NCEI Assessing Equity Standards Report

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This report serves as a comprehensive guide to the introduction and implementation of equity standards and guidelines across a diverse range of industries. The initiative, led by the National Coalition for Equity Impact (NCEI), was initiated in response to The Biden-Harris Administration’s Year of Evidence for Action initiative. This national effort, as unveiled during the inaugural White House Summit on Evidence for Action, represents a pivotal moment in evidence-based policymaking, focusing on the robust expansion of equitable policies and programs.

Central to this endeavor is the unwavering commitment of the federal government, working in collaboration with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to advance equity and bolster support for underserved communities, as outlined in the 2021 Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (E.O. 13985). This executive order delineates a comprehensive strategy for championing equity and ensuring the equitable distribution of government benefits to all Americans. Furthermore, this work is deeply informed by the ethos of the Analytics for Equity Initiative (National Science Foundation, 2022), which not only builds upon the principles of the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act but also establishes a set of Learning Agendas to guide research in the fields of social, economic, and behavioral sciences. It harnesses the wealth of federal data resources while placing paramount importance on data security and privacy. The Analytics for Equity Initiative, led by the National Science Foundation in collaboration with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and multiple federal agencies, facilitates a direct link between researchers and federal agencies. These agencies are actively engaged in seeking answers to research queries specified in their Learning Agendas (National Science Foundation, 2022), particularly in the context of five crucial equity-focused research themes. The equity standards and guidelines introduced through this report provide a structured and systemic approach to address systemic inequities and foster inclusivity and fairness within organizations and institutions. They prioritize representation, accountability, and inclusion in decision-making processes, aiming to enhance the development and implementation of equity standards to create positive change and mitigate systemic inequities. This collaborative effort represents a significant step toward creating a more equitable and just society for all.

Additional Resources

• PDF Version of this Report
• Appendix & Additional Resources

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our partners of the National Coalition for Equity Impact (NCEI) — National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), Tangible Development, Brasfield & Associates LLC, Fair Count, and Magic Soup Games for bringing together leaders across industries to discuss and assess equity standards in the field.

Contents

ABOUT THIS REPORT — 1

INTRODUCTION — 4

The Need for National Standards in Equity — 6

Framing Equity Using the National Science Foundation’s The Analytics for Equity Initiative — 7

RAND Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy (CAREP) and the Creation of the National Coalition for Equity Impact — 9

• Based on our project goals, we crafted a timeline to collect data and co-analyze our findings with key stakeholders (see Figure 2). — 10
• Figure 2: Project Timeline — 10
• CAREP Equity-Centered Environmental Scan Framework — 12
• Phase I Data Collection and Analysis Methods — 13
• Identified Themes and Gaps (Phase I and II Findings). — 18

Best Practices — 24

• Best Practices for Developing Equity Centered Standards — 24
• Best Practices for Centering Cultural Competencies in Equity-Centered Standards Development — 25

Policy Recommendations — 27

References — 30

INTRODUCTION

The United States finds itself at a critical juncture, necessitating an evaluation of equity standards and the formulation of a compelling argument for federal unification of equity assessments. This imperative arises from a series of events that began in the summer of 2020, where systemic and racial inequities came to the forefront of national consciousness. The heightened awareness of these deep-seated issues led to a surge in opportunities and roles in the realm of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Organizations recognized the need to address equity and took steps to invest in DEI programs and initiatives, resulting in the creation of new DEI leadership roles within organizations, signaling a commitment to address equity issues at the highest levels. However, despite the initial momentum, these opportunities faced several challenges. Some were short-lived, as organizations failed to commit to long-term DEI efforts. Inadequate resources were allocated in many cases, hindering the effectiveness of these programs. Additionally, some initiatives were poorly conceived, lacking a clear strategy for achieving lasting equity. The consequences of these challenges are becoming evident. There has been a decline in available DEI roles, suggesting a potential waning commitment to addressing equity issues. Restrictive legislation has emerged, posing a threat to the progress made in promoting equity. Furthermore, some institutions and workplaces have retracted their support for DEI initiatives, creating uncertainty in the field. These challenges have taken a toll on DEI practitioners, resulting in fatigue and burnout as they struggle to advance equity in their workplaces and industries. Those who dedicated years to this work anticipated the backlash following the boom of 2020. However, for newcomers to the field, it may appear as if the work is mired in negativity, with an uncertain professional future. Considering these circumstances, it is imperative to comprehensively assess equity standards and build a persuasive case for the federal unification of equity assessments. While it’s important to acknowledge the limits of federal government power, unification in the form of a standardized framework for evaluating and promoting equity nationwide could still play a valuable role. However, to ensure its effectiveness, we must describe specific federal mechanisms and standards by which the government could adopt and enforce the use of these standards. Without such measures, it’s indeed possible that many states and institutions may not be significantly influenced by a federal framework. Nonetheless, if executed properly, a well-structured federal approach can help safeguard against the challenges posed by restrictive legislation and wavering institutional support, ultimately contributing to a more equitable and inclusive society.

In direct response to these challenges, the National Coalition for Equity Impact (NCEI), developed a project to respond to The Biden-Harris Administration’s Year of Evidence for Action to Fortify and Expand Evidence-Based Policymaking (The White House, 2022). The Analytics for Equity Initiative extends the principles of the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act and E.O.13985. It establishes a novel framework for bolstering research in the social, economic, and behavioral sciences, harnessing federal data assets while safeguarding privacy and data security (National Science Foundation, 2022). By harnessing the latest scientific advancements, this initiative seeks to explore and address equity-related topics, ultimately benefiting the broader public.

The Year of Evidence for Action was introduced with three goals, including:

1. sharing leading practices from Federal Agencies to generate and use research-backed knowledge to advance better, more equitable outcomes for all Americans;
2. strengthening and developing new strategies and structures to promote consistent evidence-based decision-making inside the Federal Government; and
3. increasing connection and collaboration among researchers, knowledge producers, and decision-makers inside and outside of the Federal Government (The White House, 2022).

The White House presented several existing model initiatives as examples of what The Year of Evidence for Action sought to achieve. One of these initiatives was the Analytics for Equity Initiative — Learning Agendas. The National Science Foundation’s Analytics for Equity Initiative sought to connect the research community to evidence priorities inside the Federal Government through a Novel Funding Pilot to analyze equitable practice (National Science Foundation, 2022).

Figure 1: Analytics for Equity Initiative — Learning Agendas

Source: National Science Foundation (2022, May). Analytics for Equity Initiative. https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/2022-06/Summary%20of%20the%20Analytics%20for%20Equity%20Initiative.pdf

As summarized in Figure 1, the Initiative seeks to answer research questions in five thematic areas including: equity of access to STEM research and education opportunities; environmental stressors and equity; equity in service delivery and supports including childcare, food security, or economic support; health equity in the wake of climate change; and equity considerations for workplace safety and workers (National Science Foundation, 2022).

Equity work requires a clear framework and rigorous standards to ensure success across diverse foci, settings, and goals. However, equity impact assessment requires robust data collection, analysis, and evaluation to track progress, identify successes and challenges, and inform future interventions. It also involves engaging with affected communities to understand their experiences and gather qualitative insights. The work undertaken in this report provides one such frame. Our review of national and international equity standards offers a baseline for assessing the most critical components of equity research and its impact on people.

Unified equity standards outline the desired actions and measures that must be implemented to advance equity — providing a universal roadmap for identifying and addressing systemic biases, discriminatory practices and policies, and other barriers that perpetuate inequities. By setting clear expectations and benchmarks, unified equity standards serve as a guide for decision-making, resource allocation, and accountability. A set of standards like these can allow for broad application, such as in the fields of education, employment, healthcare, housing, access to resources, representation, and more. They may address issues related to race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, sexual or romantic identity, and other dimensions of diversity. Overall, equity standards serve as a critical tool for organizations and societies to promote fairness, justice, and equal opportunities and to create a positive and lasting impact in dismantling systemic inequalities.

