entire self-study report without appendices (pdf, 4.5 mg)

Self-Study Report

Prepared for the Council on

Education for Public Health

October 2009

Improving public health, promoting individual well-being, eliminating health disparities across North Carolina and around the world.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ iii Criterion 1.0 .......................................................................................................................

Criterion 1.1 ................................................................................................................... 1 Criterion 1.2 ................................................................................................................. 13 Criterion 1.3 ................................................................................................................. 33 Criterion 1.4 ................................................................................................................. 41 Criterion 1.5 ................................................................................................................. 51 Criterion 1.6 ................................................................................................................. 71

Criterion 2.0 .......................................................................................................................

Criterion 2.1 ................................................................................................................. 93 Criterion 2.2 ................................................................................................................. 99 Criterion 2.3 ............................................................................................................... 103 Criterion 2.4 ............................................................................................................... 107 Criterion 2.5 ............................................................................................................... 115 Criterion 2.6 ............................................................................................................... 119 Criterion 2.7 ............................................................................................................... 125 Criterion 2.8 ............................................................................................................... 135 Criterion 2.9 ............................................................................................................... 137 Criterion 2.10 ............................................................................................................. 143 Criterion 2.11 ............................................................................................................. 147 Criterion 2.12 ............................................................................................................. 151

Criterion 3.0 .......................................................................................................................

Criterion 3.1 ............................................................................................................... 163 Criterion 3.2 ............................................................................................................... 169 Criterion 3.3 ............................................................................................................... 189

Criterion 4.0 .......................................................................................................................

Criterion 4.1 ............................................................................................................... 223 Criterion 4.2 ............................................................................................................... 231 Criterion 4.3 ............................................................................................................... 241 Criterion 4.4 ............................................................................................................... 251 Criterion 4.5 ............................................................................................................... 265 Criterion 4.6 ............................................................................................................... 275

iii

Acronyms Acronym Meaning AAC Acceleration Advisory Committee AARP Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons ACHE American College of Healthcare Executives ADA American Dietetic Association ADVISE Alumni/Development Visual Inquiry System AHEC Area Health Education Centers AHRQ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ALBD Active Living By Design APC Academic Programs Committee APT Appointments, Promotions and Tenure ART antiretroviral therapy asf Assignable Square Feet ASPH Association of Schools of Public Health ASTHO Association of State and Territorial Health Officials AY Academic Year BAK Be Active Kids BIOL Biology BIOS Biostatistics BIOSIS Biosciences Information Service BSL‐3 Biological Safety Level Three BSPH Bachelor of Science in Public Health BSURE Biostatistics Summer Undergraduate Research and Education CADE Commission on Accreditation for Dietetics Education CAHME Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Management Education CCN Carolina Community Network CDC Center for Disease Control and Prevention CE Continuing Education CEM Certified Emergency Manager CEO Chief Executive Officer CEPH Council on Education for Public Health CEU Continuing Education Units CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHEM Chemistry CINAHL Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature CPHS Carolina Public Health Solutions CPU Central Processing Unit CQI Continuous Quality Improvement CSF critical success factor CTSA Clinical and Translational Science Award

iv

CV Curriculum Vitae CVD Cardiovascular Disease D doctoral DDS Doctor of Dental Surgery DE Distance Education DHHS/DPH Department of Health and Human Services/Division of Public Health DPT Doctor of Physical Therapy DrPH Doctor of Public Health DS Digital Satellite EAC External Advisory Committee ECHO Ethnicity, Culture and Health Outcomes EEO Equal Employment Opportunity ELPH Emerging Leaders in Public Health EMS Emergency Medical Services ENVR Environmental Sciences and Engineering EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPA M‐Fstaff Exempt from the State Personnel Act EPA N‐F Exempt from the State Personnel Act EPID Epiddemiology ERA Electronic Research Administration ERIC Educational Research Information Clearinghouse ESE Environmental Sciences and Engineering EWB Engineers without Borders FABM Fellow of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine FACHE American College of Healthcare Executives Fellow FACPM Fellow of the American College of Preventive Medicine FADA Fellow of the American Dietetic Association FTEF Full‐time Equivalent Faculty FY Fiscal Year Gbps Gigabits per Second GEAB Graduate Education Advancement Board GHAC Global Health Advisory Committee GIL Gillings Innovation Labs GIS Geographic Information System GRE Graduate Record Examination GVP Gillings Visiting Professorships HBCU Historically Black Colleges and Universities HBHE Health Behavior and Health Education HC head count HCOP Health Careers Opportunities Program HIMSS Healthcare Information Management Systems Society HIS Indian Health Service HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

