Advancing Culturally Responsive
Evaluations for Boys and Men of Color
HANH CAO YU, Ph D, HEATHER LEWIS-CHARP, AND
TRACI ENDO INOUYE
Introduction: State of the Field
The field of culturally responsive evaluations (CRE) and comprehensive efforts to improve outcomes for boys and
men of color (BMOC) are in their infancy. Yet attention to the development of the knowledge base and expansion of
practice is needed due to the groundswell of interest in both areas in recent years. For instance, in 2014, President
Obama established the My Brother’s Keeper (MBK) Task Force. MBK is a coordinated federal effort with private
philanthropic organizations and communities to address persistent opportunity gaps faced by BMOC and to ensure
that all young people can reach their full potential. While BMOCs are the targets of many social programs and
interventions, a dearth of high-quality culturally responsive evaluations exist on the effectiveness of various gender-
and population-specific approaches for BMOCs to achieve measurable results.
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 2
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 3
The development and implementation of cultural responsive evaluation approaches are needed
within the field of evaluation to provide authentic feedback on programs and interventions that
work for BMOC. Although the American Evaluation Association (AEA) was established 30 years
ago, it released its public statement on Cultural Competence in Evaluation quite recently, in 2011.
1
Predating this effort, in 1999, a collaboration between AEA and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation
called the Building Diversity Initiative began to address the complexity of needs and expectations
concerning evaluators working across cultures and in diverse communities. Ricardo Millett, the
former Director of Evaluation at the Kellogg Foundation, explained why he devoted this attention
to culturally responsive evaluation:
Evaluation is not accurately capturing the experiences of those who are affected by the
programs and policies we inform. Conventional program evaluation often misses the
kinds of data and experiences that can help to frame effective programs and policies,
and this problem relates directly to how we approach diversity and multiculturalism in
our profession. . . . Generating authentic knowledge is about finding a way to make sure
that evaluation is participatory and grounded, and collects and interprets data within
real settings. It is not about capturing whether participants work well for a program, but
whether a program works well for participants.
2
Millett’s call for action continues to be relevant today. For this reason, the Research, Integration,
Strategies and Evaluation (RISE) for Boys and Men of Color Initiative was launched in 2015
with an eye toward stimulating research and evaluation practices for BMOC initiatives.
3
A
core issue that RISE addresses is the limited availability of CRE resources that often leave
practitioners to do their work without systematic and rigorous evaluation. Among the 10
principles that RISE promotes, the most salient to this paper is the focus on culturally relevant,
authentic, inclusive, and rigorous evaluation. This tenet emphasizes the importance that
programs serving BMOC are rigorously and appropriately assessed by scholars of color and
other evaluators who deeply understand cultural context and appreciate the viewpoints that
people of color offer. This principle and, in fact, most of the RISE principles reinforce standard
practices of culturally responsive evaluation. In addition to the principle of culturally relevant,
authentic, inclusive, and rigorous evaluations, other salient principles call attention to 1)
balanced treatment of racial and ethnic groups; 2) structural, systemic, and policy change;
3) multiple ways of knowing; 4) narrative change moving beyond deficit-oriented and racist
misrepresentations of boys and men of color; 5) interdisciplinarity; 6) intersectionality; and 7)
disaggregated data analysis.
4
In this paper, we begin with a review of the role of CRE as it applies to rigorous, authentic
evaluation of programs that serve BMOC. Next, we define what is meant by “culturally
responsive evaluation,” including key principles and essential practices. We conclude with
a potential evaluation framework and a set of field-level recommendations for building the
pipeline of diverse evaluators.
RISE for Boys and
Men of Color is a field
advancement effort
funded by The Atlantic
Philanthropies, W.K.
Kellogg Foundation,
Annie E. Casey
Foundation, Marguerite
Casey Foundation,
and members of the
Executives’ Alliance to
Expand Opportunities
for Boys and Men of
Color.
