in-service induction as intended. EPP faculty described integrating culturally responsive teaching and social emotional learning practices in coursework. Participants concurred that programs included culturally responsive teaching (65% Strongly Agree; 34% Agree) and social emotional learning (54% Strongly Agree; 45% Agree) strategies. All EPPs are conducting observation and feedback cycles. Participants reported receiving coaching and feedback from their program to implement these strategies. The interviews shed light on some common obstacles and factors that contributed to success. All EPPs perceived the financial incentives offered to participants as facilitating success in recruiting and retaining teacher candidates. School-based mentors receive programmatic level support from all EPPs; however, the level of support provided varied. All partners base frequency of informal observations on participant needs. To date, SEED has documented success in attracting diverse candidates to their programs. Of the 120 participants, 80% are people of color (70% are Black or African American); over half (53%) are first-generation college graduates, and 83% are local participants. Partners successfully recruited racially diverse candidates by leveraging relationships with schools; most SEED participants are currently uncertified teachers. By recruiting existing teachers, they are not necessarily expanding the local pool of educators as intended. Conclusions: SEED partners have made progress toward implementing the program as intended. Many characteristics of these programs seem likely to advance goals to support teachers and improve student outcomes. The end-of-year data collection, scheduled for June 2024, will provide additional information on teachers' capacity to use culturally responsive teaching methods and meet students' social-emotional learning needs.