Program Evaluation — Evaluate service and program effectiveness - Eppp Skills

SECTION 1

Historical Context & Motivation

The formal practice of program evaluation in behavioral health emerged from a broader movement in social science and public policy that sought to apply empirical reasoning to questions about whether government-funded programs were actually working. Before systematic evaluation methods existed, decisions about program continuation or termination were largely political, guided by anecdotal reports and stakeholder impressions rather than data. The rise of large-scale social programs in the mid-twentieth century—coupled with growing demand for accountability—created an urgent need for structured approaches to assessing program impact. In behavioral health specifically, the proliferation of community mental health centers, substance abuse treatment programs, and crisis intervention services made evaluation not merely desirable but ethically essential: clinicians and administrators needed to know whether the services they provided genuinely helped their clients or inadvertently caused harm.

1965 • Great Society Programs & Accountability

President Johnson's Great Society legislation, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, mandated evaluation of federally funded programs. This created unprecedented demand for systematic program evaluation methodology across social services, including early behavioral health interventions.

1972 • Scriven's Formative vs. Summative Distinction

Michael Scriven formalized the distinction between formative evaluation (conducted during program implementation to improve it) and summative evaluation (conducted after implementation to judge overall worth), establishing a conceptual framework that remains foundational to the field.

1986 • Rossi & Freeman's Comprehensive Framework

Publication of Rossi and Freeman's influential textbook synthesized decades of evaluation theory into a hierarchical model encompassing needs assessment, process evaluation, outcome evaluation, and efficiency analysis—a framework widely adopted in behavioral health settings.

2001 • Evidence-Based Practice Movement

The APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice underscored the integration of research evidence with clinical expertise. Program evaluation became a core competency for psychologists, linking service delivery to empirically supported outcomes.

2020s • Health Equity & Culturally Responsive Evaluation

Contemporary program evaluation in behavioral health increasingly incorporates culturally responsive evaluation frameworks, participatory methods, and health equity metrics, reflecting the field's growing commitment to addressing disparities in service access and outcomes.

This historical trajectory reveals a central, persistent question: How do we know whether a behavioral health program is truly effective, and for whom? Program evaluation provides the systematic tools to answer this question, moving beyond clinical intuition toward evidence-grounded decision-making about resource allocation, service design, and client welfare. For psychologists preparing for the EPPP, competency in program evaluation means understanding not only the technical methods of data collection and analysis, but also the ethical, cultural, and organizational contexts in which evaluation occurs.

SECTION 2

Core Principles & Definitions

Program evaluation in behavioral health rests on several foundational principles that distinguish it from basic research. While both endeavors employ empirical methods, program evaluation is fundamentally applied—its purpose is to inform real-world decisions about service delivery, funding, and policy. Understanding these core principles equips the evaluator to design assessments that are not only methodologically sound but also practically useful and ethically responsible within the complex ecosystem of behavioral health services.

Logic Model Thinking

Every program evaluation begins with a logic model—a visual representation of the causal chain linking program inputs, activities, outputs, short-term outcomes, and long-term impact. The logic model makes the program's theory of change explicit and testable.

Formative vs. Summative Evaluation

Formative evaluation is conducted during program implementation to guide improvement. Summative evaluation occurs at or after program completion to determine overall effectiveness and inform continuation or termination decisions.

Stakeholder Engagement

Effective evaluation requires engaging diverse stakeholders—including clients, clinicians, administrators, funders, and community members—whose perspectives shape evaluation questions, methods, and the interpretation of findings.

Utilization-Focused Approach

Drawing on Michael Quinn Patton's framework, utilization-focused evaluation prioritizes the actual use of findings. An evaluation is only valuable if its results inform decision-making and lead to actionable improvements in service delivery.

Cultural Responsiveness

Evaluations must account for the cultural context of the populations served. Culturally responsive evaluation examines whether programs are equitable, accessible, and appropriate for diverse communities, attending to systemic barriers and cultural strengths.

✦

KEY TAKEAWAY

Think of program evaluation like a GPS navigation system for behavioral health services. A GPS doesn't just tell you where you are—it tells you whether you're on the right route (formative evaluation), whether you've arrived at your destination (summative evaluation), how efficiently you traveled (cost-effectiveness analysis), and whether the route works equally well for all passengers (equity analysis). Without it, you might drive for hours believing you're making progress while actually heading in the wrong direction. Program evaluation provides the empirical feedback loop that keeps services on course toward meaningful client outcomes.

