1.2.c. Outcome measures to monitor School effectiveness in meeting its mission, goals and objectives.
Outcome Indicators and targets have been established to measure progress-to-goal and are noted, where possible, for a three-year period in the Outcomes Grid in Appendix 1.2.c. and within each section as appropriate. Some outcomes are not easily measured quantitatively or current data systems may not be available. Thus, in addition to quantitative measures, stories of impact and outcome are integrated throughout this report. Targets for each outcome indicator were established by reviewing national norms and historical data from the School. Consensus by the Executive Team resulted in confirmation of the targets. In some instances the School has exceeded future targets in areas where national trends suggest outcomes will be challenged (e.g. sponsored grant dollars per full-time faculty member).
1.2.d. An analytical self-study document that provides a qualitative and quantitative assessment of how the School achieves its mission, goals and objectives and meets all accreditation criteria
The School has found the self-study to be an excellent evaluation process, enabling a review of the organization and consideration of strengths, weaknesses and action steps. Included at the end of every section is the self-assessment summary of School strengths and weaknesses in reference to the accreditation criteria.
1.2.e. An analysis of the School’s responses to recommendations in the last accreditation report (if any).
Criterion IV met with commentary: The School shall have resources adequate to fulfill its mission, goals and objectives.
The School has adequate resources to meet its mission,goals and objectives.
The School continues to be challenged by its physical dispersion, but it manages and functions well through electronic communications and shuttle service connecting dispersed locations.
State funding continues to be limited, but tuition income has more than doubled over the past five years. In addition, enrollment, a concern during the last accreditation, is now more than 1,000, up from 346 in 1999
Criteria V.B. merits commentary on practice experience: Each professional degree program shall assure that each student develops understanding basic to public health, acquires skills and experience in applying public health concepts and demonstrates knowledge through a culminating experience.
The School’s Student Services Center and program coordinators have strengthened and unified the policies and procedures for field placement. A new online field placement Web site has also served as a driving force in developing unified requirements, clear guidelines and an excellent tracking and feedback system. The School has addressed concerns cited regarding variability of field experience documentation.
Criteria V.C. met with commentary: Each program and area of specialization shall have clear learning objectives.
The School has continued to develop a competency-based curricula. All majors have identified a set of specialty competencies that build upon the core competencies required of all professional students. Learning objectives are identified in all course syllabi and practicum experiences that contribute to attainment of competencies. These objectives are required for all students within an area of study and are available in the student guidebook as curricula sheets and as a competency matrix online.
VII partially met: The School shall pursue an active service program.
In response to the CEPH accreditation report, the School invested substantial time and money to establish a central, coordinated professional service and outreach program. The result of this process, the Centers for Public Health Education and Outreach (CPHEO), has become the School’s chief platform connecting public health research, education and practice, particularly for the states of Minnesota, North Dakota and Wisconsin. In addition to investment of School resources during the past five years, faculty and public health professionals have collaborated to secure funding for workforce development amounting to approximately $2.5 million annually. The School has served over 50,000 students and community members through professional development and outreach activities in the past five years.
VIII.C. met with commentary: The School shall recruit, retain and promote a diverse faculty.
The School has policies and guidance in place to assure equal opportunities to all persons. These are based on the essential principle that the School should appropriately reflect the diversity of the society it serves. This principle is manifested in guidance that aggressively seeks qualified candidates from under-represented populations through publication of special notices, network dissemination, committee make-up of diverse constituents and ongoing dialogue to enhance School culture. The School has made substantial progress in gender diversity with approximately 45 percent of the faculty now female. Ethnic diversity continues to be a challenge in a state where people of color are 11 percent of the population.
Criteria X.A. met with commentary. The School shall have explicit processes for evaluating its efforts.