INTRODUCTION: STATE OF THE FIELD
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 4
Culturally Responsive Evaluation: Principles,
Frameworks, and Practices
Evaluation serves a vital function for the social sector. Funders, policymakers, and practitioners rely on evaluation as
a tool for management, strategic planning, and accountability for their work. In recent years, however, there have
been critical questions raised about how conventional evaluations—still largely rooted in a white, Western-centric
tradition—function across different cultural contexts. Such questions include the following: To what extent do existing
evaluation frameworks and measures present valid findings across multiple dimensions of diversity, such as race/
ethnicity, economic status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, disability, or immigration status? How can the
cultural contexts of racially and ethnically diverse groups be better integrated in evaluation theory and practice? What
methods are most suited for culturally responsive evaluations?
Within the evaluation field, a growing body of literature discusses
the theoretical underpinnings for cultural responsiveness
in evaluation.
5
AEA has been focused on advancing CRE
methodologies, measurement tools, and metrics, while sharing
strategies and promising practices for deepening a CRE approach.
Critical momentum is building as individuals and organizations
across multiple disciplines come together around a collective
vision for advancing CRE as a legitimate form of high-quality
evaluation.
Researchers, funders, and others committed to working with
communities of color can capitalize upon these growing efforts.
The increasing racial and ethnic diversity of U.S. communities—
along with evidence of persistent educational, economic, and
health disparities, and high levels of discrimination experienced
by BMOC—have created a heightened sense of urgency for
responsive programming and evaluation strategies. Funders are
seeking solutions not only rooted in communities’ cultural assets,
but also in the intersection of multiple dimensions of diversity, such
as economic class, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. CRE
has the potential to assist evaluators, policymakers, and funders to
become more strategic and innovative in their practices, decisions,
and investments by yielding valid and culturally relevant findings
rooted in the realities experienced by BMOC.
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 5
What Is Culture?
Culture can be defined as the
shared experiences of people,
including their languages,
values, customs, beliefs,
and mores. It also includes
worldviews, ways of knowing,
and ways of communicating.
Culturally significant factors
encompass, but are not limited
to, race/ethnicity, religion,
social class, language, disability,
sexual orientation, age, and
gender. Contextual dimensions
such as geographic region and
socioeconomic circumstances
are also essential to shaping
culture. Culture not only
influences members of groups,
but it also delineates boundaries
and influences patterns of
interaction among them.
Evaluators frequently work
across these boundaries.
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 6
What Is Culturally Responsive Evaluation
CRE is, at its simplest, evaluation that integrates cultural practices, understandings, and norms into its theory,
measures, analysis, and practice. Like traditional evaluation, it prioritizes objective inquiry designed to provide
information to decision makers and other parties interested in a particular program, policy, or intervention.
However, CRE also requires frameworks that incorporate different worldviews, value systems, and their interaction
at multiple levels of society. It engages in data collection strategies that take into account potential linguistic
and structural barriers; it includes a reexamination of biases built into evaluation measures and their cultural
appropriateness; and it utilizes creative strategies for ensuring culturally competent analysis and creative
dissemination of findings to diverse audiences.
CRE aims to:
Unmask cultural differences so that relevant, culturally based
knowledge and cultural assets can be central to problem solving and
strategic planning.
Affirm the individual and intersectional effects of race/ethnicity,
immigrant status, age, socioeconomic factors, gender, sexual
orientation, and other social identities.
Build the capacities of specific populations and communities of color
to self-assess needs, resources, and solutions.
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 7
What Is Cultural
Responsiveness?
Cultural responsiveness, or cultural
competence, is not a state at which
one arrives; rather, it is a process of
learning, unlearning, and relearning.
It is a sensibility cultivated throughout
a lifetime. This requires awareness
of self, reflection on one’s own
cultural position, awareness of others’
positions, and the ability to interact
genuinely and respectfully with others.
Culturally responsive evaluators refrain
from assuming they fully understand
the perspectives of stakeholders whose
backgrounds differ from their own.
AEA CULTURAL COMPETENCE IN EVALUATION STATEMENT
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 8
Guiding Principles for Culturally Responsive Evaluation
While AEA provides a general set of guiding principles for conducting evaluations, its “Statement of Cultural
Competence in Evaluation” focuses on a set of practices rather than principles for cultural competence. These
practices are similar to the set of key principles for CRE that were recommended by Inouye, Yu, and Adefuin from
the California Endowment’s The Diversity in Health Evaluation Project.