SECTION 3

Visual Explanation — The Logic Model

The logic model is the conceptual backbone of program evaluation, providing a visual map of how a program is expected to produce change. Understanding this model is essential for designing evaluations because each component of the logic model corresponds to a specific type of evaluation question. The diagram below illustrates a generic logic model for a behavioral health program, showing the causal chain from resource inputs through to long-term community impact.

The logic model maps the causal chain from inputs (resources) through activities and outputs to outcomes and impact. Each component aligns with a specific evaluation type shown below, and the feedback loop illustrates how evaluation results inform program improvement.

Notice how each evaluation type corresponds to a specific segment of the logic model. A needs assessment occurs before the program begins, determining whether the target population actually requires the proposed services. Process evaluation examines whether activities are being implemented as planned and whether outputs meet expected benchmarks—this is the formative dimension. Outcome evaluation asks the summative question: did the program produce the intended changes in client functioning, symptom reduction, or quality of life? Finally, efficiency analysis compares the costs of inputs against the value of outcomes achieved, informing decisions about resource allocation and program sustainability. The feedback loop at the bottom represents the iterative nature of evaluation: findings from any stage should cycle back to refine the program's design and delivery.

SECTION 4

How Program Evaluation Works — Design & Measurement

Designing a rigorous program evaluation requires decisions across multiple domains: selecting an appropriate evaluation design, choosing valid and reliable measures, determining data collection procedures, and planning for the analysis of results. In behavioral health settings, these decisions must also balance methodological rigor with practical constraints—ethical concerns about withholding treatment, limited budgets, small sample sizes, and the complex, multidimensional nature of behavioral health outcomes.

Evaluation Designs

The choice of evaluation design depends on the questions being asked and the level of causal inference required. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard for establishing causal relationships between program participation and outcomes, but they are often impractical or unethical in behavioral health contexts where denying services to a control group raises serious concerns. Quasi-experimental designs—such as non-equivalent control group designs and interrupted time series—offer a middle ground, providing stronger evidence than purely descriptive approaches while respecting practical limitations. Pre-experimental designs (e.g., one-group pretest-posttest) are common in practice but vulnerable to threats to internal validity such as maturation, history, and regression to the mean.

Quantitative Metrics in Outcome Evaluation

While program evaluation in behavioral health is not primarily a mathematical discipline, certain quantitative frameworks are essential for interpreting outcomes. Two metrics commonly used to assess program effectiveness are effect size and the Reliable Change Index (RCI). Effect sizes quantify the magnitude of change attributable to the program, while the RCI determines whether an individual client's change exceeds what would be expected from measurement error alone.

COHEN'S d EFFECT SIZE

d = (M₁ − M₂) / SD_pooled

Where M₁ is the mean of the treatment group, M₂ is the mean of the comparison group (or pretest mean), and SD_pooled is the pooled standard deviation. Cohen's conventions: d = 0.2 (small), d = 0.5 (medium), d = 0.8 (large).

RELIABLE CHANGE INDEX (RCI)

RCI = (X₂ − X₁) / S_diff

Where X₁ is the pretest score, X₂ is the posttest score, and S_diff = SD₁ × √(2(1 − r_xx)). An RCI > 1.96 indicates statistically reliable change (p < .05), meaning the observed change is unlikely due to measurement error.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS RATIO

CER = Total Program Cost / Number of Successful Outcomes

This ratio expresses the cost per unit of outcome achieved (e.g., cost per client who achieves clinically significant improvement). Lower CER values indicate greater efficiency. This metric allows comparison across programs with similar outcome definitions.

💡

Mixed-Methods Designs

Behavioral health program evaluations increasingly employ mixed-methods designs that combine quantitative outcome data with qualitative data from client interviews, focus groups, and case studies. Qualitative data can illuminate why a program succeeded or failed, capture client experiences that standardized measures miss, and identify implementation barriers—enriching the quantitative findings with contextual depth.