The Need for National Standards in Equity

Establishing a national standard for equity is imperative for several reasons. First, it supports consistency and fairness in the application of equity principles across the entire nation, transcending geographical boundaries and jurisdictions. Building on a baseline for fairness ensures that The Analytics for Equity Initiative extends the principles of the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act and E.O.13985. This report aims to create a foundation of knowledge for people to develop equity standards that are translatable across fields and research. Second, national equity standards are instrumental in addressing historical and systemic disparities prevalent in various equity research areas such as education, healthcare, employment, and criminal justice. By setting clear benchmarks and targets, these standards facilitate efforts to mitigate these disparities and advance social justice. Third, the introduction of a national standard fosters accountability, creating a structured framework for federal agencies and other governing bodies to measure progress and hold institutions, organizations, and governments accountable for their actions or inactions in the pursuit of equity. This accountability would be challenging to establish without such standards. Fourth, standardization enhances efficiency in implementing equity initiatives. When federal equity efforts are aligned across common objectives and adhere to uniform guidelines, resources can be allocated more efficiently, minimizing duplication of efforts, and promoting sustainability of policies and programs. Fifth, national equity standards provide a crucial legal foundation for combating discrimination and inequality, offering grounds for challenging discriminatory practices and supporting individuals’ rights within legal contexts. Sixth, equity is not solely a moral imperative but also an economic one. Extensive research has consistently shown that societies characterized by greater equity tend to exhibit stronger economies, increased innovation, and higher overall well-being. Consequently, a national equity standard can stimulate economic growth by enabling full citizen participation in the economy. Seventh, on an international level, adopting a national equity standard underscores a commitment to human rights and social justice, elevating a nation’s reputation and influence in global equity and human rights discussions. Eighth, equity standards also contribute to social cohesion by mitigating disparities that can otherwise lead to social unrest and division, fostering a more stable and harmonious society.

Overall, a national equity standard offers a flexible framework that adapts to evolving societal challenges. It facilitates ongoing evaluation and adjustment to ensure that equity efforts remain pertinent and effective. The establishment of a national standard for equity is indispensable for promoting fairness, rectifying disparities, enforcing accountability, and ultimately constructing a more just and inclusive society. It represents both a moral imperative and a pragmatic necessity for a nation’s well-being and progress.

Framing Equity Using the National Science Foundation’s The Analytics for Equity Initiative

The National Coalition for Equity Impact (NCEI) conducted an environmental scan of available equity standards in five thematic areas: equity of access to STEM research and education opportunities, environmental stressors and equity, equity in service delivery and supports including childcare, food security, or economic support, health equity in the wake of climate change, and equity considerations for workplace safety and workers. The purpose of this scan was to identify existing standards and guidelines that promote equity in these specific fields. The equity standards consist of sector-specific guidelines for incorporating an equitable approach to various research areas. To ensure that equity standards have a real impact within these thematic areas, several key components should be considered. These components, compiled during Phase I and Phase II of the environmental scan, can help ensure that the standards are comprehensive, actionable, and capable of effecting positive change. Components include:

• Representatives: Clarify the individuals or groups involved in equity-related decision-making, specify the communities and perspectives they represent, and identify those communities and perspectives that are not included in the process (American Psychological Association 2021).
• Representative Decision-Making: Engage diverse representatives from relevant parties and communities, centering marginalized communities and individuals directly impacted by inequities, in the development, implementation, and monitoring of equity standards. Their professional and lived experiences are essential to creating meaningful impact and ensuring accountability, though care must be taken to ensure that engaged representatives fully represent community perspectives (Calder, 1994; Cashman et. al., 2014).
• Clear Definition of Equity: Define equity explicitly, ensuring a shared understanding of what it means in the context of the standards. This definition should emphasize fairness, justice, and the removal of systemic barriers that perpetuate inequities (CAREP, 2023);
• Clearly Defined Impacted Population: Clearly Define the Impacted Population: Identify the specific population affected by the issue and ensure that the adopted approach addresses every disproportionately impacted group, with recognition that the disproportionate impact results from systemic inequity (Phadermrod, B., Crowder, R. M., & Wills, G. B., 2019, p. [Include page number when available]).
• Intersectionality: Recognize and address the interconnected nature of different forms of systemic inequities, based on combinations of factors such as race, gender, class, disability, age, and sexuality. Incorporate an intersectional lens to ensure that equity standards account for the unique experiences and challenges faced by individuals with multiple marginalized identities (Whitebread et. al., 2023).
• Inclusive Language and Representation: Promote inclusive language and representation within the standards themselves. This involves using terminology that is accessible, respectful, and free from biases or stereotypes. Additionally, strive for diverse representation in the development and implementation of the standards to ensure a range of perspectives are considered (American Psychological Association, 2021).
• Systemic Approach: Adopt a system-based approach that analyzes and addresses the root causes of inequities. Acknowledge and challenge biases, policies, and practices that perpetuate inequities within a given system. Implement changes across various levels, including organizational, societal, and policy levels (The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020).
• Data Collection and Analysis: Establish processes for collecting and analyzing relevant quantitative and qualitative data to identify inequities, measure progress, and inform decision-making. This data should be disaggregated by various dimensions (e.g., race, gender, socioeconomic status) to uncover and address inequities effectively. That said, disaggregating data while giving space for people’s intersectionality requires a comprehensive and respectful approach to data collection, analysis, and reporting. It acknowledges the complexity of individuals’ identities and experiences, respects privacy and consent, and uses data to inform equitable policies and interventions that address the unique needs of diverse communities (Albalawi et. al., 2020).
• Targeted Goals and Indicators: Set clear, measurable goals and indicators that reflect the desired outcomes of equity standards. These goals should be ambitious yet realistic, measurable, and attainable within the timeframe for each goal, allowing for tracking progress and holding accountable those responsible for implementing the standards (Abreau, D., & Pinals, D., 2020)
• Accountability and Monitoring: Establish mechanisms for accountability to the relevant communities as part of monitoring progress toward equity. This can involve regular reporting on goals and indicators, external evaluations, and transparent mechanisms to ensure compliance and address any setbacks or shortcomings (Institute for Reproductive Health Georgetown University, n.d.).
• Continuous Learning and Adaptation: Commit to a continuous learning process that allows for ongoing improvement and adaptation of the equity standards. Incorporate feedback, evaluate outcomes, and refine strategies to ensure the standards remain relevant, responsive, and effective for achieving equity goals over time (Institute for Reproductive Health Georgetown University, n.d.).
• Resource Allocation: Allocate adequate resources, including financial, human, and technological resources, to support the implementation of equity standards. Work with funding partners to cover the costs associated with implementing necessary changes, providing training and capacity-building opportunities, and sustaining long-term efforts (Uvin, 1995).

By incorporating these key components into equity standards, organizations, institutions, and societies can foster meaningful and lasting impact toward achieving equity and social justice.

While there may not be a universal threshold for what constitutes a “true” equity standard, the effectiveness of such a standard is often measured by its ability to achieve meaningful, positive, and sustained changes that reduce disparities and promote equity. It is through the diligent application of these elements and components, along with ongoing evaluation and improvement, that equity standards can reach their true potential and contribute to the creation of more just and equitable systems and outcomes. Thus, the journey toward true equity is an ongoing process that requires continuous commitment and adaptation to address the evolving challenges and needs of marginalized communities.

RAND Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy (CAREP) and the Creation of the National Coalition for Equity Impact

Conversations regarding racial and gender equity have been on the rise both at home and in the workplace. As a result, equity impact work has become a trending topic among sectors. Through the RAND Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy, the National Coalition for Equity Impact (NCEI) is creating spaces for ongoing training, education, and credentialing of leaders in racial equity capabilities (RAND Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy Programs). Because we live in a time where diversity, equity, and inclusion are essential to advancing opportunities in the workplace and elsewhere, DEI work must meet the demands of a modern cultural landscape, a goal of NCEI (National Association for DEI — Working Group). To meet this goal, NCEI has not only been involved in evolving equity standards research and discussions but has also hosted several events (see description later in this report) to advance conversations around equity. We used these sessions to collectively develop our project research question and objectives:

Research Question:

How can equity standards be effectively developed and implemented to address systemic inequities and ensure inclusivity and fairness in decision-making processes within organizations and institutions?