7
The principles from this project fall into
five major categories:
1
Inclusion in design and implementation: Stakeholders and
communities understand and support the research and are
actively involved in all phases of the evaluation so that they are
empowered to do self-evaluation through intentional capacity
building.
2
Acknowledgment/infusion of multiple world views: Culturally
responsive evaluators have a genuine respect for communities and
seek deep understanding of different cultural contexts, practices,
and paradigms of thinking. Communities know best their issues,
strengths, and challenges. The diversity of communities is
represented in CRE staffing and expertise.
3
Appropriate measures of success: Measures of success are
discussed or collaboratively developed with those being
evaluated. Data collection instruments and outcome measures
are tested for multicultural validity across populations that may be
non-English speaking, less literate, or from a different culture. CRE
methods and instruments consider alternative or nontraditional
ways of collecting data.
4
Cultural and systems analysis: Culturally responsive evaluations
take into account how historical and current social systems,
institutions, and societal norms contribute to power and outcome
disparities across different racial and ethnic communities and
intersection of racial, cultural, gender, religious, economic, and
other differences. CRE questions take a multilevel approach
to understanding root causes and impact at the individual,
interpersonal, institutional, cultural, system, and policy level,
rather than focusing the analysis solely on individual behavior.
5
Relevance to diverse communities: Culturally responsive
evaluations inform community decision-making and program
design. Findings from culturally responsive evaluations are
co-owned with diverse communities and shared in culturally
appropriate ways.
TRADITIONAL EVALUATION CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE EVALUATION
Evaluator Formally trained evaluators are the experts. Community members/program beneficiaries
know best their issues and strengths.
Role of Evaluator Leader, judge, expert Facilitator, translator, convener
Design & Planning Evaluator presents design for funder approval. Prioritizing rapport and trust building in an
inclusive planning process that infuses multiple
world views.
Data Collection Conducted by evaluation professional. Facilitated by evaluator; stakeholders trained
in some collection methods and implement
them.
Analysis Results and their meaning are analyzed by
evaluator.
Results and their meaning are derived based
on culture and system analysis.
Reporting Written report and briefing to funder. Disseminated to broader community.
Application of Findings Findings used as monitoring device. Findings used to build capacity of community
and community organizations.
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 9
Traditional evaluation is rooted in the assumption that formally
trained evaluators are the “experts” who implement evaluations
based on established measures of what is “good practice.” CRE
is instead characterized by reciprocity. While still integrating their
own expertise throughout the evaluation, the evaluator does
not presume to understand every facet of the cultural context of
the populations or communities being studied. As a result, CRE
is characterized by a fundamental shift in how the evaluation is
conceptualized and designed, how communities are engaged in
the data collection and analysis, and how the findings from the
evaluation are ultimately communicated and used.
FIGURE 1. The Paradigm Shift from Traditional to Culturally Responsive Evaluation
These principles are consistent with the AEA’s quality standards of practice for the profession, which include systematic inquiry,
competence, integrity/honesty, respect for people, and responsibilities for general and public welfare. However, the guiding principles
put forth by Inouye, Yu, and Adefuin for culturally responsive evaluation depart from these broader principles to explicitly consider race/
ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, disability, and/or immigrant status.
When implementing culturally responsive evaluation, it is important to note that culturally responsive evaluations build on core elements
of sound, traditional evaluation practices, such as data-based inquiry, valid and reliable measures, and impartial assessment. CRE also
reflects characteristics of quality evaluations based on guidelines set forth by AEA, such as strongly respecting stakeholders’ self-worth,
considering perspectives of a full range of stakeholders, and (where feasible) providing benefit to those who contribute data.
However, as shown in Figure 1 below, when the principles of CRE are applied to all aspects of evaluation—from the evaluator, to design
and planning, to data collection, analysis, reporting and application of findings—there is a significant shift in how evaluation is actually
implemented.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE EVALUATION
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 10
Recommendations for Advancing CRE and the
Evaluation Field
With the strong interest in stimulating CRE for BMOC, this is an important time to rethink how evaluators can engage
in CRE practice, expand the frameworks for analysis, and take action to diversify the pipeline for culturally competent
evaluators. The following are some key recommendations to those interested in applying and advancing CRE of
BMOC programs and initiatives.