SECTION 5

Detailed Breakdown — Types of Program Evaluation

Program evaluation encompasses several distinct but interconnected types, each addressing different questions about a program's value and functioning. Understanding the relationships among these types—and knowing when to deploy each one—is a critical competency assessed on the EPPP. The following diagram and table provide a comprehensive classification of evaluation types commonly encountered in behavioral health settings.

This hierarchy shows how evaluation types build on one another. A needs assessment establishes the foundation, followed by theory evaluation and process evaluation during implementation, culminating in outcome evaluation and efficiency analysis that inform program decisions.

Evaluation Type	Key Question	Common Methods	Behavioral Health Example
Needs Assessment	What is the nature and extent of the problem?	Epidemiological surveys, key informant interviews, community forums	Assessing rates of opioid use disorder in a rural county to justify a new treatment program
Theory Evaluation	Is the program's logic model evidence-based and plausible?	Literature review, expert panel review, evaluability assessment	Reviewing whether a CBT-based anxiety program's theory of change is supported by research
Process Evaluation	Is the program being implemented as designed?	Fidelity checklists, attendance logs, staff surveys, observation	Monitoring whether therapists adhere to a manualized DBT protocol
Outcome Evaluation	Did the program produce the intended changes?	Pre-post measures, comparison groups, standardized assessments (PHQ-9, GAD-7)	Measuring reduction in depression scores after a 12-week group therapy program
Efficiency Analysis	Are outcomes justified relative to costs?	Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-utility analysis	Comparing cost per QALY gained between telehealth and in-person therapy models

Overview of evaluation types, their guiding questions, methods, and behavioral health applications

SECTION 6

Worked Example — Evaluating a Substance Use Treatment Program

Consider a community behavioral health center that has operated an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for substance use disorders for two years. The program's funder requests an outcome evaluation to determine whether the program should receive continued support. The evaluator must design and conduct a systematic evaluation of program effectiveness. Let us walk through this process step by step.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Substance Use IOP

1
Step 1 — Clarify Evaluation Questions with Stakeholders

The evaluator meets with the program director, clinical staff, client advisory board, and the funder to identify evaluation questions. Through this stakeholder engagement process, three primary questions emerge: (1) Do clients show significant reductions in substance use frequency at 3-month and 6-month follow-up? (2) Do clients demonstrate improvements in psychosocial functioning? (3) Is the program cost-effective relative to comparable services in the region?

Three evaluation questions defined through stakeholder collaboration
2
Step 2 — Review the Logic Model and Select Measures

The evaluator reviews the program's logic model: inputs include licensed counselors, group rooms, and curricula; activities include 3× weekly group therapy, individual counseling, and drug screening; expected outcomes include reduced substance use, improved functioning, and fewer ER visits. The evaluator selects validated measures: the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) for substance use, the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) for functioning, and program financial records for cost data. The evaluation design is a one-group pretest-posttest with 6-month follow-up, supplemented by qualitative exit interviews.

Validated instruments selected: ASI, WHODAS 2.0; pre-post design with follow-up
3
Step 3 — Collect and Analyze Data

Over the evaluation period, 84 clients enrolled in the IOP. Pretest ASI composite scores averaged 0.42 (SD = 0.15), while 3-month posttest scores averaged 0.28 (SD = 0.14). Using Cohen's d: d = (0.42 − 0.28) / √((0.15² + 0.14²) / 2) = 0.14 / 0.145 ≈ 0.97. This represents a large effect size. The evaluator also calculates the RCI for individual clients to identify the proportion showing clinically reliable improvement, finding that 62% (52/84) exceeded the RCI threshold of 1.96.

Cohen's d ≈ 0.97 (large effect); 62% of clients showed reliable change
4
Step 4 — Assess Cost-Effectiveness

The total program cost for the evaluation period was $378,000 (including staff salaries, facility costs, and materials). With 52 clients achieving clinically significant improvement, the cost-effectiveness ratio is CER = $378,000 / 52 = $7,269 per successful outcome. Compared to inpatient treatment programs in the region averaging $15,000–$25,000 per client episode, the IOP demonstrates favorable cost-effectiveness for clients who respond positively to outpatient-level care.