Objectives:

• To examine the existing equity standards and guidelines within various thematic areas to identify common elements and best practices for promoting equity.
• To assess the effectiveness of equity standards in addressing systemic inequities and fostering inclusivity and fairness.
• To explore the key components and considerations in the development of comprehensive and actionable equity standards.
• To analyze the impact of equity standards on decision-making processes within organizations and institutions, focusing on representation, accountability, and inclusion.
• To provide recommendations for enhancing the development and implementation of equity standards to achieve positive change and mitigate systemic inequities.

Based on our project goals, we crafted a timeline to collect data and co-analyze our findings with key stakeholders (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Project Timeline

The phases and timeline of this project are shown in Figure 2. The project timeline was broken into two phases. Work on the NCEI Equity Standards began in October 2022 with phase 1 during which the team began conceptualizing equity impact approaches and selected the Equity-Centered Environmental Scan framework (described in the next section). Phase 1 continued into the beginning of March 2023, when the NCEI leadership team compiled standards from their known networks. The end of phase 1, in April 2023, was when CAREP and NCEI hired a contract research consultant to spearhead the equity standards data collection and manage the project. Phase 2 began in April 2023 when CAREP engaged RAND researchers to review and comment on findings and held two summits to build out the data set. The first summit was held on April 26, 2023, and the second summit on May 22, 2023. Phase 2 and Phase 3 will continue into the end of 2023 with this report as well as a presentation of findings to all representatives.

‘Innovations in Equity — Contextualizing U.S. and International Perspectives,’ was a summit held by NCEI in April 2023 which sought to articulate ways that responses to inequities in spaces such as standards development, neurodiversity, digital equity, algorithms/machine learning, and Artificial Intelligence may be utilized to support the inclusion of marginalized populations. At the Summit, the NCEI Leadership Team asked Summit attendees about emerging equity-sector-specific themes, gaps, priority areas, and implementation ideas. The discussion generated a forward-looking orientation of the outcomes the field should be working towards achieving through equity impact.

‘Centering Innovations in Equity — Developing Green and Smart Infrastructure Solutions in Communities, Municipalities, and Global Contexts,’ was held in May 2023 and sought to construct responses and solutions to inequities in the green and smart infrastructure space within communities, municipalities, and global contexts. Summit panelists discussed the importance of achieving synergies between green and digital transitions, that the synergy is not automatic and requires strict policy coherence starting in the planning phase and continuing to the end of implementation. Summit attendees also attended an Equity Standards Working Group where they assisted with identifying equity buckets under the five thematic categories, and also helped identify gaps in equity policies and programs based on their expertise from their industries.

CAREP Equity-Centered Environmental Scan Framework

The CAREP Equity-Centered Environmental Scan is a three-phased approach to collecting existing equity standards, identifying the limitations of existing standards (e.g., inaccurate labeling as equity vs. equality standards), and identifying gaps in the field or standards that should exist. Figure 3 illustrates the approach.

This Scan is situated in the field of equity studies (Lynch, 1999). Equity studies, also called critical social justice studies, emerged in the mid-20th century with origins that can be traced back to the Civil Rights Movement in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s. The movement’s advocacy for racial equality and social justice laid the groundwork for developing equity studies. However, it is essential to note that the field has evolved and expanded significantly since its early beginnings, especially in responding to the inequitable impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-present).

In its early stages, equity studies predominantly centered on matters pertaining to racial disparities and discrimination. However, as societal dynamics have shifted, particularly during the era of COVID-19, this field has expanded to encompass a wide array of interconnected forms of oppression, including but not limited to issues related to gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, disability, and more (Whitebread et al., 2023). Equity studies draw upon the insights and methodologies of various academic disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, political science, cultural studies, and critical theory. This interdisciplinary approach allows the field to remain responsive to contemporary social and political contexts, adapting to changing circumstances and perspectives. The ongoing progress of equity studies has been significantly influenced by continuing social movements, academic research, and grassroots activism (Charmaz, 2020).

Building off the important field of equity studies, the CAREP and NCEI teams adopted the Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy (CAREP) Equity-Centered Environmental Scan (EES), a framework developed in 2022 within CAREP. The EES can be broken down into three phases. The framework centers on mixed-method approaches for continuous engagement and responsive design.

Figure 3. CAREP Equity-Centered Environmental Scan (EES) Draft Framework

Note. From “Rogers, R. et al., (2023). Equity Centered Environmental Scan Framework (Report №1, Grant # 20230002). Wallace Foundation. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/pages/default.aspx as cited in Hendricks, P. (2023). Examining Black Men’s Life Expectancy — Inaugural Iguchi Initiative Fellow Talk [PowerPoint slides]. Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy, The RAND Corporation. https://vimeo.com/845385064?share=copy

Phase I Data Collection and Analysis Methods

The goal of this phase was to contextualize the way the terms “equity,” “standards,” and “impact” are currently used by community representatives, practitioners, and researchers across fields. CAREP/RAND researchers were organized into two teams — the CAREP/RAND Impact Standards subcommittee and NCEI Leadership Committee — who worked together to review the social and economic landscapes in which these terms are applied, defined, and created. During this phase, the CAREP/RAND Impact Standards subcommittee conducted a Boolean literature search, which included reviewing field documents and academic literature, conducting secondary data analyses, and desk research into non-academic literature, and identifying thought partners (whom we called archetypes across academic and applied spaces) who could identify resources outside of the traditional academic lexicon.

In Phase I, studies were identified using the Boolean search method (Scells, 2020). Our search included the following:

• Academic Databases: Utilized academic databases such as Google Scholar as well as traditional Google search to search for scholarly articles, sources, and research papers. Use keywords such as “equity,” “standards,” “principles,” “guidelines” + “education equity standards” + “technology equity standards” + “international equity standards” + “sustainability equity standards” + “environmental equity standards” + “climate equity standards” + “public service equity standards” + “public safety equity standards” + “social work equity standards” + “food equity standards” + “transportation equity standards” + “government equity standards” + “international equity standards” + “health equity standards”+ “workplace safety equity standards” + “workforce equity standards” + “corporate equity standards” to hone our search.
• Nonprofit Organizations: Nonprofit organizations and foundations that work in the diversity, equity, and inclusion field may provide valuable resources. Some organizations conduct research and publish reports on the impact of equity.
• Government Agencies/Consulates/Foreign Embassies: Government agencies, such as education departments, equity councils, consulates, and government agencies, often publish reports and resources related to equity, standards, and impact.
• Private/Business Sector: Reports, guides, commentary around equity, and materials on public-private partnerships addressing equity in society.
• Conferences and Symposiums: Conferences, symposiums, and academic events focused on equity, standards, and impact were reviewed. These gatherings often bring together researchers, practitioners, and community representatives to share knowledge, present research findings, and discuss current trends.

After identifying all our search categories, we developed a literature review protocol consisting of key search words and terms intended to capture articles relevant to equity standards development in multiple fields, including both academic and non-academic literature spaces. Boolean search terms are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Boolean search terms for Phase I Environmental Scan

The CAREP/RAND Impact Standards subcommittee assisted in this effort by extracting information about the articles, such as the discipline and study methods. While extracting information during this process, we also identified expert researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in these fields who we began interviewing in Phase II and will continue in Phase III.

Utilizing these search terms in iterative searches, we collected over 100 relevant articles. Our research team chose 105 sources as the threshold for the NCEI teams’ preliminary work. We supplemented our database search with relevant literature collected by members of our research team, expert/archetype interviews, and RAND researcher input. Once we reached our threshold, we began reviewing the articles and extracting data via a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Any studies that did not meet our database search criteria and were not responsive to our key research question and objectives were removed at this stage to our key research questions were removed at this stage. Extracted sources were organized into the spreadsheet using the NSF’s five thematic areas: equity of access to STEM research and education opportunities; environmental stressors and equity; equity in service delivery and supports including childcare, food security, or economic support; health equity in the wake of climate change; and equity considerations for workplace safety and workers. Under the aforementioned categories, extracted sources were further identified as applying to certain sectors such as education, technology, sustainability, public safety, social work, healthcare, and corporate workforce among others. The complete list of extracted sources along with their categorization and a brief annotation can be found in Appendix B.

Once data was extracted from the sources, we used thematic analysis to compile initial definitions of equity and equity-related concepts for this study.

DEFINITIONS

Equity: equity is defined as the principles of fairness — or the assurance of the conditions for optimal health for all people — justice in ensuring that all individuals have access to all opportunities and resources (CAREP, 2023; National Academy of Sciences, 2019).

