What Happens When a Planned Intervention May Result in Potential Inequities? a Systematic Approach to Evaluating Interventions through an Anti-Oppressive and Equity-Based Lens

Introduction

There has been increased emphasis on conducting research that is rooted in equitable approaches that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). As a result, incorporating anti-oppressive research approaches and equity-based frameworks within research and evaluation is often promoted. Though literature demonstrates that focusing on DEI are crucial to decreasing systemic inequities, few examples exist of how to implement equity-based assessments of research protocols. The aim of this study was to objectively review the content and implementation plans of a federally funded child welfare intervention through a rigorous racial and equity evaluation protocol. Specifically, this study aimed to: 1) identify a rigorous race and equity assessment process to review research design and implementation protocols to guide project changes prior to implementation, 2) determine potential unintended positive and negative impacts of project implementation and identify needed enhancements, and 3) ensure research has undergone a diligent process that fits federal funding agencies’ goals to support positive impacts on DEI.

Methods

This study utilized an equity evaluation approach that included three systematic research evaluation tools including: the Equitable Evaluation Framework (Center for Evaluation Innovation, 2017); Chambers and Wedel social policy/program analysis (Chambers & Wedel, 2005) and the Race Equity Impact Analysis Tool: ACF Equity in Action (Race Matters, 2020). Each tool provides a methodology that can elicit a critical analysis of research design and implementation practices. Analyses were conducted by examining the associations among intervention content and process, race and equity, as well as possible racial disparities that could occur as a result of implementation.

Results

The results of the analysis determined primary findings which included: 1) the planned intervention could be modified to better address equity issues, 2) the rationale for implementation of certain intervention components within the child welfare population was not supported, 3) racial groups that had decreased access to benefits would be most disadvantaged by the intervention, 4) there was a need to enhance cultural competence and cultural humility in the intervention , and 5) issues that could exacerbate inequalities for the child welfare population were present. Overall, the data revealed that each equity domain identified within the analysis was interconnected, supporting the coordinated use of these tools, and provided a depth of knowledge regarding the implications of implementing an intervention that could intensify inequities.

Results suggest that though it intended to address a need identified by the federal government and experienced in the child welfare population, there were implications to the original protocol that could potentially negatively impact the population served within child welfare. The equity evaluation tools informed improvements to the protocol.

Conclusions

Developing research projects and failing to integrate anti-oppressive and equity-based approaches within the design and implementation can have negative implications for populations. These findings demonstrate that not only does an equity lens matter, but anti-oppressive research modalities and critical thinking play an integral role in intervention development, evaluation design and implementation processes to prevent harm. The methods applied hold potential for research that supports intersectional intervention development that considers the importance of equity-based efforts.