CER = $7,269 per successful outcome — favorable vs. inpatient alternatives
5
Step 5 — Interpret, Report, and Recommend

The evaluator prepares a comprehensive report. Strengths include the large effect size and favorable cost-effectiveness. Limitations include the absence of a comparison group (threatening internal validity), significant attrition (24 clients did not complete post-testing), and the short follow-up period. Qualitative interviews revealed that clients valued the peer support component but found scheduling inflexible. Recommendations include continued funding, adding evening sessions to improve retention, implementing a waitlist control design for the next evaluation cycle, and tracking 12-month outcomes.

Report delivered with evidence-based recommendations for program continuation and improvement

SECTION 7

Strengths, Limitations, & Ethical Considerations

Program evaluation in behavioral health occupies a unique position at the intersection of research methodology, clinical practice, and organizational management. Each evaluation approach carries distinct advantages and vulnerabilities that the competent evaluator must weigh carefully. Furthermore, ethical considerations—many of which parallel those in clinical research—permeate every phase of the evaluation process.

Dimension	Strengths	Limitations / Challenges
RCT Designs	Highest internal validity; strong causal inference; controls for confounds through randomization	Often unethical in clinical settings (withholding treatment); expensive; limited ecological validity; selection bias if clients refuse randomization
Quasi-Experimental	Practical for real-world settings; preserves treatment access; can use existing comparison groups	Vulnerable to selection bias; groups may differ on unmeasured variables; requires statistical controls (e.g., propensity score matching)
Pre-Post (No Control)	Simple; low cost; feasible with small programs; no ethical issues regarding withholding treatment	Cannot rule out maturation, history, regression to the mean; weak causal claims; most common but least rigorous design
Qualitative Methods	Rich contextual understanding; captures client voice; identifies implementation barriers; flexible and emergent	Subjective interpretation; limited generalizability; time-intensive analysis; may not satisfy funders who require quantitative outcome data
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis	Directly informs resource allocation; compelling to funders and policymakers; allows cross-program comparison	Difficulty monetizing behavioral health outcomes; may reduce complex human changes to simplistic ratios; risk of privileging efficiency over equity

Comparative strengths and limitations of evaluation designs commonly used in behavioral health

⚖️

ETHICAL IMPERATIVES IN PROGRAM EVALUATION

Program evaluators in behavioral health must navigate several ethical tensions. The APA Ethics Code and the American Evaluation Association's Guiding Principles both emphasize respect for participants, informed consent, confidentiality, and attention to cultural context. A particularly salient tension arises when evaluation findings suggest a program is ineffective: the evaluator has an obligation to report accurately, even when findings threaten the program's funding or organizational relationships. Conversely, evaluators must guard against evaluator bias—the temptation to design or interpret evaluations in ways that favor a predetermined conclusion, whether positive or negative. Maintaining independence, transparency, and methodological rigor is essential for the evaluation's credibility and ultimately for the welfare of the clients the program serves.

SECTION 8

Connection to Advanced Theory & Contemporary Practice

Program evaluation has evolved significantly from its early emphasis on simple outcome measurement. Contemporary approaches in behavioral health integrate sophisticated theoretical frameworks, advanced methodologies, and a heightened awareness of social justice concerns. Understanding these advanced connections positions the developing psychologist not only for success on the EPPP but also for leadership in shaping effective, equitable behavioral health services.

Traditional Approach	Contemporary / Advanced Approach	Key Advancement
Expert-driven evaluation; evaluator determines all questions and methods	Participatory evaluation; stakeholders co-design evaluation with evaluator	Increased relevance, ownership, and utilization of findings
One-size-fits-all outcome measurement	Culturally responsive evaluation; equity-focused outcome analysis	Examines differential outcomes across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups
Summative focus; evaluation occurs at program end	Developmental evaluation (Patton); continuous feedback in complex adaptive systems	Supports innovation and adaptation in rapidly changing environments
Single-site, program-level analysis	Implementation science; studying how EBPs are adopted across contexts	Bridges the research-practice gap; focuses on scalability and sustainability
Paper-based data collection at discrete time points	Routine outcome monitoring (ROM); real-time digital data dashboards	Enables session-by-session tracking; supports measurement-based care

Evolution from traditional to contemporary program evaluation approaches

A particularly important contemporary development is the integration of program evaluation with implementation science. While traditional program evaluation asks "Did this program work?" implementation science asks "How and why does this program work (or fail) when transported to new settings?" This shift reflects the field's recognition that evidence-based practices often lose effectiveness during real-world dissemination due to contextual factors, organizational barriers, and adaptations that compromise fidelity. For psychologists in behavioral health, competency in both program evaluation and implementation science is increasingly essential for ensuring that effective interventions reach the populations who need them most.

