Date: Saturday, July 11, 2026
Aliza Simmons here, writing to you from beautiful Oregon, where I am the Co-Director of the Human Services Implementation Lab (iLab) at Portland State University and a Doctorate of Evaluation Practice student at Claremont Graduate University.
As Dr. Phillips and Nate Varnell wrote in the AEA Blog on June 10, 2026, the current administration’s rules have resulted in a massive loss of data, including data needed to understand health equity. And, as they wrote, these rules force evaluators into a dichotomous choice: Do we follow the federal guidelines and remove response categories we know will surface important disparities, or do we follow AEA’s Guiding Principles of Respect for People, Integrity, and Common Good and Equity?
At the iLab, we believe these rules are a misguided reaction to jargon without considering the science behind the influence that culture, racism, and, yes, even genetics have on mental and physical health. Thus, we are getting rid of the jargon, while still being true to the scientific needs that healthcare must address in order to provide optimal care.
Those of us who seek funding from federal agencies (e.g., SAMHSA, CDC, NIMH, etc.) are carefully writing grant applications to pass the word censor so our programs are funded and clients get the behavioral health services they need.
Within the iLab, we were faced with exactly this choice. We develop evaluation tools to track the level of implementation of evidence-based and promising practices (e.g., Zero Suicide, Trauma-informed Care, Workforce Readiness, etc.). Attention to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) supports mental health and prevents suicides. One cannot practice trauma-informed care without DEI. So, how could we attach our tools to federal grant applications, with DEI as a core aspect, and still get funded?
As Dr. Katrina L. Bledsoe, a guest speaker during Dr. Stewart Donaldson’s Comparative Evaluation Theory course at Claremont Graduate University spring term, told us (paraphrased): just keep doing the work. Don’t call it DEI, don’t call it anything. Just do it.
We deleted “DEI” from the tool in favor of addressing the underlying scientific basis for the concept. The tools pass the word searches and our programs get funded. Let me be clear: we deleted the acronym, but not the science. The underlying concept behind DEI is woven throughout the tool as an integral part of nearly all components.
For example, feedback processes developed, approved, and evidence of their meaningful use is part of full program implementation for both Zero Suicide and Trauma-informed Care – and any behavioral health service. At full implementation, individuals served are involved in decisions that affect how services are provided, the forms and documentation, the physical environment, and how data is used. Meaningful feedback processes surface exclusive, unwelcoming, or potentially harmful practices.
Fidelity to these models includes a well workforce. Staff are to be included in decisions that affect them, including hiring and onboarding processes, workforce wellbeing initiatives, policy and procedure development, and other components. These feedback processes help to ensure an inclusive environment for both staff and clients.
Full implementation also requires data-informed quality improvement activities. Agencies are to review those served and those the service is missing. These data are to be used to adapt practices or provide supports to ensure all individuals can, and do, access services.
You can check out the implementation assessments here and get in touch with your feedback. What is missing? How can we even better address the underlying scientific basis for DEI without calling it DEI?
The American Evaluation Association is hosting Behavioral Health TIG Week with our colleagues in Behavioral Health Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to AEA365 come from our Behavioral Health TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this AEA365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the AEA365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an AEA365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to AEA365@eval.org. AEA365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. The views and opinions expressed on the AEA365 blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the American Evaluation Association, and/or any/all contributors to this site.