RSPH

CRITERION X – EVALUATION AND PLANNING

B. SELF-STUDY PROCESS AND DOCUMENTATION

X.B.1 Provisions of documentation expected

“Expected Documentation” is included in this document or, where indicated, is

available on the school’s website or on site.

X.B.2 Self-study process

Participants and Roles

The Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs provided oversight to a process managed by a senior staff administrator in the school.

A Self-Assessment Steering Committee, consisting of faculty, students, staff, alumni, administrators, and practitioners from the public health community was responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this self-assessment document. Selected because they represented key constituencies and departments, steering committee member responsibilities included guiding the working group; reviewing and providing detailed feedback on the document and the process; encouraging peer review of and comment on the document; identifying school strengths and weaknesses; and making recommendations for improvement. An RSPH Self-Assessment Steering Committee member list is included in Appendix X.B.2.

Three associate/assistant deans and three administrative assistants joined the Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and the managing administrator to form a Self-Assessment Working Group. Responsibilities included recruiting and launching the Self-Assessment Steering Committee; scheduling and facilitating steering committee meetings; gathering background data; preparing document drafts for steering committee review; incorporating detailed steering committee and constituent feedback into the document; and communicating the self-assessment process and progress to the school and community. A list of Self-Assessment Working Group members is included in Appendix X.B.2.

Key Self-Assessment Process Dates

Timeframe / Activity
Spring 2003 / Working group developed self-study approach
Summer 2003 / Steering committee was recruited and monthly meetings were initiated
Fall 2003 / Self-assessment process was launched at the faculty retreat, with a faculty review of the school’s mission, goals and objectives
Continuation
Timeframe / Activity
Fall 2003 – Spring 2004 / Steering committee systematically reviewed, edited and rewrote working drafts of document, identified school strengths and
weaknesses, and made recommendations for improvement
Fall 2003 – Spring 2004 / Document drafts were posted on the school’s website, and
comments were invited
Spring 2004 / Steering Committee and constituent comments were incorporated
Summer 2004 / Preliminary self-assessment document was submitted to CEPH
Summer 2004 / Preliminary document was distributed to 54 RSPH and community stakeholders for comment; final copy was posted on website; notice was put in Atlanta Journal Constitution
Fall 2004 / Preliminary document was updated based on CEPH feedback and comments from constituents
Fall 2004 / Document and process was communicated to faculty, staff, students and community members

Minutes of monthly steering committee meetings detailing the self-assessment and document preparation process, and the self-study communication plan and activities are available on site.

X.B.3 Analysis of school’s responses to recommendations in last accreditation

report

The school responded to principal criticisms, concerns, and suggestions included in the Council on Education for Public Health Site Visit Report, based on its March 1997 visit and review of the previous self study.

CEPH identified the following deficiencies in V.B, VII and X, which were deemed “partially met.” The school addressed these deficiencies in the following manner:

Criterion V.B

Criticism: MSPH students are not required to develop an understanding of all five areas of knowledge basic to public health, i.e., are not required to enroll in core courses.

All MPH and MSPH students and dual-degree students must achieve the specific learning objectives for the five core areas of public health, as described in detail in Criterion V.B. The school’s catalog and web information make enrollment in the core courses an explicit requirement.

Criticism: Requirements for a field experience are not uniformly applied and the process of monitoring and evaluating the experiences across departments is not well developed. The school lacks well-established policies, procedures and criteria for the selection of field placements and preceptors.

All students are required to complete a practicum or field placement unless explicitly exempted. Policies and procedures pertaining to the selection of field placements and preceptors and for seeking exemption are described in V.B.2 of this document and are included in the Student Handbook and posted on the web. The school developed an electronic practicum database to track field placement sites, practicum objectives, preceptors, and evaluations of student experiences. Appendix V.B.3 contains examples of reports available from this database, which is available on the school’s website.

Criterion VII

Criticism: There is insufficient documentation of the faculty’s involvement in service, “service” is poorly defined and there are no formal policies for fulfilling the service part of its mission.

An annual report completed by all full-time faculty members (see Appendix X.A.1) includes individual service activities. Information provided is used to prepare the department’s annual report, which is incorporated in the school’s Annual Report. The school adopted new definitions and guidelines for assessing “excellence” and “adequacy” in service. The guidelines were created and approved by the faculty, and they are included in the school’s current Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. These standards are used for the annual evaluation of faculty performance and state that faculty must be at least “adequate” in service. Finally, the school created the position of Associate Dean for Applied Public Health to initiate and coordinate programs that link the school with the public health community. The programs associated with this office and the office’s functions in the school are described in several sections of this document.

Criticism: The school lacks a formal policy to guide the development of continuing education.

Under the direction of the Associate Dean for Applied Public Health, the school developed a broad continuing education program and partners with numerous community organizations, agencies, and professional groups in their planning and development. A Director of Continuing Education was appointed to oversee the programs. Data describing recent continuing education activities are found in Criterion VII.1 and the associated appendices. With the development of the Career MPH Program, experienced full-time public health workers can now enroll in a program that features episodic on-campus instruction with web-based instruction.

Criterion X

Criticism: There is little evidence that information gathered from surveys of the school’s constituencies are systematically evaluated and used to strengthen the work of the school.

The Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs monitors department responses to student course evaluations. The two-step process requires the course instructor to inform the chair how potential problems will be addressed, and the chair to review the instructional program. Student Exit Survey results are shared with faculty and administrators and are assessed and used in making program changes and/or revising annual school objectives. The school is attempting to increase alumni survey response rates so that it can reliably use Recent Graduate Survey findings in a similar fashion to strengthen the school. Course evaluation, Exit Survey and Recent Graduate Survey results and related reports are on file and available on site.