Assessment and evaluation occur at the Division level on a continuous basis through monthly faculty meetings. As suggested in the last review, the Compact Process instituted in 1999 has provided a successful mechanism for School-wide assessment and evaluation. The Compact Process provides opportunities to tie planning to resources and to achieve an integrated School-wide perspective. In addition, the University’s recent “Transforming the University” strategic planning process has engaged the School as an active partner in this extensive evaluation, providing a means by which the School, Divisions and partners can engage.
1.2.f. Description of the process used for the self-study
The self-study process began in November 2005 with the Dean’s appointment of the School’s Accreditation Working Group and the assignment of staff. A four-phase process ensued:
Phase One
January 2006: Data gathering and development of self-study draft.
Each member of the Working Group took responsibility for gathering information to address specific accreditation criteria. Meetings throughout this phase were generally one-on-one, small groups and regular meetings of the Executive Team.
Phase Two
June 2006: Critical review of the School and the draft self-study document.
Review meetings were held with Accreditation Working Group members and the Executive Team to discuss content changes and to review the School’s strengths, weaknesses and action steps for improvement. Suggested changes were made to the document and current processes of the School.
July – October 2006: Wide audience review and stakeholder discussions.
Faculty, staff, students and the larger public health community were invited to review and comment on the self-study document. Drafts were available on the School’s Web site, and print versions were provided for those who requested a copy. Comments were solicited and inserted into the final document.
School committee reviews included the following:
— The Educational Policy Committee (which includes Major Chairpersons), along with Directors of Graduate Studies for the various academic degree programs, reviewed educational components during the process and the entire document prior to completion. They contributed to the production of portions of the report relevant to the respective curricula.
— The Policy Council reviewed the self-study for vision and mission alignment with School priorities.
— The Faculty Consultative Committee reviewed sections of the final draft for accuracy and policy.
— The Research and Education Advisory Partnership also reviewed the document for community stakeholder evaluation.
Phase Three
September-October, 2006: Refinement of the preliminary self-study and development of web-based materials.
Phase Four
November 2006-January 2007: Preliminary self-study under review by CEPH
January – March 2007: Refinement of the final self-study document, final approval by the Dean and Executive Team, print and web-based resources final, highlights and invitation for comment online and sent to faculty, staff, students, community partners and alumni email list.
The School’s Accreditation Working Group:
John Finnegan, Jr., Dean
Debra Olson, Associate Dean and Accreditation Director
Judith Garrard, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Research
William Riley, Associate Dean for Student Affairs
Joe Weisenburger, Director for Finance
Joan Pasiuk, Director, Student Services Center
Judith Peterson, Administrative Director for Human Resources
Rickey Hall, Director of Recruitment and Multicultural Services through 2006
Joe Mayo-Cullen, Marketing and Business Manager, Centers for Public Health Education and Outreach
Diana Harvey, Director of Advancement Services
Mary Hourigan, Privacy Officer and Staff on Accreditation through 2006
Amy Scheller, Assistant Ed Specialist and Lead Staff on Accreditation
1.2.g. This criterion is met.
Strengths
The School is actively and continually involved in evaluation and planning. All constituents are involved for continuous improvement. The School has fully responded to recommendations in the last accreditation report.
Evaluation and planning are carried out at multiple levels year-round: University, Academic Health Center, School, Division, academic major and individual. Every five years, the School conducts a comprehensive strategic planning process. And every seven years, it conducts an in-depth self-study as part of the accreditation process.
The School achieved the essence of all of the goals set forth in its 1999 strategic plan – and it has implemented changes based on all recommendations made in the last accreditation report.
Weaknesses
Methods for gathering evaluation and planning input from public health employers is not formalized across the School.
Limited data collection systems restrict the School’s ability to quantify
progress – and set measurable Outcome Indicators – in some areas.
Recommendations
Implement structured methods, such as regular surveys of public health employers, to increase opportunities for input on School outcomes.
Explore expanded easy-to-use digital technologies to increase response to evaluation and planning efforts.
Review integration of data systems for compilation and coordination of assessment and evaluation
Return to: School of Public Health : Academic Health Center : myU : U of M Home