v

HMO Health Maintenance Organization HPALS Health Policy and Management Alumni Liaisons HPDP Health Promotion and Disease Prevention HPM Health Policy and Management HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration IBCLC International Board Certified Lactation Consultant IBM International Business Machines Corporation IDR Intra‐Departmental Review IIS Instructional and Information Systems IM Innovation Management IOM Institute of Medicine IP internet Protocol IRB Institutional Review Board ISI Information Sciences Institute IT Information Technology ITS Information Technology Services JD Juris Doctor LCD Liquid Crystal Display Lead Public Health Leadership Program LGBTQ Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Queer LHD Local Health Department M master's MAPH Management Academy for Public Health MBA Master of Business Administration MCH Maternal and Child Health MCU Multipoint Control Unit MEASURE Monitoring and Evaluation to Assess and Use Results MHA Master of Healthcare Administration MHCH Maternal and Child Health MJP Minority Health Project MMS Master of Management Studies MPH Master of Public Health MRP Master of Regional Planning MS Master of Science MSC Minority Student Caucus MSCR Master of Science in Clinical Research MSEE Master of Science Environmental Engineering MSIS Master of Science Information Systems MSLS Master of Science in Library Science MSPH Master of Science in Public Health MSW Master of Social Work NACCHO National Association of County and City Health Officials NALBOH National Association of Local Boards of Health

vi

NAP SACC Nutrition and Physical Activity Self‐Assessment for Child Care NBPHE National Board of Public Health Examiners NC North Carolina NCCPHP North Carolina Center for Public Health Preparedness NCDHHS North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services NCDPH North Carolina Division of Public Health NCI National Cancer Institute NCIH North Carolina Information Highway NCIPH North Carolina Institutes for Public Health NC‐REN North Carolina Research and Education Network NCSU North Carolina State University NHLBI National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute NIAID National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases NIDCR National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences NIMH National Institute of Mental Health NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NLN National League of Nursing NRI Nutrition Research Institute NRSA National Research Service Award NUTR Nutrition OCE Office of Continuing Education OHN Occupational Health Nursing OHRE Office of Human Research Ethics OSA Office of Student Affairs OSHERC Occupational Safety and Health Education and Resource Center OSR Office of Sponsored Research OSX Operating System Ten OTD Office of Technology Development OWASA Orange County Water and Sewer Authority PDA Personal Digital Assistant PhD Doctor of Philosophy PHFB Board of Directors of the Public Health Foundation PHLI Public Health Leadership Institute PHLP Public Health Leadership Program PHN Public Health Nursing PHTIN Public Health Training and Information Network PI Principal Investigator PUBH Public Health Leadership Program Q quantitative RAMSeS Research Administration Management System and eSubmission RD registered dietician REACH Recruitment Event Affecting Change)

vii

RENCI Renaissance Computing Institute RTI Research Triangle Institute SAS Statistical Analysis Software SEPHLI Southeast Public Health Leadership Institute SFR Student to Faculty Ratio SGHC Student Health Action Coalition SGI Silicon Graphics, Inc. SHAC Student Health Action Coalition SOWO Social Work SPA State Personnel Act SPH School of Public Health SPHAC School of Public Health Advisory Council SPHERE Southeast Public Health Educational Resources for Enhancement SPHF Summer Public Health Fellowship SPH‐SG School of Public Health Student Government SPHTC Southeast Public Health Training Center SRU Survey Research Unit TOEFL Test Of English as a Foreign Language TraCS Translational and Clinical Sciences UCRF University Cancer Research Fund UCS University Career Services UG undergraduate UNC University of North Carolina UNC‐GSK University of North Carolina‐GlaxoSmithKline USAID United States Agency for International Development V verbal VA Veterans Administration VCR/DVD Video Cassette Recorder/Digital Versatile Disc WERA West End Revitalization Association WIC Women, Infants, and Children WRRI Water Resources Research Institute