Engage in essential practices that advance cultural responsiveness.
Complementing the CRE principles presented, the following essential practices provide a starting point for developing and implementing
a culturally responsive evaluation.
8
These practices allow us to complexify our understandings of context and culture and to illuminate the
dynamics and effects of power differentials within target populations, all of which will enhance our ability to interpret findings:
1
• Avoid homogenizing cultural groups: In many Asian and
Latino communities, for example, diversity among cultural
groups may be great
9
(i.e., Southeast Asian can consist of
Khmer Rouge, Vietnamese, Laotian, and Thais); alternatively,
Latino can consist of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, El Salvadorians,
Cubans, and Haitians. It is therefore important to collect
and disaggregate data on such vast groupings as they
intersect with gender, geography (e.g., urban and rural), and
other dimensions that affect BMOC so as to increase our
understanding of differences across major groups and within
subgroups. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that
culture is not static. Most cultures evolve as they come into
contact with other cultures and as people identify affiliation
with multiple cultural groups. Consequently, culturally
responsive evaluators need to examine the impact of the
nuances of culture on participation, behaviors, and outcomes.
• Examine power differentials: Tremendous differences
stem from varying levels of privilege, accents, distribution of
resources, living conditions, decision-making processes, skills
and expertise, and communication styles. Culturally responsive
evaluators work to identify their own biases and privileges,
dispel stereotypes, and examine the structural and systemic
forces that marginalize or subordinate particular populations or
communities.
To the extent that evaluation is not a value-free endeavor, evaluators can use their knowledge, privilege, power, and expertise to promote
equitable outcomes for the self-determination of BMOC.
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 11
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADVANCING CRE AND THE EVALUATION FIELD
Adopt frameworks that consider embedded contexts and structural analyses of inequalities.
2
In determining appropriate frameworks for evaluation of boys
and men of color, two key CRE and RISE principles provide
helpful guidance. The first is “Multiple Ways of Knowing,” which
acknowledges that people of color are experts on their own
experiences, and historical, cultural, and social contexts greatly
influence BMOC’s behaviors and outcomes. The second is the
RISE principle of “Structural, Systemic, and Policy Change,” which
focuses our attention to forces that can work to dismantle systems
of oppression and institutionalized racism faced by boys and men
of color. We know that disparities faced by boys and men of color
are created and mediated by multiple social determinants of
behavior. Individuals’ behaviors are conditioned in social contexts
of families, peer groups, and culture as well as their physical
environment and geographic communities. Individuals are not only
influenced by their own values, norms, beliefs, and characteristics,
but also by their relationships with others, the institutions and
communities to which they belong, and the broader society in
which those institutions are embedded. Building on past and
current work at the state and local level, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services and Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center
for the Application of Prevention Technologies has developed a
robust resource tool to support prevention practitioners.
10
This tool
identifies factors that protect boys and young men of color against
substance use and misuse, as well as mitigate adverse experiences
that affect this group, such as racial and ethnic discrimination.
SAMHSA’s Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies
(2016) socio-ecological model (see Figure 2) is not only a valuable
framework for building our understanding of factors that impact
BMOC’s well-being, but also for usage in culturally responsive
evaluations. It helps to draw evaluators’ attention to the larger
contexts and systems in which programs and interventions operate,
as well as the factors that need to be taken into account in the
design and implementation of programs and initiatives for BMOCs.
This framework also shows promise in that it moves us away from
the individual-focused model of evaluation to explain embedded
contexts that likely impact outcomes for BMOC. Instead, it allows
us to look at factors that protect against negative outcomes for
BMOC and the relationship and interactions amongst multiple
levels of influence, including systemic inequality. For example,
research by Niehaus and Kumpiene shows that Latino adolescents
who have experience with language brokering (translating for
family) in more complex situations are more likely to believe
in their own academic success.
