1.2.a. Evaluation procedures and planning processes
The School employs a year-round, multi-level planning and evaluation process. This includes active participation in the University’s strategic planning and Compact processes, School Unit or Division reviews and personnel reviews, as well as the annual faculty retreat and ad hoc planning groups. Faculty and administration undergo several levels of evaluation, some at the University and School levels and others at the Division and academic major level.
University-level evaluation and planning processes
The University’s Strategic Planning Process: Transforming the University (http://www1.umn.edu/systemwide/strategic_positioning/) is a planning process aimed at moving the University and School toward a broad, innovative vision of the future. Many School faculty and staff have participated as members and chairs of task forces in the process, which aims, among other things, to transform the University into one of the top three public research universities in the world. Over 300 University and community partners worked from November 2005 to May 2006 to gather data and formulate recommendations for action. The Academic Health Center (AHC), of which the School is a part, led four of the task force initiatives (Knowledge Management, Clinical Science Enterprise, Health Professionals Workforce and Precinct Plan). In all efforts, internal and external stakeholders were involved as members and reviewers, with public comment solicited online.
The University has begun implementing recommendations submitted by these task forces, with collateral efforts at the AHC and School levels. Leaders continue to evaluate all recommendations to identify key transformational initiatives that will propel the University toward its vision.
The University’s Annual "Compact Process," in place since 1999, coordinates planning and accountability to achieve critical institutional and unit goals. The resulting Compact document is a written agreement – available to the public – between the University’s management and the School (or other college or support unit) that aligns broad University goals with the directions, investments and actions of the School. The Compact Process:
Identifies strategies and partnerships to achieve University-wide goals and priorities using available resources
Identifies areas for investment and/or reallocation
Updates long-range capital and space plans and priorities
Provides a basis for accountability in evaluating performance.
The annual Compact document includes:
A summary of the School’s progress during the previous year
Major goals for the coming year(s)
Action plans to achieve the goals
Descriptions of key University issues as they affect the School.
Review of and input on Compact priorities and action are solicited from the School’s Executive Team and faculty.
School-level evaluation and planning processes
Five-Year Strategic Plan. The School regularly conducts a planning and evaluation process that looks five years into the future. In the 2004-2005 academic year, having accomplished the essence of the goals set out in the 1999 strategic plan, the School, under the leadership of then Interim Dean John Finnegan, began a new strategic planning process. In January 2005, a stakeholders retreat brought together faculty and community partners to lay the groundwork for strategic planning. Data gathered through focused discussions were considered by a School Futures Committee, made up of faculty and a representative from the Minnesota Department of Health. The Futures Committee was established to: develop specific recommendations for investments in critical research areas; consider the School’s inter-disciplinary position and role in the health sciences, the University and the community; and to weigh how investments could strengthen the academic and training programs of the School and the Academic Health Center. Using recommendations from the Futures Committee, the Office of the Dean established new directives to address strategic priorities, including expanding faculty from 95 to a projected 130 members and achieving future excellence through appropriate prioritizing, aimed at strengthening traditional areas of education, research and service and building new ones.
School and Dean. The performance of the Dean and the School is reviewed every five years by a group appointed by the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, with comments solicited from internal and external stakeholders. This review focuses on all aspects of the School’s performance as expressed in the School’s mission, goals and objectives, and tends to be global in its scope. In addition to this extensive evaluation, the Dean also receives an annual performance evaluation by the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, with written input from the School’s Executive Team. Evaluation results are used by the Dean to adjust and align operations to accomplish the School’s mission, goals and objectives.
The Executive Team and faculty members have multiple opportunities to provide comments on the School’s direction and the Dean’s performance through bi-monthly planning meetings and access to the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences.
Division and Division Heads. Reviews of the School’s Divisions, and a major review of each Division Head, are conducted every five years or earlier, if directed by the Dean.
In addition, the performance of each of the Division Heads is evaluated annually by the Dean. This assessment includes feedback from Division faculty, alumni, students, staff, and external constituents, along with an assessment of accomplishments.