Criterion 1.0

The School of Public Health

Michael Hooker Research Center Atrium Dan Sears, 2006

UNC Old WellDan Sears, 2002

Linda Kastleman, 2008 Michael Hooker Research Center Atrium Linda Kastleman, 2008

Criterion I

The School of Public Health

1.1 Mission

CEPH Criterion

The School shall have a clearly formulated and publicly stated mission with supporting goals and objectives. The school shall foster the development of professional public health values, concepts and ethical practice. CEPH Required Documentation a. A clear and concise mission statement for the school as a whole.

b. One or more goal statements for each major function by which the school intends to

attain its mission, including instruction, research and service.

c. A set of measurable objectives relating to each major function through which the school intends to achieve its goals of instruction, research and service.

d. A description of the manner in which mission, goals and objectives are developed, monitored and periodically revised and the manner in which they are made available to the public.

e. A statement of values that guide the school, with a description of how the values are determined and operationalized.

f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Criterion 1.1 The School of Public Health: Mission

2

Introduction The School of Public Health (SPH) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-Chapel Hill) was organized in 1936 as a division within the School of Medicine. Separate status as a school of public health was granted in 1939, and the school awarded its first graduate degrees in 1940. The UNC School of Public Health was the fourth school of public health in the nation and the first such school established within a state university. The University of North Carolina is the oldest public university in the United States, and the school takes the public mission very seriously. The notion of a public university is completely consistent with public health and community engagement, and is a theme that is reflected throughout our work. In the seven decades since its creation, the school has advanced the public’s health through teaching, research, and service across North Carolina and around the world. The school is perhaps best known for its strong commitment and ability to balance scholarship and leading-edge science with effective public health practice and the application of research to practice. Our excellence in translating research into practice is one of the ways that we make a seamless connection between scholarship and service, and between the school and the multiple communities it serves. Today, much is changing in public health and in society at large. Rapid scientific breakthroughs are making possible entirely new modalities of prevention and treatment, while sweeping changes are occurring in health care delivery. Yet, as North Carolina and the nation experience major economic challenges, growing disparities between rich and poor and the advancing age of the population are compounding the difficulties of financing and delivering health care. Budgetary and programmatic pressures are forcing public health agencies to modernize, adapt to resource constraints, and become more creative. At an even broader level, new microbial and environmental hazards, exacerbated by global warming, threaten human and animal populations and the larger ecosystem. These social, economic, and environmental trends demand that institutions of higher education carefully take stock of their missions and activities and innovate to remain vital. Globalization has changed much about the world’s public health threats and how we work across countries and borders. Although this school always has had a strong global presence, since the last CEPH review, the school has dramatically increased the depth and breadth of its global activities. As a concrete sign of this shift in emphasis, we changed our name to the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health in 2008, and have made organizational and other changes to reflect the global nature of public health. These changes include reassessing current and future directions, showing how local and global public health are interrelated, and thinking boldly about new roles for public health and for the school. In fall 1997, shortly after his arrival as dean, Dr. William Roper initiated a major planning process to critically reexamine the school’s mission, goals, and objectives in the context of a


3

changing health system. (The resulting report, An Agenda for the 21st Century, can be found in the Resource File.) When Barbara Rimer, DrPH, became dean in June 2005, she reviewed the results and recommendations that emerged from Dean Roper’s strategic planning efforts and from several other previous assessments and found that the various planning processes had generated synergistic rather than competing recommendations. Overwhelmingly, the recommendations highlighted a need for greater attention to global health, health disparities, obesity, environmental health, and the translation of research to practice. Over the past few years, the school has taken these recommendations as a point of departure, developing strategic plans for the specific areas of emphasis and adopting a clearer focus on public health solutions. At the same time, the school decided that it was time to examine the appropriateness and utility of its previous mission statement, and also time to develop a values statement. To involve as many constituencies as possible, the school used in-person methods as well as the Internet to solicit feedback from hundreds of our constituents across NC and around the world. We briefly summarize this process and provide the revised mission, goals, objectives, and values in the remainder of this section. 1.1.a. Mission Required Documentation: A clear and concise mission statement for the school as a whole. The school’s mission is to improve public health, promote individual well-being, and eliminate health disparities across North Carolina and around the world. We bring about sustainable, positive changes in health by providing an outstanding program of teaching, research, and service to:

• Educate the next generation of public health leaders • Discover, test, and disseminate solutions to health threats and problems, ultimately

translating research into effective practices and sound policies and • Serve North Carolina and beyond through outreach, engagement, education of

citizens and health professionals, and application of solutions to health threats and problems


4

1.1.b. Goals Required Documentation: One or more goal statements for each major function by which the school intends to attain its mission, including instruction, research and service. In pursuit of its mission, the school has established the following goals: Education: Prepare the next generation of leaders who will improve the public’s health

through innovations in research, policies, systems, programs, and service. Research: Discover new knowledge that will lead to the creation and improvement of

programs, policies, and practices that will have a maximum, positive, sustainable impact on the public’s health.

Service: Serve North Carolina and beyond through outreach, engagement, education of citizens and health professionals, and application of solutions to health threats and problems.

In addition, the school pursues a fourth goal, which is critical to its ability to achieve the first three goals: Faculty/Staff: Sustain the highest quality faculty and staff and their ability to contribute to

public health. 1.1.c. Objectives Required Documentation: A set of measurable objectives relating to each major function through which the school intends to achieve its goals of instruction, research and service. The objectives related to each of the school’s four goals are described below. Measurable outcomes, targets, and performance data are provided in table 1.2.c. Education: Prepare the next generation of leaders who will improve the public’s health

through innovations in research, policies, systems, programs, and service.

Objective 1: Recruit and retain a diverse, accomplished student body. Objective 2: Provide world-class, innovative educational opportunities,

grounded in evidence-based practices and the school’s mission. Objective 3: Sustain a supportive, active learning environment. Objective 4: Produce graduates who contribute to individual well-being and

the health of the public through application of evidence-based practices, innovations, and leadership in research, policies, systems, programs, and service.

Research: Discover new knowledge that will lead to the creation and improvement of

programs, policies, and practices that will have a maximum, positive, sustainable impact on the public’s health.


5

Objective 1: Maintain the school’s strong productivity in research grants and contracts.

Objective 2: Strengthen research productivity and research training experience among emerging faculty and student scholars.

Objective 3: Facilitate innovative, interdisciplinary research that contributes to public health improvements in North Carolina and worldwide.

Objective 4: Disseminate research findings to research and practice communities to enhance scientific knowledge and translate research to practice.

Service: Serve North Carolina and beyond through outreach, engagement, education of

citizens and health professionals, and application of solutions to health threats and problems.

Objective 1: Maintain or increase the overall service outreach effort of faculty

and staff, with a focus on reducing health threats and problems. Objective 2: Improve the measurement and documentation of the school’s

service outreach efforts in applying solutions to health threats and problems.

Objective 3: Increase opportunities for health professionals and citizens to contribute to the school’s work and service.

Objective 4: Offer an outstanding program of lifelong learning that enhances the knowledge, skills, and practices of public health workers and their capacity to apply solutions to health threats and problems.

Faculty/Staff: Sustain the highest quality faculty and staff and their ability to contribute to public health.

Objective 1: Recruit and retain a diverse faculty who are leaders in research, scholarship, education, service, and the global application of public health to human welfare.

Objective 2: Recruit and retain a diverse staff that can support the mission, goals, and values of the school.

Objective 3: Balance the ratio of tenure-and tenure-track faculty to fixed-term faculty

Objective 4: Maintain faculty with public health practice experience Objective 5: Increase the number of Professors of the Practice Objective 6: Increase the number of distinguished/named professors Objective 7: Cultivate the School of Public Health as an environment

conducive to outstanding productivity, and discovery and the application of discovery, within a collegial and collaborative context

