GRAHAM DIGUISEPPI, SAMANTHA MATTHEWS, REBECCA L. COLLINS, NICOLE K. EBERHART
Evaluation of Los Angeles
County Department
of Mental Health’s
Anti-Racism, Diversity,
and Inclusion Training
D
iversity, equity, and inclu-
sion (DEI) is increasingly
recognized as an essential
component to the workplace
(Minkin, 2023) and is associated
with a variety of positive workplace
climate measures, from improved
staff competencies to enhanced per-
formance (Holladay and Quiñones,
2008; Hatcher, 2023). In fact, stud-
ies have shown that more-diverse
businesses outperform financially
(Hunt et al., 2020), and, in health
care, more-diverse teams are associ-
ated with improved patient outcomes
(Gomez and Bernet, 2019). For the
mental health care field in particular,
DEI is critical to improving patient
care and addressing racial and/or
ethnic disparities in mental health
outcomes (Smallheer et al., 2022).
Efforts and trainings to promote
DEI vary but more recently have
KEY FINDINGS
■ Trainees were highly satisfied with the ARDI training and reported
that it increased their knowledge of the trainings’ main learning
objectives: historical foundations that affect current institutions;
racism, intersectionality, and systemic equity; best practices in
anti-racist and trauma-informed leadership; and anti-racist service
provision.
■ In considering behaviors that foster a diverse working climate,
inclusive leadership practices, and psychological safety among
the staff they supervise, the proportion of trainees reporting that
they engaged in these behaviors was higher after the training than
the proportion that reported doing so prior to training.
■ In contrast, staff who reported directly to trainees noted few
significant changes five to seven weeks after the training in their
supervisors’ diversity, equity, and inclusion management behav-
iors or their own psychological safety.
■ Staff were significantly more likely to agree that their supervisor
acknowledges social injustice when it occurs at LACDMH after
the training than they were prior to the training (66 percent versus
57 percent, respectively). However, agreement that their supervi-
sor directly addressed racism and other forms of oppression and
discrimination was relatively low (50–60 percent of staff) and did
not change after the training.
Evaluation Report