11
Other research shows that
African American eighth and twelfth graders who experience
achievement-oriented school climate tend to have lower odds
of lifetime substance use.
12
Asian American, black, and Latino
adolescents from low-income families who have positive
perceptions of school climate demonstrate improved quality
of general friendship.
13
Overall, utilization of socioecological
frameworks such as the one offered by SAMHSA can increase
awareness of evidence-based factors that contribute to effective
program implementation and evaluators’ capacity to monitor and
evaluate prevention programming for specific BMOC groups.
FIGURE 2. Socio-Ecological Model
SAMHSA’S CENTER FOR THE APPLICATION OF PREVENTION TECHNOLOGIES (2016)
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 12
Engage in building the pipeline of culturally responsive evaluators.
To build the pipeline of culturally responsive evaluators, it is important to first define the characteristics of culturally responsive and
competent evaluators. Articulating what exactly makes an evaluator “culturally competent,” however, can be subject to debate. Attributes
of cultural competence do not lend themselves to a “checklist” or a formula. Rather, the multicultural knowledge, attitudes, and skill sets
that evaluators bring to their work can best be viewed as evolving “human” skills that are developed over time and with practice. Some of
these characteristics are presented in Figure 3.
As a key example, Social Policy Research Associates evaluated the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) Evaluation Fellowship
program to build the pipeline of diverse evaluators (a partnership with Duquesne University and OMG Center for Collaborative Learning,
now known as Equal Measure).
14
The RWJF Fellowship Program provided many rich lessons for the evaluation field. A common theme that
surfaced among the evaluation field leader interviews was that, no matter how effective a single program like the RWJ Fellowship program
may be, field-level changes are unlikely to occur without a more coordinated and sustained approach on the part of private philanthropy,
government agencies, graduate schools, and professional associations.
15
The following are some recommendations that field leaders
offered for building the pipeline of diverse evaluators:
3
• Partnerships of universities,
evaluation firms, and funders
should act on the issue of the lack
of diversity in the evaluation field
by disseminating key findings and
strategies and by lending support
for initiatives designed to diversify
the field. Because sustainability of any
individual fellowship program is an
ongoing concern, pipeline program
leaders and funders should continue
to serve as thought leaders on these
issues, through dissemination of
project lessons and through leveraging
knowledge. Further, evaluation field
leaders said that major funders’ (such
as RWJF) continued involvement
in providing support for pipeline
programs is crucial.
• Funders should collaborate to create
a more comprehensive approach
moving forward. It would be useful
to convene meetings of funders and
field leaders to examine lessons
learned from programs such as the
RWJF Evaluation Fellowship, RWJF
New Connections, the AEA Graduate
Fellowship, and the Annie E. Casey
Expanding the Bench Program
and to develop an action plan to
diversify the field. Such a meeting
should include funders, such as the
California Endowment and the Kellogg
Foundation, who have historically
worked to increase the pipeline of
diverse evaluators. One goal of such
a meeting could be to think through
how the RWJF Fellowship might be
replicated on a regional basis. For
instance, local community-based
foundations might partner with local
universities and evaluation firms in
order to replicate the Fellowship
model.
• AEA and RISE can play a role in
advancing the field by partnering
with other professional organizations.
Evaluation is a key part of many
different fields, including public health
and education. AEA could coordinate
with other professional associations,
such as the American Public Health
Association (APHA) or the American
Educational Research Association
(AERA), to think through how to
professionalize evaluation within these
fields and increase the pipeline of
diverse evaluators.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADVANCING CRE AND THE EVALUATION FIELD
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 13
• Make the case for CRE and diverse staffing and their value in rigorous
research. The “real fight,” explained one field leader, is to explain to
evaluation firms the “added value, methodologically, of diversity to their
research projects.” Further, although progress has been made at building
buy-in for CRE and participatory evaluation, there has also been something
of a regression in the field particularly given the funding climate and a shift
in emphasis toward increased accountability and experimental evaluations
(particularly at the federal level). This field leader argues, “If you have a more
diverse staff . . . you’re more likely to get at solutions that will address social
inequities, systemic racism and the rest of it.”