Objective 8: Mentor faculty to optimize their success and promote excellence


6

1.1.d. Maintaining a “Living” Mission Statement Required Documentation: A description of the manner in which mission, goals and objectives are developed, monitored and periodically revised and the manner in which they are made available to the public. Conceptualizing the Mission and Goals The development of the school’s mission, goals, and objectives has been an evolutionary process that has reflected the style of the school’s leaders. Under Dean Michel Ibrahim, the school completed a strategic planning process and a comprehensive examination of mission, goals, and objectives in 1991, and a major reformulation of learning objectives and core requirements in 1995. Dean William Roper led a variety of information-gathering activities (e.g., meetings, task forces, white paper, expert panel) on his arrival in 1997. The process culminated in a new set of goals and objectives and an agenda for the 21st century (revised in 1999). In 2005, Dean Rimer sought advice from the Dean’s Council (described in Criterion 1.5.a.), from an organizational consultant who is an alumnus of the school, and from others and with concurrence of the Dean’s Council, decided to build upon past planning efforts rather than again starting from scratch. In February 2006, less than a year after she assumed her position, Dean Rimer launched a 16-month process to articulate mission, goals, and values that better reflected the school’s aspirations and the current historical and global context for public health (see table 1.1.d, at the end of this section). Dean Rimer drafted a revised mission, goals, and values statement to begin conversations. She presented this to the Dean’s Council, which designated a small group of department chairs and faculty to review the statement. The Dean’s Council provided feedback after each subsequent round of revisions until the document was presented at the spring 2006 schoolwide Faculty and Staff Meeting. Comments were sought and integrated into the document, after which online input was solicited from a wide variety of stakeholders, including students, adjunct faculty, alumni, and members of the school’s Public Health Foundation Board and its Advisory Council. Drafts were also presented and reviewed at in-person meetings with the school’s Public Health Foundation Board and Advisory Council, as well as to the school’s External Advisory Committee. The process was iterative and democratic, with multiple versions circulated, and comments received, considered, and integrated, as appropriate. In all, over 200 comments, mostly received through email (in addition to feedback from Dean’s Council members and from people during in-person meetings), were considered as the document was refined. After multiple iterations, it became clear that there was consensus on the overall mission, goals, and values statement, and the dean opened the 2007-2008 academic year with a presentation of the new mission to incoming students.


7

“…to improve public health, promote individual well-being, and eliminate health disparities across North Carolina and around the world”

”We bring about sustainable, positive changes in health by providing an outstanding program of research, teaching, and service.”

The current mission statement departs from past mission statements in several ways. It explicitly recognizes that the school’s focus and self-definition are both local and global in scope. It calls direct attention to the school’s dedication to overcoming health disparities so that this commitment can be infused into every aspect of the school’s organization

and practices. And it acknowledges the dual importance of the health of the public and individual well-being, understanding that the public comprises individuals. The mission statement also responds to a worldwide shift in emphasis towards finding solutions that are sustainable for a wide range of problems, and reflects the school’s determination to identify and disseminate public health solutions that actually make a difference. (See http://tinyurl.com/sphmission for the school’s mission and values statements.) Operationalizing the Mission and Goals: Defining Objectives The development of objectives for the school began with a comprehensive evaluation of the school’s strategic planning efforts over the past decade, namely, the products of the efforts of both Deans Ibrahim and Roper. The result was identification of four areas of focus, or strategic initiatives—water quality, obesity, health disparities, and global health, (most recently supplemented by the focus area of cancer); available strategic initiative statements are in the Resource File. Each of these areas is crosscutting and can include the interests of people from different disciplines and perspectives. Under Dean Rimer’s leadership, these strategic initiatives helped define the intellectual climate as the school began to re-examine its overall mission and develop objectives to fulfill it. In fall 2007, specific emphases within these areas of focus, e.g., aggressively recruiting underrepresented minority students, and increasing engagement with external communities, were shared with external groups such as the school’s Advisory Council, External Advisory Committee, and the Public Health Foundation Board, for their feedback. These groups include, respectively, business leaders, public health and political leaders, academic leaders outside the school, and leading SPH alumni. The CEPH Self-Study Committee, representing every unit and group across the school, became active at the same time and joined in the work of developing specific objectives, in consultation with the Dean’s Council and, particularly, department chairs, who took a leading role in reviewing and refining objectives. In this way, the self-study process merged with the process of redeveloping the mission, goals, objectives (and metrics), begun by Dean Rimer. The Dean’s Council and Chairs’ Committee (described in Criterion 1.5.a.) considered mission, goals, and objectives at more than half their meetings in fall 2007, supplemented by parallel consideration of goals and objectives by the multiple work groups of the CEPH


