Social Justice and the Political Organization of Behavior Analysts: Changing the Institutional Practices of a Brazilian Association

Perkoski et al. (2024) watched one national ABA board change its own rules. The board is the Brazilian Association for Behavioral Psychology and Medicine. The goal was to make leadership and events fairer for women, Black members, and caregivers.

The authors wrote down every new rule. Examples: no president can serve two terms in a row, every annual meeting must offer caregiver grants, and at least half of keynote slots go to under-represented groups. No clients were treated; this is a pure case study of bylaws.

The paper lists the new rules but gives no outcome numbers. We do not know if more women or Black behavior analysts actually joined the board. The study simply shows how an association can bake equity into its charter.

Deochand et al. (2022) drew the blueprint. Their 2022 paper told clinicians to weave social justice into every ABA plan. Perkoski et al. (2024) took the same idea and moved it upstairs—into boardrooms instead of therapy rooms.

Zarcone et al. (2019) said treat diversity like a behavior target: define it, measure it, change it. The Brazilian board did exactly that by writing measurable quotas into its policies.

Rogers et al. (2025) extends the story. New York’s state board added one voting parent member and quickly won insurance mandates. Brazil used term-limit rules; New York used a consumer seat. Both show that small charter edits can yield big policy wins.

If you sit on any ABA board—state, regional, or SIG—you can copy-paste these bylaws next quarter. Add a caregiver grant line, lock in speaker quotas, or bar back-to-back presidencies. You do not need new data; you need a motion and a second. These tiny rule tweaks can open leadership doors that have stayed closed since Kleinert et al. (2007) first counted the gaps.