• Be cautious about connecting pipeline programs for evaluators of color
too tightly to particular methodological approaches. In the current
funding climate, there is an increasing emphasis on “rigorous” experimental
evaluation designs, and it is important that evaluators who come out of
pipeline programs be versed in the principles of many different types of
evaluation designs. Exposing evaluators to these different types of designs
will help to make it easier for them to find work in the field. It is also important
that CRE not be positioned as incompatible with more experimental
approaches, but rather as an essential tool in the evaluation toolbox. One
field leader explained, “You can be culturally responsive and do an evaluation
for the federal government. . . . We should be saying to people, these things
can happen side by side, they can be integrated.”
• Integrate CRE evaluation knowledge and expertise into graduate
school programs. Several of the field leaders emphasized that the majority
of graduate school programs in public health, education, and social work
continue to lack a strong focus on evaluation and its role in helping to promote
program improvement. Graduates of these programs, particularly those from
nontraditional backgrounds, often do not know that the field of evaluation
exists, and they do not build the skills and knowledge to do evaluation
within their programs. A critical step in strengthening the pipeline for diverse
evaluators is to make knowledge of and exposure to evaluation a key part of
graduate school education in social science fields.
In conclusion, the convergence of interest in AEA’s, RISE’s, and many public and
private funders’ focus on stimulating high-quality culturally responsive evaluation
creates an important time for evaluators, researchers, and practitioners working
with boys and men of color and other diverse populations to closely examine the
extent to which the knowledge generated are authentic, rigorous, and useful.
Ensuring that appropriate principles, frameworks, methodologies, and staffing are
brought to bear on the evaluations of prevention and intervention efforts will be
an important way to advance our collective knowledge for the advancement of
the well-being of boys and men of color.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADVANCING CRE AND THE EVALUATION FIELD
Experience in diverse communities. While
an evaluator may not necessarily be of the
same cultural background as the communities
they are evaluating, cultural competence
involves a broader world perspective, often
gained from experience living or working with
different cultural groups.
Openness to learning about cultural
complexities. Culturally competent
evaluators exhibit humility about what they
think they already know and are open to
in-depth understanding of the nuances
and complexities of inter- and intra-cultural
influences and variations.
Flexibility in evaluation design and
practice. Rather than coming in with
prescriptive evaluation strategies, culturally
competent evaluators realize limitations to
established approaches and are willing to
adapt to honor different cultural contexts.
Rapport and trust with diverse
communities. Culturally competent
evaluators prioritize relationship building with
diverse communities, rather than viewing
them solely as data sources. Relationships are
viewed as mutually beneficial.
Acknowledgment of power differentials.
Culturally competent evaluators acknowledge
the various power differentials possible in
an evaluation, including those between the
evaluator and those being evaluated, or
between the commissioning entity (often a
foundation) and those being evaluated.
Self-reflection for recognizing cultural
biases. Culturally competent evaluators take
the time to become mindful of potential
biases and prejudices and how they might be
incorporated into their research.
Translation and mediation across diverse
groups. Culturally competent evaluators are
skilled in translating jargon-laden evaluation
findings to those who may not be trained in
evaluation, or have high levels of education,
literacy, or English-language fluency.
Likewise, evaluators must also be adept
in communicating cultural paradigms and
community voice back to funders.
Comprehension of historical and
institutional oppression. This knowledge
is critical for designing evaluations that
integrate how historical and current social
systems, institutions, and societal norms
contribute to disparities among different
communities.
FIGURE 3. Characteristics of Culturally
Responsive/Competent Evaluators
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 14
1
The Statement on Cultural Competence in Evaluation (http://www.eval.org/
ccstatement) represents six years (2005–2011) of work by the task force. Over
the years, interest has grown on the topic of CRE through the development of
the Multiethnic Topical Interest Group, the Indigenous Peoples in Evaluation,
and the inaugural business meeting of the Latina/o Responsive Evaluation
Discourse Topical Interest Group (LA RED TIG) in 2015.