Equality: Equality entails providing every individual or group with identical resources and opportunities, unlike equity which acknowledges that each person’s unique circumstances require a tailored allocation of resources and opportunities to achieve an equal outcome (MPH@GW, 2023).

Inequity: Inequity is unequal access to opportunity, particularly concerning systemic discrimination by race, gender, or other social or demographic characteristic (Perez-Arce et al., 2023)

Inequality: Inequality is the unequal outcome related to well-being such as health, income, wealth, and social or political power (Perez-Arce et al., 2023)

Equity Standards: Equity standards are a set of guidelines, principles, and benchmarks that are established to promote and achieve equity in a specific context. These standards provide a framework for organizations, institutions, or societies to evaluate their policies, practices, and systems to ensure they are fair, inclusive, and address existing inequities and inequalities.

Equity Impact: Equity impact refers to the tangible changes or outcomes that result from the implementation of equity-focused initiatives, policies, or practices. It represents the measurable and transformative effects of reducing inequities and inequalities, addressing systemic barriers, and promoting fairness and justice.

Additionally, after completing the Boolean literature search in Phase I, the NCEI Leadership Team developed a collection of sector-specific equity standards that could be attributed to the five thematic areas. The team identified several gaps under the five thematic NSF categories. To share the initial findings and to gather feedback, the NCEI Leadership Committee organized a series of summits previously mentioned that focused on collecting additional external thoughts and data to expand on the CAREP/RAND Impact Standards subcommittee’s initial findings. In addition to identifying gaps in the existing NSF categories, summit attendees also discussed the impact of artificial intelligence tools on equity. The feedback received from the summit attendees was incorporated into the equity standards collection spreadsheet (see Appendix B).

Phase II Data Collection and Analysis Methods

This phase involved additional data gathering from diverse representatives to guide the design of the environmental scan (e.g., disciplinary and practitioner experts/archetypes). The specific number, length of interviews, and focus groups depended on which representatives were identified during Phase I and which areas needed knowledge to fill gaps. In order to adhere to rigorous qualitative research standards, we carefully tailored our data collection methods to ensure comprehensive and in-depth insights. This entailed an iterative process guided by the principle of methodological triangulation, which is central to ensuring the reliability and validity of our findings. We identified representatives (n=150) during Phase I through a purposive sampling approach, considering their expertise, experience, and relevance to the areas under investigation. The selection process was not only targeted but also flexible, allowing us to adapt as we uncovered emerging themes and information during the data collection process. The number of interviews (n= 25) and the duration of each interview were determined by the principle of data saturation, a widely recognized practice in qualitative research. We continued conducting interviews until no new information or perspectives emerged, thus ensuring that our data reached the point of saturation, and we thoroughly explored the nuances of the issues at hand. Moreover, our approach to focus groups (n = 5) and NCEI summits (n-=3) was strategic and comprehensive, with participants carefully chosen to represent various stakeholder perspectives. This was done to foster rich, multi-faceted discussions and to allow us to triangulate the findings from individual interviews, adding depth and validity to our insights. These methodological considerations, including purposive sampling, data saturation, and triangulation through focus groups, reflect our commitment to rigorous and comprehensive data collection in line with best practices for qualitative research. Learning from this phase supplemented the information gathered during the environmental scan and informed the approach to the literature review in Phase III.

Identified Themes and Gaps (Phase I and II Findings).

While equity research has undoubtedly made notable progress, there remains a need for further exploration and a longitudinal perspective to comprehensively address evolving issues. We identified these gaps and areas for continued research through a meticulous evaluation of existing research on equity standards. This evaluation incorporated data collected through the Boolean search conducted in Phase I and was further enriched by insights obtained from interviews and Summit working groups featuring NCEI members and domain experts. Recognizing the dynamic nature of equity-related challenges and the necessity of ongoing monitoring, we sought to expand our approach to encompass a longitudinal perspective. This longitudinal perspective acknowledges that equity standards are subject to change and adaptation over time as societal needs and contexts evolve. As a result, we aimed to not only identify existing gaps but also to anticipate emerging disparities and concerns within equity research. To this end, we engaged in consultation with AI machine learning sources to organize and summarize the search results, utilizing predictive analytics to anticipate potential shifts in equity-related discourse. It is crucial to note, however, that while these AI machine learning sources provided valuable insights, there were inherent limitations to their methods, which are detailed in Appendix A for comprehensive transparency. Our understanding of a research gap encompasses areas that have not been sufficiently explored or addressed, and the ongoing nature of equity research necessitates a sustained focus on these evolving concerns. To facilitate this ongoing exploration, we have cataloged sector-specific research gaps in Appendix B as an extension of the original spreadsheet created by NCEI. This addition serves as a foundational step towards a more longitudinally oriented approach to equity research, acknowledging that it is vital to continually assess and adapt equity standards to ensure they remain effective and responsive to the ever-changing landscape of systemic inequities. Some of the gaps in this field identified from the analysis of the collected sources in the spreadsheet include:

• Conflating Equality for Equity: One of the most frequently identified research gaps was the common mistaking of equality for equity (see definitions above).
• Longitudinal and Sustainable Impacts: Our research reveals a critical need for a comprehensive examination of the long-term and sustainable impacts resulting from equity initiatives. While existing studies predominantly emphasize short-term outcomes, our work underscores the importance of gaining insights into the enduring effects of equity interventions and their contributions to systemic change over time. Through our evaluation of existing research, interviews, Summit working groups, and consultations with AI machine learning sources, we have identified this pressing need to better understand the longitudinal and sustainable impacts of equity initiatives. Because many studies focus on short-term outcomes, we identified the need for research that examines the long-term and sustainable impacts of equity initiatives. It is crucial to understand the enduring effects of equity interventions and how they contribute to systemic change over time.
• Intersectionality and Multiple Marginalized Identities: The search results demonstrated that equity standards often fail to adequately address the intersectionality of multiple marginalized identities. There is a need for studies that help address the needs and experiences of individuals who face multiple forms of discrimination, such as Black women, disabled LGBTQ+ individuals, or low-income immigrant women.
• Contextual and Community-Specific Factors: Research on equity impact often lacks context specificity and community engagement. It is important to understand how local contexts, cultural factors, and community dynamics shape the effectiveness of equity initiatives and their impact on diverse populations.
• Measurement and Evaluation Frameworks: Developing robust measurement and evaluation frameworks to track progress in equity standards remains an ongoing challenge. Unfortunately, there is a scarcity of descriptions regarding the empirical methods employed in the establishment and execution of equity standards and frameworks. In essence, many sources offer recommendations without corresponding empirical methods to substantiate these suggestions. Thus, it is imperative to establish valid and reliable indicators for assessing the outcomes and effectiveness of equity initiatives across various domains, including education, healthcare, employment, and housing, to ensure tangible progress in health equity.
• Terminology: Our research has brought to light a notable issue regarding the lack of consistency in terminology related to equity standards, frameworks, and principles. To address this concern, we have established clear criteria for categorizing a source as an equity standard. This criterion was instrumental in our inclusion process, ensuring that sources considered as equity standards met specific requirements. By defining and adhering to these criteria, we have contributed to a more precise and systematic approach to the classification of equity-related resources in our research.
• Causal Relationships and Attribution: Determining causal relationships and attributing specific outcomes solely to equity initiatives can be complex. There is a gap that exists in the consideration of how the standards contribute to achieving their desired equity goals. For example, very few sources state the goal of their standard/framework, how it directly relates to equity, and how the information presented contributes to its goal. It is challenging to isolate the impact of equity interventions from other contributing factors and to establish clear causality, especially when standard creation follows a variety of different methods.
• Data Availability and Disaggregation: Limited availability of disaggregated data on marginalized populations hinders comprehensive equity impact research. There is a need for improved data collection and analysis to capture and understand inequities and outcomes among different groups.
• Comparative Analysis: Comparative analysis of different equity initiatives and approaches can provide valuable insights into what strategies are most effective in achieving desired outcomes. More research is needed to compare and evaluate the impacts of various equity interventions and policies across different contexts.
• Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration: There is a need for greater collaboration and knowledge sharing among researchers, practitioners, and communities involved in equity initiatives. Building networks and platforms for sharing research findings, best practices, and lessons learned can help bridge gaps in equity impact research.
• Concentration of Standards: A majority of standards come from the health and education space with notably less than in other sectors. This is likely due to a direct response to events in those sectors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, these sectors are in their second phase of equity standard development — refining their original standards.
• Standard Applicability: Standards are being applied from one sector to another without considering the implications of cross-applicability. For example, aspects of health equity standards are being applied to infrastructure equity standards, without clear assessment of the impacts and implications of those choices.
• Missing Sectors: In terms of sector-specific standards, there is a large gap and lack of standards in several significant and rising sectors such as the media and sports sectors.

