JEDI-CAB: A Quality Framework for Equitable Work

Justice. Equity. Dignity. Inclusion. Within a Culture of Accessibility and Belonging. | JJRconsulting

What JEDI-CAB is and why it matters here

JEDI-CAB is the quality framework that guided the development of every resource in this EJ training collection. It is not a checklist to complete at the end of a project. It is an operating lens, a set of questions designed to be asked early and often so that the work itself reflects the values it describes.

JEDI-CAB was developed by JJRconsulting and is grounded in established research traditions including the GARE Racial Equity Toolkit, Targeted Universalism (john a. powell), the Dignity Model (Dr. Donna Hicks), Universal Design for Learning (CAST), Psychological Safety research (Amy Edmondson) and trauma-informed care principles (SAMHSA). Each dimension has a research base and a practical application.

This page explains what each dimension means in practice, shows how JEDI-CAB was applied to the EJ training resources you are exploring and offers prompts you can use to apply the framework to your own work.

The seven dimensions of JEDI-CAB

Click any dimension to explore its research foundation and practical application. The first four (JEDI) are the active drivers of equitable transformation. They operate within a Culture of Accessibility and Belonging (CAB), which is what determines whether change actually takes root.

How JEDI-CAB shaped these EJ training resources

Every resource in this collection was developed with JEDI-CAB as an active design lens. Here is how each dimension informed the work:

Justice shaped the content selection

We asked: whose knowledge is centered? Whose perspectives might be missing? This led us to include community organizers alongside academics, to track which states are advancing EJ policy and which are not and to surface the power dynamics embedded in environmental decision-making.

Example: The glossary includes terms like "sacrifice zone" and "environmental racism" because naming structural harm is a prerequisite for addressing it.

Equity shaped the design for different starting points

We asked: are we designing for people with different levels of EJ knowledge? This led to the tiered structure (definitions, context, evolving perspectives, MA-specific guidance) so readers can engage at whatever depth serves them.

Example: Each glossary term includes both a formal definition and a "for MA staff" section that connects the concept to state-level practice.

Dignity shaped how we represent scholars and communities

We asked: are we valuing what people bring, especially those historically excluded? This led to asset-framed language throughout, presenting scholars as contributors and communities as experts in their own experience, not passive subjects.

Example: State profiles use "Leading the Way," "Building Momentum" and "Laying the Foundation" instead of numbered rankings.

Inclusion shaped whose voices are present

We asked: whose voices are present and whose are missing? This led to the "living resource" disclaimer on every page and the invitation for users to recommend additions, because these collections grow stronger with more perspectives.

Example: Every page includes a direct invitation for input, not just a feedback form but a genuine statement that the resource is incomplete by design.

Culture shaped the tone and psychological safety

We asked: does this create a psychologically safe learning environment? This led to the approach of presenting evolving perspectives on contested terms, acknowledging that the EJ field is not monolithic and that learning requires space for complexity.

Example: The glossary's "Evolving Perspectives" section for each term honors the reality that language and meaning shift over time.

Accessibility shaped the information architecture

We asked: can everyone participate fully? This led to searchable interfaces, category filters, alphabetical ordering, expandable cards (so users control information density), and plain-language descriptions alongside technical definitions.

Example: Every page has a search box, category filters and letter navigation so users can find what they need without scrolling through everything.

Belonging shaped the overall framing

We asked: will people feel seen, valued and respected when they use these resources? This led to the "what this resource is and how to use it" purpose statements, the cross-linking between pages and the consistent invitation for community input throughout.

Example: The purpose block on every page answers "what, why, how to use and how to provide input" so no one has to guess whether this resource is for them.

JEDI-CAB prompts for your own work

Use these questions when developing training materials, policies, communications or any work product. You do not need to include a visible JEDI-CAB section in every output. But every output should be shaped by these questions.

Click any prompt to copy it.

Help this framework evolve

JEDI-CAB is a living framework, just like the resources it shaped. Your experience applying it to real work will make it stronger. We especially want to hear from people who:

Found a dimension that was missing or underdeveloped for their context
Discovered a question that should be added to the prompt list
Applied JEDI-CAB to a training module or policy document and learned something about how the framework works (or does not work) in practice
Have recommendations for research, tools or resources that should be connected to specific dimensions

Share your input through your OEJE liaison, training team contact or by reaching out to JJRconsulting directly.