2
Harvard Family Project Evaluation Exchange, Volume IX, Number 4, Winter
2003/2004, Issue Topic: Reflecting on the Past and Future of Evaluation,
http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange/issue-archive/
reflecting-on-the-past-and-future-of-evaluation/a-conversation-with-ricardo-
millett.
3
RISE for Boys and Men of Color is a $10 million field advancement effort that
aims to better understand and strategically improve the lives, experiences,
and outcomes of boys and men of color in the United States. RISE spans
five fields (education, health, human services and social policy, juvenile and
criminal justice, and workforce development) and focuses on four populations
(Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans).
4
Ten principles undergird the RISE theory of change and its strategic
activities. These principles respond to longstanding needs, challenges, and
opportunities in academic research, community-based and youth-serving
organizations, government and policymaking, and media. More information is
available on the RISE website: http://www.risebmoc.org/about#principles.
5
S. Hood, R. Hopson, and H. Frierson, eds., Continuing the Journey to
Reposition Culture and Cultural Context in Evaluation Theory and Practice,
2015; M. Amer and S. Matlin, Annotated Bibliography: Multiculturalism and
Cultural Competence in Evaluation Select References 1995–2007,” Yale
University School of Medicine for the Cultural Competence in Evaluation
Task Force, December 2007, accessed June 3, 2016, http://archive.eval.org/
culturalbibliography.asp.
6
Traci Endo Inouye, Hanh Cao Yu, and Jo-Ann Adefuin, “Commissioning
Multicultural Evaluation: A Foundation Resource Guide,” The California
Endowment, January 2005, accessed June 3, 2016, http://www.spra.com/
wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/TCE-Commissining-Multicutural-
Eva.pdf.
7
Publications developed as part of the Diversity in Health Evaluations series
commissioned by the California Endowment include:
• Voices from the Field: Health and Evaluation Leaders on Multicultural
Evaluation, offers different perspectives on multicultural evaluation and
how to advance this approach in the health field.
• Multicultural Health Evaluation: An Annotated Bibliography, highlights
key literature on the theory and practice of multicultural evaluation.
• Shifting our Thinking: Moving from Traditional to Multicultural
Evaluation in Health, documents proceedings from a roundtable
convening of funders, evaluators, and grantees recently held at the
California Endowment.
8
C.f. https://www.brown.edu/research/research-ethics/sites/brown.edu.
research.research-ethics/files/uploads/QUIGLEY_CutComp_Rev2011_AESS.
pdf
9
Robert T. Teranishi, “Asians in the Ivory Tower,” Inside Higher Education,
October 8, 2010, accessed June 3, 2016, http://www.insidehighered.com/
news/focus/books_and_publishing/recent/asians.
10
Building on Strengths: Tools for Improving Positive Outcomes. Ensuring the
Well-being of Boys and Yet Men of Color: Factors that Promote Success at
Protect Against Substance Use in Misuse, January 2016, accessed June 3,
2016, http://www.samhsa.gov/capt/sites/default/files/resources/ensuring-
wellbeing-boys-young-men-of-color-factors.pdf.
11
K. Niehaus and G. Kumpiene, Language Brokering and Self-Concept: An
Exploratory Study of Latino Students’ Experiences in Middle and High
School,” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 36, no. 2 (2014): 124–43.
12
T. T. Clark and A. B. Nguyen, A. B. (2012). “Family Factors and Mediators of
Substance Use Among African American Adolescents,” Journal of Drug Issues
42, no. 4 (2012): 358–72.
13
N. Way and K. Pahl, “Individual and Contextual Predictors of Perceived
Friendship Quality Among Ethnic Minority, Low-Income Adolescents,” Journal
of Research on Adolescence 11, no. 4 (2001): 325–49.
14
Heather Lewis-Charp, “Evaluation of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s
Evaluation Fellows Program,” Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2011.
15
The following field leaders, who serve on the RWJF Fellowship Advisory
Committee, were interviewed: Jim Corrigan, Ricardo Millet, Tina Christie, and
Tom Kelly.
Endnotes
RISE for Boys and Men of Color 15
RISE for Boys and Men of Color
www.risebmoc.org
RISE is a joint initiative co-led by Equal Measure and the
University of Southern California Race and Equity Center.