Making an Equity Impact — Identifying Gaps and Growth Areas. Addressing questions related to impact and outcomes, particularly in the context of equity, necessitates a thoughtful and nuanced approach. Equity considerations can significantly influence how these inquiries are approached and answered. Firstly, equity prompts us to recognize and confront systemic biases that may exist within comparison groups. The traditional practice of comparing outcomes to the dominant or most represented group can perpetuate existing inequities if these biases are not acknowledged and addressed. Instead, equity encourages us to define a “just society” and establish a baseline of outcomes that all individuals or groups should reasonably be able to expect, regardless of historical disadvantages. It emphasizes the need to center the voices and experiences of marginalized groups, seeking their input in defining outcomes and benchmarks for impact assessments. Moreover, equity underscores the importance of considering intersectionality, recognizing that individuals and groups may face multiple forms of discrimination that impact their experiences. Customized benchmarks tailored to specific contexts and challenges are favored over one-size-fits-all approaches. Equity-driven impact assessments focus on long-term and structural change, aiming to dismantle systemic inequities and promote sustainable improvements. Community engagement and stakeholder involvement are central, ensuring that affected communities have a say in shaping assessment criteria and methodologies. Finally, an equity-minded approach is adaptive and open to learning, acknowledging that our understanding of equity evolves. Taken together, equity considerations guide a more inclusive and just perspective when evaluating the impact and outcomes of interventions or policies, challenging the assumption that the experiences of the dominant group should be the default benchmark.

Equity considerations play a crucial role in shaping responses to questions regarding the overrepresentation and resource allocation of dominant groups. Equity analysis acknowledges the existence of disparities in representation and resource distribution, prompting a critical examination of the underlying causes. It goes beyond merely promoting equity within dominant groups and actively advocates for the dismantling of systems of oppression and supremacy. This means recognizing that systemic inequalities cannot be addressed by expecting those with power to automatically adjust and make way for marginalized communities. Equity strategies often focus on addressing disparities at their root by considering intersectionality, redistributing resources to rectify historical imbalances, and challenging implicit assumptions about power and privilege. Furthermore, they emphasize collaboration between different communities and representatives, acknowledging the need for collective efforts to achieve equitable outcomes. Ultimately, an equity-driven approach calls for proactive policy and institutional changes that address systemic disparities and challenge discriminatory practices, grounded in a critical examination of history and a commitment to dismantling oppressive systems.

Equity impact can manifest in various ways, including:

• Reduced Inequity of Outcomes: Equity impact is reflected in the reduction or elimination of disparities among different groups or communities. This can include closing gaps in access to resources, opportunities, outcomes, and representation (Braveman, 2014).
• Improved Access and Opportunities: Equity impact is seen when marginalized individuals or groups have improved access to quality education, healthcare, employment, housing, social services, and other essential resources. It involves creating equitable systems that ensure everyone has an equal chance to succeed (The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020).
• Empowerment and Agencies: Equity impact encompasses the empowerment of marginalized individuals or communities, enabling them to have a voice, make decisions, and actively participate in shaping policies and practices that affect their lives. It involves building capacity and creating conditions for self-determination (World Health Organization, 2021).
• Enhanced Social Cohesion and Inclusion: Equity impact fosters a more inclusive and cohesive society by developing safe environments to interact (Wabash College & RAND CAREP, 2023) and by promoting understanding, respect, and collaboration among diverse individuals and groups. It creates opportunities for dialogue, shared experiences, and collective action toward common goals.
• Systemic Change: Equity impact goes beyond individual or isolated interventions, aiming to drive broader systemic change. It involves challenging and transforming institutional policies, practices, and structures that perpetuate inequities, thereby creating sustainable and long-term impacts (Moore, 2015).
• Well-being and Quality of Life: Equity impact can be measured by improvements in the overall well-being and quality of life for marginalized individuals or communities. This includes aspects such as improved health outcomes, increased economic opportunities, reduced violence, and enhanced social connectedness (Schwartzmann, 2009).
• Positive Economic and Social Outcomes: Equity impact contributes to positive economic and social outcomes at both individual and societal levels. It can lead to increased productivity, innovation, social mobility, and reduced social costs associated with inequities (Braveman, 2014).

Measuring equity impact requires robust data collection, analysis, and evaluation to track progress, identify successes and challenges, and inform future interventions. It also involves engaging with affected communities to understand their experiences and gather qualitative insights. Ultimately, equity impact is achieved when individuals and communities, regardless of their background or identity, experience meaningful and sustainable positive change, and when systemic barriers and injustices are dismantled in pursuit of a more equitable society.

Addressing equity gaps via the equity-centered environmental scan framework requires interdisciplinary research, community engagement, and a commitment to ongoing evaluation and improvement. By addressing these challenges, we can enhance our understanding of equity impact and ensure that future initiatives are evidence-based, contextually relevant, and capable of creating meaningful and lasting change.

Both teams’ work resulted in identifying resources and representatives who could further inform Phase II and the methodological approaches employed in the environmental scan development in Phase II and III.

PHASE III Disseminate Results to Inform Best Practices

By dismantling the barriers that frequently separate diverse academic and professional domains, we can cultivate a more holistic and interconnected approach to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). This entails harnessing the knowledge and skills from a multitude of fields, including sociology, psychology, economics, and more, to address DEI concerns comprehensively and through collaboration. It is of utmost importance to avoid pigeonholing DEI within the confines of Human Resources, compliance, or corporate perspectives, as this can overlook the invaluable insights and contributions of industry practitioners. An inclusive approach necessitates the active involvement of practitioners who bring practical experience and expertise, enriching the discourse and strategies surrounding DEI. Developing standardized frameworks for national, state, and local policies is imperative to consistently promote equity across various tiers of governance. By instituting uniform guidelines and principles, we can ensure that DEI initiatives are harmonized and aligned with a shared vision at all government levels. The integration of Bloom’s Taxonomy into policy language presents a promising avenue, encouraging policies not only to address surface-level issues but also to stimulate higher-order thinking and transformative change. By incorporating Bloom’s Taxonomy, policies can aspire to not merely impart knowledge but also foster critical thinking, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in the context of DEI. Establishing national definitional standards for equity represents another pivotal step. A shared comprehension of fundamental terms and concepts related to equity can bridge communication gaps and interpretation variances, thereby facilitating more effective collaboration and progress measurement among individuals and organizations across the nation. Furthermore, creating a universal foundation that accommodates evolving needs is indispensable. DEI is a constantly evolving field, with the challenges and requirements of diverse communities shifting over time. Building a flexible foundation allows for adaptation and responsiveness to emerging issues and priorities. Understanding the diverse entry points into DEI, which encompass structural, institutional, and systemic levels, and considering the political implications at the state, local, national, and international levels, is of critical importance. This comprehensive perspective enables a more exhaustive examination of DEI challenges and opportunities. It recognizes that DEI efforts must address not only the internal structures and practices of organizations but also the broader socio-political context in which they operate, ensuring a more comprehensive and effective approach to equity.

Best Practices

Creating national standards for equity research is a multifaceted process that encompasses ethical considerations, methodological standards, transparency, and policy integration. The engagement of diverse voices and representatives is paramount to ensure that these standards effectively address the intricate challenges of equity and social justice.

