LGBTQ+ Voices in Evaluation TIG Week: Tensions in LGBTQ+ Evaluation, Data, and Policy by Gregory Phillips II and Nate Varnell

Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2026

Pride month brings AEA a rainbow of insights, perspectives, and practices of LGBTQIA+ evaluators. These posts from the LGBTQ+ Voices in Evaluation TIG feature belonging, community, collaboration, creativity, context, and advocacy. We hope they prove to be a treasure trove for the entire evaluation community.

Hello! We are Gregory Phillips II, PhD, and Nate Varnell, MPA, members of the LGBTQ+ Voices in Evaluation Topical Interest Group. This Pride Month, we want to name something directly: the losses and restrictions of sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression (SOGIE) data collections at the federal level are putting evaluators in conflict with our own professional principles. But, there are many ways the community can advocate for itself and find a path forward.

Implications for LGBTQ populations and evaluators

Grant terminations on the basis of “DEI” and “gender ideology” disproportionately impacted LGBTQ+ populations, costing not only data but a generation of researchers who reflect the populations they study. Consistent SOGIE data collection is how we track HIV risk, substance use, mental health disparities, and many more factors impacting LGBTQ+ communities. The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) is a concrete example: a transgender status question was pilot tested by the CDC in 2017, implemented nationally in 2023, and gave us the first nationally representative data on trans youth health. The administration’s decision to not process the 2025 data means we may never know which jurisdictions assessed it, and if they will ever release these data.

Executive Order 14168 redefined sex based on gamete size and removed gender from federal data collections, contradicting decades of research on the distinctiveness of gender from sex. For evaluators, this forces a tension between following federal guidelines or AEA’s Guiding Principles. Systematic Inquiry requires we adhere to sound standards; how should evaluators work with gender minority populations when they are told to classify by sex rather than gender? How does this violate the Respect for People principle? Integrity requires evaluators to be honest and transparent. How do we reconcile the fact that some evaluators will choose to follow their conscience and science, and others will follow the EO? Finally, decades of research have highlighted the harms that are caused by deadnaming and misgendering—how do we justify violating the Common Good and Equity principle by refusing to recognize people as they identify within our evaluations?

Rad Resources: Upholding our principles through data rescue and advocacy

We must all be data stewards and keep ourselves, our data, and the communities we serve safe. The data lost and new restrictions will be felt for a long time, but we can act in line with our principles by building resilience and the capacity to advocate.

• Proactive Networking: A core principle of LGBTQ Evaluation is that it demands community ownership. There is immense value in building a rapid response network before the next crisis. Your expertise is an asset. You know the data that you need and care about, and should make it known to the community. Example: The Federal Data Forum.
• Knowledge Bases: There’s no guarantee of institutional longevity with government, so we need to build dual power with real infrastructure, like community owned repositories. With or without dedicating funding or institutional backing, there are many low-cost, open source tools available. The hard part is the time and energy to curate and update these resources—it takes a village. Example: The Public Environmental Data Partners hosts a digital archive and GitHub pages to preserve environmental data.
• Build Your Advocacy “Muscles”: Staying informed is only as important as the ability to act when opportunity knocks. LGBTQ+ evaluators and SOGIE data professionals need to share resources on how to write letters and public comments to congresspeople, agencies, and the media; and to be coordinated with engagement and the messages we share. AEA held a Town Hall on April 14 about exactly this.

The American Evaluation Association is hosting LGBTQ+ Voices in Evaluation TIG Week with our colleagues in the LGBTQ+ Voices in Evaluation Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to AEA365 come from our LGBTQ+ Voices in Evaluation 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.