Objectives This report describes the development and operations of the 2016 National Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services Survey for Office-based Physicians (National CLAS Physician Survey). The survey was developed to understand awareness, adoption, and implementation of the National CLAS Standards in health and health care among office-based physicians. Methods Survey development included a literature review of survey and assessment instruments that evaluated cultural and linguistic appropriateness in health care. Survey questions were pretested during a cognitive interview study of 20 office-based physicians in the District of Columbia metropolitan area. The cognitive interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. The final survey was administered via web, mail, and computer-assisted telephone interview to 2, 400 sampled physicians between August 2016 and December 2016. A nonresponse bias assessment was conducted. Results The literature review identified five survey and assessment instruments. Collectively, survey content included: cultural competency training, cultural awareness, and adoption of the National CLAS Standards. Cognitive interviews showed respondent difficulty in question interpretation and survey completion of some items. Survey revisions addressed these issues. The final overall weighted survey response rate was 33.8%. Final weights produced a lower standardized bias than base weights. Conclusions The National CLAS Physician Survey is the first nationally representative survey to describe the use and implementation of culturally and linguistically appropriate services by office-based physicians. Data can serve as a baseline for future studies and as a benchmark for meeting the key objectives of the National CLAS Standards. © 2025, null. All rights reserved.

Program evaluation is a critical tool for understanding and improving organizational activities and systems. This report updates the 1999 CDC Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health (CDC. Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recomm Rep 1999;48[No. RR-11];1-40) by integrating major advancements in the fields of evaluation and public health, lessons learned from practical applications of the original framework, and current Federal agency policies and practices. A practical, nonprescriptive tool, the updated 2024 framework is designed to summarize and organize essential elements of program evaluation, and can be applied at any level from individual programs to broader systems by novices and experts for planning and implementing an evaluation. Although many of the key aspects from the 1999 framework remain, certain key differences exist. For example, this updated framework also includes six steps that describe the general process of evaluation planning and implementation, but some content and step names have changed (e.g., the first step has been renamed Assess context). The standards for high-quality evaluation remain central to the framework, although they have been updated to the five Federal evaluation standards. The most substantial change from the 1999 framework is the addition of three cross-cutting actions that are core tenets to incorporate within each evaluation step: engage collaboratively, advance equity, and learn from and use insights. The 2024 framework provides a guide for designing and conducting evaluation across many topics within and outside of public health that anyone involved in program evaluation efforts can use alone or in conjunction with other evaluation approaches, tools, or methods to build evidence, understand programs, and refine evidence-based decision-making to improve all program outcomes.