Best Practices for Developing Equity Centered Standards

When developing equity standards, it is important to include keywords and concepts that reflect the principles and goals of equity. Here are some best practices to consider when creating equity-centered standards:

• Equity: Clearly define and emphasize the concept of equity itself, ensuring that it is understood as the central objective of the standards. A common finding from the extracted sources was that ‘equality’ was often mistaken and/or labeled as ‘equity.’ Having a clearly defined concept of equity would ensure that standards are meeting their objectives. Equity can be defined as fair and just access to opportunity (Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy, 2023).
• Diversity: Recognize and value diversity in all its forms, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, religion, and socioeconomic status. While many equity standards were developed in response to the social unrest of 2020, it is essential to consider the intersectionality of equity among multiple demographics.
• Inclusion: Promote inclusive practices that ensure everyone has equal opportunities, rights, and access to resources and services.
• Access: Ensure equitable access to opportunities, services, resources, and decision-making processes, regardless of background or identity.
• Representation: Advocate for diverse and inclusive representation at all levels of decision-making, including leadership positions and governing bodies. Equity standards should be constructed with input from all those who will be impacted by them. Representation was a frequently mentioned component in the standards collected.
• Discrimination: Prohibit discrimination based on any protected characteristic, and explicitly address systemic and structural forms of discrimination.
• Bias: Recognize and address biases and assumptions that can perpetuate inequities and hinder progress toward equity.
• Intersectionality: Consider the interconnected nature of different forms of oppression and discrimination and address the unique experiences of individuals with multiple marginalized identities.
• Empowerment: Foster empowerment of marginalized communities and individuals by providing them with the necessary resources, skills, and support to participate fully and make informed choices.
• Accountability: Establish mechanisms to ensure accountability for promoting and achieving equity, including regular reporting, monitoring, and evaluation. Few sources discussed accountability measures for the standards that they produced, creating a feeling of unenforceable ‘suggestions.’
• Disparity: Address disparities and inequities in outcomes, opportunities, and experiences, and work toward eliminating them.
• Social Justice: Frame equity standards within a broader context of social justice, emphasizing the importance of fairness, human rights, and the elimination of systemic barriers. As forementioned, the trend of social justice resulting from the Black Lives Matter movement sparked the creation of many of the extracted sources; highlighting the importance of continued social justice is crucial in the longevity of equity standards.
• Cultural Competence: Promote cultural competence and cultural responsiveness, acknowledging and respecting different cultural backgrounds and perspectives.
• Allyship: Encourage allyship through connections with the community being supported and promote solidarity among individuals and groups to support, when asked, marginalized communities and actively challenge inequities.
• Continuous Improvement: Emphasize the need for continuous learning, improvement, and adaptation to ensure that equity standards remain effective and relevant over time.

Best Practices for Centering Cultural Competencies in Equity-Centered Standards Development

Within the purview of optimizing the standards development process to prioritize equity, it is paramount to embrace best practices that encompass cultural competencies. While certain terms such as ‘equity,’ ‘diversity,’ and ‘access’ are adequately represented, others of equal significance, including ‘discrimination,’ ‘empowerment,’ and ‘accountability,’ remain conspicuously absent. This shortfall in comprehensiveness poses a significant obstacle to the standards’ capacity to exert a profound and far-reaching impact.

To surmount this challenge and elevate the standards’ effectiveness, it is imperative to embark on a journey of holistic cultural competency integration. Such an approach advocates for the incorporation of an array of culturally sensitive elements that bridge the gaps and foster a more robust standards framework. By embracing a comprehensive lexicon that encompasses not only the laudable ideals of equity, diversity, and access but also addresses the critical issues of discrimination, empowerment, and accountability, standards development can truly fulfill its potential as a catalyst for positive change. In this pursuit, it is essential to facilitate dialogue and collaboration among practitioners from various fields, including sociology, psychology, economics, and beyond. These diverse perspectives, coupled with real-world experiences, enrich the discourse and strategies surrounding equity-centered standards. Additionally, the adoption of standardized frameworks at national, state, and local levels ensures consistent promotion of equity across governance tiers. Furthermore, incorporating the standardization of equity terminology into policy language instigates the elevation of standards by nurturing higher order thinking and transformative change. By cultivating national definitional standards for equity, we pave the way for a common foundation that fosters effective communication and interpretation, thereby fostering more fruitful collaboration and more reliable means of gauging progress. The establishment of such universal foundations accounts for evolving needs in the dynamic realm of DEI, enabling flexibility and responsiveness to emerge issues and priorities.

Additional Framing Considerations

Creating equity-centered standards involves developing guidelines, rules, or frameworks that prioritize fairness, inclusivity, and the reduction of disparities across different groups of people. Here are some additional processes and consideration when creating equity-centered standards:

• Include Diverse and Inclusive Stakeholder Involvement: Involve a diverse range of representatives, including individuals from marginalized communities, experts, advocates, and representatives from various backgrounds. Their perspectives will ensure that the standards are inclusive and address the needs of different groups.
• Center Inclusive Data Analysis: Gather and analyze relevant data to identify disparities, biases, and inequalities within the context you’re creating standards. This data-driven approach helps you understand the specific areas that need to be addressed and can inform the development of targeted strategies.
• Use an Intersectional Approach: Recognize that individuals hold multiple identities that can intersect and influence their experiences. Consider how different identities such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and socioeconomic status intersect to create unique challenges and opportunities.
• Incorporate Culturally Responsive Practices: Tailor the standards to account for cultural, linguistic, and regional differences. Ensure that the standards respect and reflect the values, beliefs, and practices of various communities.
• Build in Equity Impact Assessments: Conduct an equity impact assessment to evaluate how the proposed standards might affect different groups. This assessment helps identify potential unintended consequences and allows you to make necessary adjustments.
• Address Systemic Barriers: Recognize and address systemic barriers and structural inequalities that contribute to disparities. This might involve adjusting policies, procedures, and practices that perpetuate these inequities.
• Explicitly Address Equity: Make equity a core principle and value within the standards. Clearly articulate the goal of reducing disparities and promoting fairness throughout the document.
• Create Accessible Communication: Ensure that the standards are communicated in a way that is accessible to all representatives, regardless of their education level or background. Use plain language, visual aids, and various communication formats to make the standards easily understandable.
• Perform Ongoing Evaluation and Iteration: Regularly review and evaluate the impact of the standards. If disparities persist or new issues arise, be prepared to iterate and update the standards to address these challenges.
• Offer Equity Training and Education: Provide training and education to those responsible for implementing the standards. This ensures that they understand the importance of equity and are equipped to apply the standards effectively.
• Retain Transparency and Accountability: Clearly define roles, responsibilities, and mechanisms for accountability in implementing and enforcing the standards. Transparency helps build trust and ensures that the standards are followed consistently.
• Creating Ongoing Community Engagement: Engage with the communities affected by the standards throughout the development process. Seek input, feedback, and validation to ensure that the standards genuinely reflect their needs and aspirations.

Remember that creating equity-centered standards is an ongoing process that requires commitment and continuous effort. The goal is to create a more just and inclusive society by actively addressing the root causes of disparities and working towards equal opportunities for all.

Policy Recommendations

Developing equity-centered core competencies in standards development involves identifying and integrating key skill sets and knowledge across disciplines and evaluating diverse entry points and intersectionalities that support the creation and implementation of equitable standards. Key competencies to focus on developing include:

• Understanding Equity Concepts: Ensure that the individuals involved in standards development have a solid understanding of equity concepts, including systemic oppression, privilege, intersectionality, and social determinants of inequities. A foundational example of this comes from American Psychological Association (APA) racial equity work. As part of this work, they have developed an Inclusive Language Guideline (American Psychological Association, 2021) that sets clear definitions and implementation strategies.
• Create Multiple Opportunities for Stakeholder Engagement: Core competencies should include skills related to engaging diverse representatives effectively. This involves active listening, valuing different perspectives, and incorporating feedback from marginalized communities.
• Set Emotional Boundaries: Achieving a clear understanding of entry points frequently necessitates the establishment of precise boundaries concerning terminology. This process involves the incorporation of deliberative frameworks founded on principles of humility, collaboration, and mutual reciprocity. A case in point, to elucidate this concept, can be gleaned from the work of RAND’s Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy.
• Use Inclusive Data Analysis and Disaggregation: Competencies related to data analysis should be included to help individuals understand how to collect, analyze, and disaggregate data to identify inequities and develop a deep, nuanced understanding of their underlying causes.
• Imbed Equity Impact Assessments: Empowering individuals with the skills to conduct equity impact assessments enables a systematic evaluation of how proposed standards might influence various groups and facilitates the recommendation of essential adjustments. These competencies should encompass the ability to measure the impact of equity-centered standards effectively. This entails employing a blend of qualitative and quantitative methods to assess outcomes and implement enhancements.
• Recognize Bias and Mitigate Impacts: Include competencies that enable individuals to recognize and address biases in standards development. This includes identifying implicit biases and taking steps to mitigate their impact.
• Include Intersectional Approaches: Competencies should highlight the importance of considering intersectionality — how various identities intersect and influence experiences — and integrating this perspective into standards development.
• Imbed Inclusive Language and Communication: Incorporate competencies that emphasize using inclusive and respectful language in all communications related to standards development. Effective communication ensures that diverse voices are heard and understood.
• Create Equitable Policy and Practice Change: Core competencies should address skills related to advocating for policy and practice changes that promote equity. This may involve influencing decision-makers and navigating bureaucratic systems.
• Encourage Community Engagement and Collaboration: Include competencies that encourage individuals to collaborate with communities affected by the standards. This involves building trusting relationships, seeking input, and co-creating solutions.
• Create Spaces for Conflict Resolution and Facilitation: Competencies related to conflict resolution and facilitation are important for navigating discussions that may arise when addressing differing perspectives and interests.
• Be Open to Continuous Learning and Reflection: Promote a culture of continuous learning and self-reflection among those involved in standards development. Competencies should encourage individuals to stay informed about evolving equity-related concepts and best practices.
• Encourage Equity-centered Leadership: Consider competencies related to leadership in equity-centered contexts. This involves leading with empathy, humility, and a commitment to creating inclusive spaces. This also involves recognizing and accepting that being uncomfortable and challenged is a part of the process leading to sustained change.
• Create Intentional Leadership — To ensure health equity is integrated into their health systems urgently, leadership teams should assess their organization’s and agency’s composition and work to acknowledge what remains to introduce more inclusive practices.
• Allow for Equity Advocacy and Allyship: Integrate competencies that encourage individuals to advocate for equity and to be allies for marginalized communities within their professional spheres.
• Create Buy-in via Community ownership — To drive practices to establish health equity systematically, power-sharing with communities is necessary to initiate a path to improve the design of community-centered solutions, and the implementation and evaluation of those solutions.

Conclusion

The standardization of equity principles and frameworks holds significant potential to shape policy implications, guide practical implementation, and chart a course for government actions. These guidelines can serve as a powerful catalyst for advancing equity in policy-making and societal well-being. To harness this potential, the government should take deliberate steps to move this process forward. Standardized equity principles should become an integral part of policy development and implementation. By incorporating these principles, policymakers can ensure that decisions are grounded in fairness, inclusivity, and the well-being of marginalized communities. These guidelines offer a roadmap for assessing existing policies and identifying areas where equity improvements are needed. Government agencies should conduct regular equity assessments to gauge their policies’ impact on underserved populations, and then make necessary adjustments to promote fairness and social justice. The government should invest in public awareness campaigns to educate citizens and policymakers about the importance of these equity standards. Fostering a culture that values evidence-based decision-making is essential for driving positive change. Establishing mechanisms for evaluating the impact of these equity standards on policy outcomes and societal change is vital. Continuous feedback and refinement ensure that the government’s efforts remain responsive and effective in addressing evolving equity issues. Considering legislative measures to institutionalize the commitment to equity research and the development of national standards is a critical step. This involves creating oversight bodies or councils responsible for guiding and monitoring equity research efforts, ensuring accountability and effectiveness in the pursuit of a more equitable society. In conclusion, standardizing equity principles and frameworks offers a clear path toward influencing policy implications, promoting practical implementation, and guiding government actions. To maximize the impact of these guidelines, the government must integrate them into policymaking, conduct regular assessments, invest in public awareness, and establish mechanisms for continuous evaluation and adaptation. Legislative support is also essential for institutionalizing the commitment to equity standards and ensuring their long-term success.

References

Abreu, D., & Pinals, D. (2020). Maryland Lieutenant Governor’s Commission to Study Mental and Behavioral Health: State Summit on Behavioral Health and the Justice System: Using the Sequential Intercept Mapping Initiative to Inform Efforts in Maryland. SAMHSA’s GAINS Center.https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/cmte_testimony/2021/fin/1w2lWIzHMEGqu7XjMmRCtNvOjfxJyj6Ft.pdf

Albalawi, R., Yeap, T.H., & Benyoucef, M. (2020). Using topic modeling methods for short-text data: A comparative analysis. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 3:42. doi: 10.3389/frai.2020.00042

American Psychological Association. (2021). Inclusive language guidelines. https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines.pdf

Birley, M., & Scott-Samuel, A. (2009). Current global health impact assessment practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(6), 418–426.

Braveman, P. (2014). What Are Health Disparities and Health Equity? We Need to Be Clear. Public Health Reports, 129(Suppl 2), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549141291S203

Boorstin, L. C. (2015). Scaling Up Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://doi.org/10.48558/DQYE-9093.

Calder, J. (1994). Program evaluation and quality: A comprehensive guide to setting up an evaluation system. Routledge.

Cashman, J., Linehan, P.C., Purcell, L., Rosser, M., Schultz, S., & Skalski, S. (2014). Leading by convening: A blueprint for authentic engagement. https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/Leading%20by%20Convening%20508.pdf.

Charmaz, K. (2020). “With Constructivist Grounded Theory You Can’t Hide”: Social Justice Research and Critical Inquiry in the Public Sphere. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419879081

Christie, C.A., Montrosse, B.E., Klein, B.M. (2005). Emergent design evaluation: A case study. Evaluation and program planning, 28(3):271–277. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2005.04.002

Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy. (2023). Definition of Equity. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/well-being/racial-equity-policy/about.html#:~:text=There%20are%20many%20definitions%20of%20equity%2C%20but%20for,equity%20means%20the%E2%80%AFfair%20and%20just%20access%20to%20opportunity.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Brief 1: Overview of policy evaluation. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/Brief%201-a.pdf.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Brief 2: Planning for policy evaluation. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/Brief%202-a.pdf.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Brief 3: Evaluating policy content. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/brief-3-a.pdf.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Brief 4: Evaluating policy implementation. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/brief-4-a.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Brief 5: Evaluating Policy Impact. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/brief-5-a.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Brief 6: Policy evaluation data considerations. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/Brief%206-a.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Brief 7: Applying policy evaluation results. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/Brief%207-a.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). CDC Evaluation Documents, Workbooks, and Tools. https://www.cdc.gov/evaluation/tools/index.htm.

Douthwaite, B., Mayne, J., McDougall, C., & Paz-Ybarnegaray, R. (2017). Evaluating complex interventions: A theory-driven realist-informed approach. Evaluation, 23(3), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389017714382

Drew, R., Aggleton, P., Chalmers, H., & Wood, K. (2011). Using social network analysis to evaluate a complex policy network. Evaluation, 17(4), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389011421699

Edwards, P.K. (1987). Conceptual and methodological issues in evaluating emergent programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 10(1):27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(87)90019-X

Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Act of 2021, Cal. Educ. Code § 51224.6(a) (2021).

Fabio, V. (2023, Feb. 2). What is Text Clustering? OneAI.com. https://oneai.com/learn/text-clustering

Fort, D. G., Herr, T. M., Shaw, P. L., Gutzman, K. E., & Starren, J. B. (2017). Mapping the evolving definitions of translational research. Journal of clinical and translational science, 1(1), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2016.10

Gertler, P.J., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L.B., Vermeersch, C.M.J. (2016). Impact Evaluation in Practice, Second Edition. Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/25030

Gottfredson, D. C., Cook, T. D., Gardner, F. E., Gorman-Smith, D., Howe, G. W., Sandler, I. N., & Zafft, K. M. (2015). Standards of Evidence for Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Scale-up Research in Prevention Science: Next Generation. Prevention Science: the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 16(7), 893–926.

Handan-Nader, C., Ho, D. E., & Elias, B. (2020). Feasible Policy Evaluation by Design: A Randomized Synthetic Stepped-Wedge Trial of Mandated Disclosure in King County. Evaluation Review, 44(1), 3–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X20930852

Hargreaves, M.B. (2014). Rapid evaluation approaches for complex initiatives[White paper]. Mathematica Policy Research. https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files//40541/rs_EvalApproach.pdf.