ℹ

EPPP Application Note

On the EPPP Part 2 (Skills), you may be presented with vignettes requiring you to select appropriate evaluation designs, identify threats to validity in proposed evaluations, interpret outcome data, or recommend program modifications based on evaluation findings. Focus on demonstrating your ability to integrate methodological knowledge with practical constraints and ethical reasoning. The examiners value nuanced responses that acknowledge trade-offs between rigor and feasibility.

SECTION 9

Practice Problems

Question 1: CONCEPTUAL

A community mental health center is planning to launch a new peer support program for individuals with serious mental illness. The program director asks you, as the consulting psychologist, to help plan an evaluation. She states: "We want to know if the program works." Explain why this question is insufficient for designing a rigorous evaluation and describe at least three specific, evaluable questions you would recommend instead.

Show answer

The question "Does it work?" is insufficient because it is vague, lacks specificity about outcomes, timeframes, and populations, and conflates several distinct evaluation questions into one. A rigorous evaluation requires operationally defined questions. Three more specific alternatives would be: (1) "Do participants show a statistically significant reduction in psychiatric hospitalization rates at 6-month and 12-month follow-up compared to a matched comparison group?" (a summative outcome question); (2) "Is the program being implemented with fidelity to the peer support model, including adherence to training protocols and appropriate role boundaries?" (a process/fidelity question); and (3) "Do participants from different racial and ethnic backgrounds experience equitable access to and outcomes from the program?" (an equity-focused question). Each of these can be operationalized with specific measures, designs, and decision criteria, whereas the original question cannot.

Question 2: BASIC CALCULATION

A depression treatment program reports the following data: Pretest PHQ-9 mean = 17.4 (SD = 4.8), Posttest PHQ-9 mean = 10.2 (SD = 5.1). Calculate the within-group effect size (Cohen's d) for this pre-post comparison and interpret the result using Cohen's conventions.

Show answer

Using the pooled standard deviation: SD_pooled = √((4.8² + 5.1²) / 2) = √((23.04 + 26.01) / 2) = √(24.525) ≈ 4.95. Cohen's d = (17.4 − 10.2) / 4.95 = 7.2 / 4.95 ≈ 1.45. According to Cohen's conventions (0.2 = small, 0.5 = medium, 0.8 = large), this represents a very large effect size, suggesting that the program produced substantial reductions in depressive symptom severity. However, because this is a pre-post design without a control group, the effect size cannot be attributed solely to the program—maturation, regression to the mean, and other threats to internal validity must be considered.

Question 3: INTERMEDIATE

You are evaluating an anxiety reduction program using a one-group pretest-posttest design. Your data show a statistically significant reduction in GAD-7 scores (p < .01). However, during the evaluation period, a major employer in the community announced it would not be conducting layoffs, reducing economic uncertainty for many program participants. A colleague argues this invalidates your findings. Identify the specific threat to internal validity at play, explain how it could account for the observed improvement, and propose a design modification for the next evaluation cycle that would partially address this threat.

Show answer

The specific threat to internal validity is history—an external event (the layoff announcement) co-occurring with the program that could independently account for the reduction in anxiety symptoms. Because economic uncertainty is a well-documented contributor to generalized anxiety, the removal of that stressor could plausibly reduce GAD-7 scores regardless of program participation. This threat cannot be ruled out in a one-group pretest-posttest design because there is no comparison group experiencing the same historical event without the intervention. To partially address this threat, the evaluator could implement a non-equivalent control group design in the next cycle, recruiting a comparison group from a demographically similar community served by a different agency. Both groups would experience the same macroeconomic conditions, so any differential improvement in the treatment group could be more confidently attributed to the program. An interrupted time series design with multiple pre-intervention and post-intervention data points would also help distinguish program effects from historical trends.