8

Self-Study Committee. Their approach was to develop objectives as well as to receive periodic reports of data to inform progress. The Dean’s Council regularly received updates on enrollment data, financial metrics, and fundraising. Data from surveys of faculty, staff, students, alumni, and employers (several of which were conducted as part of the CEPH self-assessment process) were reviewed by department chairs, who paid particular attention to feedback that would inform the selection of educational metrics and issues of faculty retention. Including reference to global health and health disparities within the mission statement draws us back continually to issues of diversity. At the most recent (September 9, 2009) Faculty and Staff Meeting, Dean Rimer summarized our status regarding diversity, urging faculty and staff to try harder and smarter in this area. The development of goals and objectives at this stage of the strategic planning process that has spanned three deans has been an organic process. Key stakeholders have been involved as participants in a wide range of internal and external decision-making groups, rather than as isolated constituency silos. In fact, our philosophy is that people should not be siloed by interest (e.g., global health) but should be brought together in interdisciplinary forums for give and take, reflecting multiple interests and foci. The key to the success of this effort will be where the school takes this effort and how. Keeping the Mission, Goals, and Objectives Viable and Vital The school and its various leaders have been proactive and forward thinking in conceptualizing mission, goals, and objectives. The school has until now placed less emphasis on the less visible, but equally important, activities needed to define outcomes, collect data, monitor success, review mission, goals, objectives, outcomes, targets, and metrics, and make evidence-based change in these elements. Activities that have been ad hoc must be integrated and institutionalized. This is the path down which the school now is heading, driven by integration between the strategic planning review and evolution and the accreditation self-assessment process. In making choices about the kinds of people to hire in areas of the school such as business and finance, IT, and research, we have sought people who understand the value of timely data in planning, evaluation, and quality control. Instructional and Information Systems staff are conceptualizing, developing, and implementing mechanisms and infrastructure for wide-scale and aggregate-level data collection and analysis that have not previously been available. At the same time, faculty and staff are becoming increasingly aware of the value of this information and their role and responsibility in providing and using good data. At the August 2009 Dean’s Council meeting, each department reported on its examination of student data provided by the Office of Student Affairs, sharing brief reports of the insights gained about issues of student recruitment and diversity. They were both accountable and were able to ground their ideas not just in anecdotes but in data. This approach will help the school generate better teaching, research, and service data that will, in turn, allow us to determine whether the school is achieving desired outcomes.


9

As the school begins systematically and regularly to produce better information, it must also implement and maintain a formal system of reviewing, monitoring, and changing—as necessary—our mission, goals, and objectives. Over the last two years, we have increased quite dramatically the speed with which we can provide relevant data to members of the Dean’s Council. We share variations of these data with our boards and at twice-yearly Faculty and Staff Meetings. We also will regularly bring to our entire constituency groups (see Criterion 1.5.a.) the data they need to continue to provide effective advice to us. 1.1.e. Values Required Documentation: A statement of values that guide the school, with a description of how the values are determined and operationalized. Revision of the school’s values statement was an integral part of the process of revising the school’s mission and goals. The school’s fundamental values (listed below) are consistent with the revised mission statement and embrace two core aspects of public health: diversity and accountability to communities. The statement of values also explicitly articulates the central importance of students, and reaffirms the school’s commitment to the highest standards of excellence and integrity. The school’s values are as follows: • Our work is guided by strong values. • We are committed to diversity in our faculty, staff, and students. • We believe that public health is accountable and responsible to communities and should

work collaboratively with them. • We believe that all people should be treated with dignity and respect. • We are committed to high standards of excellence, professional ethics, and personal

integrity in all that we do. • Students are the foundation for the school. We pride ourselves in having created a

student-centered environment that gives students an unsurpassed educational experience with accessible, top quality faculty and staff.

• Our students, faculty, staff, and alumni are known for their leadership and dynamism as

problem-solvers and their passion and enthusiasm for helping people live healthier lives. • Our experience tells us that most public health solutions require interdisciplinary inquiry,

broad partnerships, and public engagement for constructive action.

• At the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, we believe we can make a world of difference, and we live that every day.


10

Dean drafts revised mission statement (Feb 2006).

Working group of chairs and faculty revises mission (March 2006).

Table 1.1.d. Revising the School of Public Health Mission, Goals, and Values Statement: An Iterative Process

Dean’s Council reviews comments and makes recommendations (April 2006 and at each stage in the process).