Hartmann, A., Linn, J.F. (2008). Scaling up: a framework and lessons for development effectiveness from literature and practice[Working paper №5]. Wolfensohn Center for Development. 10.2139/ssrn.1301625

Heltberg, R., & Raynor, J. (2022). Convening Effectiveness Matters. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 20(4), 57–58. https://doi.org/10.48558/XXVY-CA16

Hug, S. E., & Aeschbach, M. (2020). Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1–15.

Individual Freedom Act, Fla. Stat. § 1003.42(21)(a) (2022).

Institute for Reproductive Health Georgetown University. (n.d.). Doing it right: Monitoring, learning and evaluating for sustainable scale-up. https://www.irh.org/resource-library/monitoring-evaluating-scale-up-doing-it-right-for-sustainable-impact/

International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. (2000). Going to scale: can we bring more benefits to more people more quickly?:Workshop highlights [Paper presentation]. https://iirr.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Going-to-Scale-scanned-copy_compressed_compressed.pdf

Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., … & Pluye, P. (2015). A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC public health, 15(1), 1–11.

Kaczmarek, K., & Romaniuk, P. (2020). The use of evaluation methods for the overall assessment of health policy: potential and limitations. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 18(1), 1–12.

Kohl, R., Cooley, L. (2016). Scaling up-from vision to large-scale change. Management Systems International. https://www.msiworldwide.com/sites/default/files/additional-resources/2018-11/ScalingUp_3rdEdition.pdf

Liket, K. C., & Maas, K. (2015). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Analysis of best practices. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 268–296.

Lynch, K. (1999). Equality studies, the academy and the role of research in emancipatory social change. Economic and Social Review, 30, 41–70.

Milken Institute School of Public Health. (2023). Equity versus Equality: What’s the Difference? George Washington University. https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/

Milstein, B., Wetterhall, S., & CDC Evaluation Working Group. (2000). A framework featuring steps and standards for program evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 1(3), 221–228.

Moore, M. L., Riddell, D., & Vocisano, D. (2015). Scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep: strategies of non-profits in advancing systemic social innovation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (58), 67–84.

Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., Griffin, P., Heilbrun, K., Mulvey, E., DeMatteo, D., & Schubert, C. (2015). The Sequential Intercept Model as a Platform for Data-Driven Practice and Policy. The sequential intercept model and criminal justice: Promoting community alternatives for individuals with serious mental illness, 239–256.

National Association for DEI — Working Group. (2023). Unpublished manuscript. Downloaded from Linkedin.com, National Coalition for Equity Impact.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Roundtable on the Promotion of Health Equity; Forum for Children’s Well-Being: Promoting Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Health for Children and Youth; Keenan W, Sanchez CE, Kellogg E, et al., editors. Achieving Behavioral Health Equity for Children, Families, and Communities: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington (DC): National Academies

Perez-Arce, Francisco, Ernesto F. L. Amaral, Haijing Crystal Huang, and Carter C. Price, Inequality and Opportunity: The Relationship Between Income Inequality and Intergenerational Transmission of Income, RAND Corporation, RR-1509-RC, 2016. As of February 24, 2023: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1509.html

National Science Foundation. (2022). The Analytics for Equity Initiative. https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/2022-06/Summary%20of%20the%20Analytics%20for%20Equity%20Initiative.pdf

Pfizer Multicultural Health Equity Collective. (2023, August 4). Health Equity in Action Summit. Retrieved from https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/bringing_together_diverse_organizations_to_strive_for_health_equity

Press (US); 2019 Feb 13. 2, Introduction to Health Equity and Social Determinants of Health. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK540766/

Phadermrod, B., Crowder, R. M., & Wills, G. B. (2019). Importance-performance analysis based SWOT analysis. International journal of information management, 44, 194–203.

Picciotto, R. Scaling up: A development strategy for the new millennium. In: Bourguignon, F., Jacquet, P., & Pleskovic, B. (Eds.), Annual world bank conference on development economics Europe 2004: Economic integration and social responsibility (pp.351–371). The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/324381468023464821/pdf/399780PAPER0EC16103101PUBLIC1optmzd.pdf

PEN America. (2023, May 4). Educational Gag Orders: A State-by-State Analysis of Legislation Targeting Classroom Talk on Race and Gender Identity. Retrieved from https://pen.org/report/educational-gag-orders/

Pirkis, J., Hickie, I., Young, L., Burns, J., Highet, N., & Davenport, T. (2005). An evaluation of beyondblue, Australia’s national depression initiative. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 7(2), 35–53.

Rand Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy Programs. RAND Corporation. (n.d.). https://www.rand.org/well-being/racial-equity-policy/partnerships.html

Rogers, R. et al., (2023). Equity Centered Environmental Scan Framework (Report №1, Grant 20230002). Wallace Foundation. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/pages/default.aspx as cited in Hendricks, P. (2023). Examining Black Men’s Life Expectancy — Inaugural Iguchi Initiative Fellow Talk [PowerPoint slides]. Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy, The RAND Corporation. https://vimeo.com/845385064?share=copy #

Scells, H., Zuccon, G., Koopman, B., & Clark, J. (2020, April). Automatic boolean query formulation for systematic review literature search. In Proceedings of the web conference 2020 (pp.1071–1081).

Schwartzmann L. (2009). Research and action: toward good quality of life and equity in health. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research, 9(2), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.09.3

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2019, August). Data collection across the sequential intercept model (SIM): Essential measures. https://store.samhsa.gov/product/data-collection-across-the-sequential-intercept-model-sim-essential-measures/PEP19-SIM-DATA.

TCC Group. (2020, March). A Framework for the Effective Evaluation of Convenings. https://www.tccgrp.com/resource/a-framework-for-the-effective-evaluation-of-convenings/.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Advancing racial equity and health: A systems approach. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

The Rockefeller Foundation. (2022). Convening Design 2022. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Convening-Design.pdf.

The White House. (2022, April 7). FACT SHEET: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Launches Year of Evidence for Action to Fortify and Expand Evidence-Based Policymaking [Press release]. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/04/07/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-launches-year-of-evidence-for-action-to-fortify-and-expand-evidence-based-policymaking/

Troup, J., Fuhr, D. C., Woodward, A., Sondorp, E., & Roberts, B. (2021). Barriers and facilitators for scaling up mental health and psychosocial support interventions in low-and middle-income countries for populations affected by humanitarian crises: a systematic review. International journal of mental health systems, 15, 1–14.

United States Department of Justice. (2021, October 1). Choosing the Right Data Strategy for Behavioral Health and Criminal Justice Initiatives. https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Choosing-the-Right-Data-Strategy-for-Behavioral-Health-and-Criminal-Justice-Initiatives-3.pdf.

Uvin, P. (1995). Fighting hunger at the grassroots: Paths to scaling up. World Development, 23(6), 927–939.

Drury, S., Breaux, C., Magnon Jr., M.A., Kirkpatrick, S., Silva, J., Garrett, D., Brookman, A., & Rogers, R. (2022). Wabash & RAND Collaboration, 2021–2022 | Wabash College, Wabash College website.

Wagner, G., Lukyanenko, R., & Paré, G. (2022). Artificial intelligence and the conduct of literature reviews. Journal of Information Technology, 37(2), 209–226.

Wang, S., Scells, H., Koopman, B., & Zuccon, G. (2023). Can ChatGPT write a good boolean query for a systematic review literature search? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03495..

Whitebread, G., Dolamore, S., & Stern, B. (2023). Quantitative intersectionality: Imperatives and opportunities for advancing social equity. Public Administration Review, 83(1), 117–129.

World Bank. (2020, April 1). The World’s Bank: An evaluation of the World Bank Group’s global convening. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/default/files/Data/Evaluation/files/WBG_Convening_Power.pdf

World Health Organization & ExpandNet. (‎2010)‎. Nine steps for developing a scaling-up strategy. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44432

World Health Organization. (2021). Health equity: A guide for action. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2010). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users. Sage Publications.

Appendix

https://onedrive.live.com/embed?resid=E81DA6F58910AD22%21206&authkey=!AJc6qwPK5fdjyaY&em=2