CEPH also made recommendations for improvement in several criteria deemed “substantially met,” which the school found useful. Here are selected examples of the opportunities identified by CEPH and the school’s response:

Criterion I

Criticism: Objectives are not measurable

In subsequent years, the school annually set specific measurable objectives. At the end of each academic year, the school reports in writing on whether, and the extent to which, objectives are achieved. It then sets revised objectives for the following year. The school’s Annual Report, described in X.A.1, includes the assessment of the extent to which specific objectives are achieved along with the revised objectives. Annual Reports are available on site.

Criterion III

Criticism: Mechanism for formal input of faculty into school decision making is unclear and a well-defined Faculty Senate has not been fully established.

A Faculty Senate, with representation from all departments, has been functioning. A representative attends regularly scheduled meetings with the Dean and the Chairs Group. The school provides the senate with an annual budget of $10,000 to use at its discretion. A description of the senate and its governance functions are included in Criterion III.1, and a membership list and summary of the senate’s roles and responsibilities may be found in Appendix III.1.

Criticism: Community representatives provide input to the school informally, but expressed a need to establish more formal linkages with the school.

A Community Advisory Network was formed to communicate with public health employers and community leaders on issues affecting the long-term success of the RSPH. In addition, a Dean’s Council of community leaders was formed to advise the Dean on resources available for the advancement and development of programs and school priorities. Both of these advisory groups are described in III.2.

Criterion V.C

Criticism: The learning objectives are uneven in specificity between departments and course learning objectives do not relate to program objectives.

Learning objectives for the school (all MPH and MSPH students) are periodically reviewed and revised by the school’s Curriculum Committee, most recently in 2003. Departments reviewed and revised program objectives, and the Curriculum Committee examined their revisions for consistency and relevance to the school’s learning objectives. Faculty members who had not already done so revised their course syllabi to reflect program learning objectives. All proposed new courses reviewed by the Curriculum Committee must list the course learning objectives and how they relate to program objectives. Further information about how learning objectives are developed is provided in Criterion V.C.2 of this document.

Criterion VIII

Criticism: It is difficult to discern the definition of “full-time faculty member,” and there appear to be inadequate numbers of faculty in the Departments of Health Policy and Management and Environmental and Occupational Health.

The definition of a full-time faculty member is provided in VIII.A.1 and is consistently applied throughout this document. Both HPM and EOH have hired additional faculty members, and they now have 26.96 FTEs and 13.42 FTEs, respectively. With these additions, the student/faculty ratios in these two departments are well within the range of other RSPH departments.

X.B.4 Summary of key strengths and areas for future focus

Specific strengths and weaknesses of the Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University are outlined at the conclusions of Criteria I through X.A. of this document. Key themes emerging during this self-assessment process point to the following overall school strengths and areas for future focus:

Key Strengths:

·  The Rollins School of Public Health is driven by its mission to “acquire, disseminate, and apply knowledge, and train leaders to promote health and prevent disease in human populations around the world,” as evidenced by its rapid growth and increasingly recognized strength as a school of public health.

·  The school has recruited a nationally and internationally known faculty that strives for excellence in teaching and service, while achieving a significant expansion in programs of research that directly support the school’s mission.

·  The school’s student body and graduates are a highly diverse and international group that actively demonstrates a strong commitment to the public health service goals of the RSPH.

·  RSPH benefits significantly by being a part of Emory University, a private teaching, research, and service-oriented university that values the RSPH for its unique contributions to its vision of “positive transformation in the world.”

·  The Atlanta public health community offers unparalleled opportunities for teaching, research, and service, and the school has formed very successful local, regional, and global partnerships.

Key Areas for Focus:

·  There is a clear need for additional core financial resources to help the school to achieve the highest level of academic excellence. As a private university, the school must generate its own resources, which are presently primarily derived from tuition, indirect research costs and unrestricted endowment income. The level of endowment income significantly impacts faculty salary support decisions, student recruitment practices, the availability of student financial aid, and the school’s ability to invest in new programs.

·  Although the school has a relatively new building, programs are now housed in five different locations and laboratory space is saturated. Office, classroom and laboratory space expansion will be required to accommodate the desired increase in teaching, research and service activities.

·  Information technology resources must be continuously upgraded to support teaching and to meet the requirements of a major research university. Even average resource expenditures in this area will be insufficient for the school to maintain its position in the next decade.

·  The school should maintain and expand its significant people assets, by continuing to attract and retain nationally and internationally known faculty, and by recruiting and enrolling a student body that is increasingly qualified to take advantage of the school’s programs and to develop competence for a career in public health.

Summary

The Rollins School of Public Health aspires to excellence through its mission of promoting health and preventing disease in human populations around the world. In support of that mission, the school entered into this self-assessment process with a commitment to identify its key strengths and weaknesses, and to develop recommendations that would help it achieve its mission.

The school’s greatest strengths include its high-quality, productive faculty; its diverse and active student body and graduates; its unparalleled Atlanta public health environment; and its overall character of commitment and dedication. These attributes, combined with its demonstrated ability to identify and seize new opportunities as they arise, position it well for the future. To achieve the highest level of excellence in teaching, research and service, the school will focus on addressing the weaknesses and corresponding recommendations articulated in Criteria I through X, and summarized above.

X.B.5 Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met

This criterion is met.

172