Send revised mission statement to faculty and staff for additional comments and present at spring Faculty and Staff Meeting (April/May 2006).

Receive and integrate comments (May 2006).

Send mission draft to students, advisory groups, and alumni and present to spring board meeting (May/June 2006). Update statement to reflect additional input.

Review and categorize over 200 comments, conduct an environmental scan of other schools, obtain consultation from an external company with experience in this area, analyze words used to describe the school on its website, and continue process of revisions (Aug – Sept 2006).

Provide revised mission statement to Dean’s Council for feedback (Oct 2006).

Present revised draft at fall Faculty and Staff Meeting and October Chairs’ Meeting (Oct 2006).

Communicate revised mission, goals, and values statement to key audiences via the school website and invite comments (Oct/Nov 2006).

Mission presented at Alumni Reception during APHA meeting and at Public Health Foundation Board meeting, requesting feedback (Nov 2006)

Chairs begin consideration of goals to fulfill mission statement (Jan/Mar 2007).

Dean opens academic year with presentation of new mission to incoming students (Aug 2007).

CEPH self-study assessment merges with MGO development process (fall 2007)

Active integration of revised mission, goals, and values into all school communication channels. http://tinyurl.com/sphmission


11

1.1.f. Assessment of Mission Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths A transparent, participatory process to revise the school’s mission, goals, and values for

the 21st century Wide involvement in, and buy-in of, the revised mission, goals, and values statements

Mission, goals, and values statements reflect the school’s strengths and commitment to

excellence Mission, goals, and values statements reflect and model the school’s commitment to

overcoming health disparities

Mission, goals, and objectives have been integrated into planning processes for the school, e.g., annual budget requests and priorities for investments funded through the Gillings gift

Challenges Maintaining a healthy balance between our dual commitment to be both local and global

Meeting our own expectations for focus and achievements in reducing health disparities

Instituting a process for reexamining MGOs on a regular basis without making this too

frequent; i.e., constituents feeling ownership of the mission Future Directions Institute a plan to systematically reexamine the mission and values on a regular basis,

using the inclusive process already in place

Build on the quantitative and qualitative data collection processes now in place that permit us to assess the extent to which our key constituencies believe our actions are consistent with our stated values and expectations, and that we are achieving an appropriate local-global balance

Use this feedback to fine tune our plans and activities

This Criterion is met.

Criterion 1 The School of Public Health

1.2 Evaluation and Planning CEPH Criterion The school shall have an explicit process for evaluating and monitoring its overall efforts against its mission, goals, and objectives; for assessing the school’s effectiveness in serving its various constituencies; and for planning to achieve its mission in the future. CEPH Required Documentation a. Description of the evaluation procedures and planning processes used by the school,

including an explanation of how constituent groups are involved in these processes. b. Description of how the results of evaluation and planning are regularly used to enhance

the quality of programs and activities. c. Identification of outcome measures that the school uses to monitor its effectiveness in

meeting its mission, goals and objectives. Target levels should be defined and data regarding the school’s performance must be provided for each of the last three years.

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, including a candid assessment of strengths and weaknesses in terms of the school’s performance against the accreditation criteria.

e. An analysis of the school’s responses to recommendations in the last accreditation report

(if any). f. A description of the manner in which the self-study document was developed, including

effective opportunities for input by important school constituents, including institutional officers, administrative staff, teaching faculty, students, alumni and representatives of the public health community.