Division reviews are assigned to a committee appointed by the Dean and consisting of faculty and staff from the Division, other School Divisions, other University collegiate units and individuals from outside the University (such as local health practitioners, staff from the Minnesota Department of Health, alumni, faculty from other Universities, etc.). Each review is conducted over several months, and a written report of the Division’s performance, its ability to meet the needs of public health and the performance of the Division Head is submitted to the Dean. Division reviews provide valuable information about the management of the Division and its abilities to meet current and future challenges as it addresses its respective components of public health.
Majors. Reviews of academic programs, are conducted by the Graduate School every five to seven years. The reviews strengthen the instructional and research components of the graduate programs and often provide recommendations that benefit other School programs.
Reviews of professional degree programs are conducted periodically by the School’s Educational Policy Committee (EPC) with recommendations to the Major Chair and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs for revision. Competency-based curricula review is ongoing by EPC to ensure alignment of course learning objectives with major program competency sets.
All courses offered for graduate credit in the School, excluding thesis credits and independent studies, are evaluated with written forms provided to each student. Completed forms are returned to the Student Services Center for the compilation of responses. Faculty use course evaluations to modify content and teaching methods and address student concerns. Practicum are evaluated as identified by contract on an individual basis; recommendations are addressed by faculty practicum advisers.
New online course evaluation and practicum tracking systems offer the opportunity for rapid and timely course adjustments.
Faculty. Annual faculty performance evaluations conducted by the Division Heads provide feedback to the individual faculty member about his or her performance against Division and School goals and objectives. Tenure-track faculty are reviewed annually by the School’s Academic Appointment, Promotion and Tenure (APT) Committee for promotion considerations. Tenured faculty are reviewed by the APT Committee every five years under a standardized process known as Post-Tenure Review.
School Staff. Members of the staff receive annual reviews for performance. Their representation at committees allows opportunities for their input into institutional planning and evaluation.
Alumni. The School’s Student Services Center routinely surveys recent graduates for their opinions and comments about the quality of education provided by the School and the applicability of their programs of study to subsequent jobs. Student Services also informally tracks the employment success of recent graduates.
Students. Student course evaluations provide valuable feedback for evaluating School performance and planning future improvements. Informal feedback solicited from students during the advising process, periodic focus group discussions, exit interviews with graduating students and documentation of positions in which graduates are employed also provide important information for planning.
Practice Community. The School uses multiple strategies through which it engages the community in evaluation and planning. Among them are:
Needs assessments conducted in a variety of diverse settings:
— A comprehensive needs assessment was completed by the School’s Centers for Public Health Education and Outreach (CPHEO) in 2003-2006 to identify gaps in the knowledge of public health practitioners in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota in core public health and emergency readiness competencies.
— Ongoing inquiry into the practice and emerging training and education needs is conducted through discussions with members of the advisory boards to the School’s majors and centers and with attendees at major national and regional conferences at which the School exhibits.
An annual survey is conducted of public health professionals (half of whom are alumni) who serve in the School’s mentor program for feedback and program improvement.
A query of advisory board members is conducted during programmatic meetings.
The School formed the Public Health Research and Education Advisors Partnership (REAP) in 2006 to add another venue for community input for evaluation and planning. Those invited to participate include representatives of health systems and a range of communities from the public and private sectors engaged in public health.
1.2.b. How the results of evaluation and planning are used to enhance the quality of programs and activities.
The School’s evaluation and planning processes are used to enhance the quality of its programs in a variety of ways:
Establish new directives to address strategic priorities and achieving future excellence through appropriate prioritizing, aimed at strengthening traditional areas of education, research and service and building new ones.
Continually improve the management and operations of the School and administrative units.
Review of academic programs to strengthen the instructional and practicum components of the programs.
Competency based curricula review has ensured alignment of course learning objectives with major program competency sets.
Review of faculty and staff allows for personnel development and alignment of performance
New online course evaluation and practicum tracking system offers the opportunity for rapid and timely course adjustments.
Feedback obtained from alumni and students during the advising process, focus groups and exit interviews provide information used in planning and continuous quality improvement.
Ongoing inquiry into the emerging training and education needs of the public health workforce provides essential information for new program development.
Please see 1.2.a. above for more information regarding the use of evaluation and planning under each area of review.
Return to: School of Public Health : Academic Health Center : myU : U of M Home