Question 4: APPLIED

You are hired to evaluate a school-based suicide prevention program that has been operating for three years. The program serves 800 students annually across four high schools. The program director wants a rigorous outcome evaluation but faces several constraints: (a) the school board will not allow randomized assignment of students to a no-treatment control group, (b) the budget for evaluation is $25,000, and (c) the program uses a proprietary curriculum with no published psychometric data on its assessment tools. Design a feasible evaluation plan that addresses these constraints while maximizing methodological rigor.

Show answer

Given the constraints, a quasi-experimental design is the most appropriate approach. The evaluator could use a non-equivalent control group design by identifying two comparable high schools in the district or a neighboring district that do not implement the program, matching them on demographics, baseline risk indicators, and school size. For measurement, because the proprietary tools lack psychometric support, the evaluator should supplement or replace them with validated instruments such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) for ideation screening and the Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised (SBQ-R) for broader risk assessment. To manage the $25,000 budget, the evaluator could use group-administered surveys rather than individual interviews, leverage existing school data (disciplinary records, counselor referrals, absenteeism) as secondary outcome indicators, and train school counselors in data collection to reduce personnel costs. A mixed-methods component using brief focus groups with a subset of students would provide qualitative context. The evaluation should include pre-program and post-program assessments at each school, with the comparison schools assessed on the same timeline. Analysis using ANCOVA controlling for pretest scores and demographic variables would strengthen causal inference within the quasi-experimental framework.

Question 5: CRITICAL THINKING

A state behavioral health authority commissions you to evaluate whether its system of community-based services is reducing racial disparities in treatment outcomes. The system includes 42 agencies serving approximately 15,000 clients annually across diverse geographic regions. Discuss the theoretical frameworks you would draw upon, the evaluation design considerations unique to equity-focused evaluation, the types of data you would need, and at least two ethical tensions you would anticipate in conducting this evaluation.

Show answer

This evaluation would draw on culturally responsive evaluation (CRE) frameworks as articulated by Stafford Hood and Rodney Hopson, which center cultural context, power dynamics, and community participation in evaluation design and interpretation. Additionally, the RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) would provide a structure for examining not just whether outcomes differ across racial groups, but whether the system equitably reaches, serves, and retains diverse populations. Design considerations unique to equity-focused evaluation include: disaggregating all outcome data by race, ethnicity, language, and geography; analyzing access metrics (referral-to-enrollment ratios, wait times) across groups; examining within-group variation to avoid monolithic characterizations of racial categories; and using multilevel modeling to account for the nested structure of clients within agencies within regions. Data needs include client-level demographic and outcome data from all 42 agencies (requiring a standardized data infrastructure), community-level epidemiological data on behavioral health need by race, workforce diversity data, and qualitative data from clients and community members about barriers and facilitators to culturally appropriate care. Two key ethical tensions: First, the tension between transparency and stigmatization—reporting racial disparities in outcomes could be used to stigmatize communities rather than to improve services, requiring careful framing and community input on dissemination. Second, the tension between standardized measurement and cultural validity—instruments validated predominantly on White samples may not accurately capture outcomes for diverse populations, yet using different measures across groups compromises comparability. The evaluator must navigate these tensions through participatory methods, community oversight, and a commitment to using findings for system improvement rather than punitive accountability.

SUMMARY

Lesson Summary

Summary

Program evaluation is the systematic process of assessing the design, implementation, and outcomes of behavioral health services. Its foundations include the logic model (linking inputs → activities → outputs → outcomes → impact), the distinction between formative evaluation (improving a program during implementation) and summative evaluation (judging overall effectiveness), and the hierarchy of evaluation types: needs assessment, process evaluation, outcome evaluation, and efficiency analysis. Key quantitative tools include Cohen's d effect size, the Reliable Change Index, and cost-effectiveness ratios.

Competent evaluators engage stakeholders throughout the evaluation process, select designs that balance internal validity with practical and ethical constraints, use validated measures, and attend to cultural responsiveness and health equity. Contemporary advances—including implementation science, participatory evaluation, developmental evaluation, and routine outcome monitoring—extend these foundations into a dynamic, equity-oriented practice that positions psychologists as leaders in ensuring that behavioral health services genuinely serve the populations they are designed to help.