g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning

14

1.2.a. Evaluation Procedures and Planning Processes Required Documentation: Description of the evaluation procedures and planning processes used by the school, including an explanation of how constituent groups are involved in these processes. To maximize strategic planning and resources, the school bases its evaluation procedures and planning processes on principles of continuous quality improvement and evidence-based management, assessing quality on an ongoing basis, and using evidence to identify and implement solutions. The school employs multiple, integrated methods to conduct planning and evaluation; to assess achievement of its mission, goals, objectives, and outcomes; and to improve the quality of programs and the school overall. A holistic, participatory approach guides the selection of strategies to obtain and integrate data, solicit input, engage in dialogue with a range of key constituencies, make decisions, and take action. An underlying premise is that a comprehensive approach that makes connections across data sets makes it possible to identify patterns that might otherwise be missed. For example, examining student recruitment data, climate surveys, and students’ course evaluations may provide clues to understand why some departments are more successful than others in recruiting and retaining racial/ethnic minority faculty, staff, and students. The school’s large size and strong tradition of departmental autonomy make it especially important to emphasize bottom-up accountability in contributing to these integrated efforts. The school has woven the concept of quality assessment into school governance, particularly through the Dean’s Council. The Chairs’ Committee receives and provides feedback on special assessment reports and monitors data on a variety of indicators such as student enrollment, faculty retention, fundraising, budget, and other areas. The senior associate dean for coordination, planning, and administration oversees implementation and operations of the quality assessment process, coordinating data collection, management, analysis, and reporting to the dean and the Dean’s Council on key measures that track progress in the school’s offices, departments, and committees. Figure 1.2 depicts the school’s quality assessment model. The framework is consistent with the quality improvement literature as well as the model developed by UNC Chapel Hill for its 2006 reaffirmation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. As the model indicates, the school relies on a number of self-assessment and peer review approaches. Successfully implementing quality assessment and improvement requires good data. The school integrates data from varied sources, including environmental scans; data and metrics relating to research, faculty, students, and administration; special administrative and programmatic reviews; assessment of progress on strategic initiatives; feedback and advice from school boards and committees; Graduate School and discipline-specific reviews; and dean and chair reviews.


15

Figure 1.2 School of Public Health Quality Assessment Model

The school is developing a set of metrics as a basis for tracking key indicators. These data systems will evolve and improve, allowing the school to generate even more timely data of higher quality and to use those data for quality improvement. The university maintains a finance and human resources data warehouse that assists the school in analyzing its metrics. However, use of university data requires substantial in-house management and augmentation to obtain information sufficient for school-level analyses and reporting. The school is investing resources to create an internal data warehouse to collect and report on time-stamped metric data that will span all areas of the school’s operations (e.g., research, students, alumni, services, human resources, finances, and facilities). The data warehouse will be instrumental in enhancing the school’s ability to analyze trends and progress in key areas over time. ConnectCarolina, a university-wide system of integrated administrative systems and processes also is under development. The first phase includes student services (admissions, student records, financial aid and student finances), and was rolled out in summer 2009 to support admissions; the next phase encompasses human resources/payroll and finance.

Strategic Constituencies in Evaluation and Planning: Faculty and Staff

The school uses a variety of mechanisms to gain insight into issues important to faculty members. Shortly after becoming dean, Dean Rimer conducted focus groups with nearly 70 assistant and associate professors to identify their concerns and gather opinions on the school’s strengths and on areas needing improvement. Focus group discussions highlighted the need for a schoolwide faculty mentoring program, and for greater attention to ensuring


16

faculty members’ understanding of academic promotion and tenure guidelines. In spring 2008, the dean and the associate dean for academic affairs held two forums to give faculty and staff an opportunity to voice concerns and provide feedback to the school. In accordance with university policy, the school holds faculty and staff meetings each fall and spring semester; these are accessible in-person and via the web. We solicit topics from faculty and staff as well as feedback after the meetings. The school also holds ad hoc all-hands meetings to discuss important issues. Recent examples include discussions leading up to the school’s announcement of the gift from Dr. Dennis and Joan Gillings, and discussion of the new University Cancer Research Funds. In March 2006, the dean instituted monthly Lunches with the Dean for faculty. At these events, four to five faculty members of different departments and ranks are invited to present their research. The small lunches have been an excellent way for school leaders to learn about faculty research interests and projects, while simultaneously obtaining faculty input on a variety of topics. In late spring 2008, several faculty members initiated discussions to assess faculty interest in developing a formal faculty governance structure. The dean has indicated consistently her willingness to include one or two faculty representatives on the Dean’s Council. The April 2009 Dean’s Council meeting included a discussion of governance with two faculty representatives. Aside from the SPH Faculty and Staff Meeting each semester, there are a number of formal and informal avenues for input, feedback, and consultation with the staff of the school. The senior associate dean meets with administrative staff members monthly to discuss operational issues and exchange information. The associate dean for business and finance holds a monthly meeting with department and administrative unit business managers to exchange information and develop methods of supporting the school’s business needs. Strategic Constituencies in Evaluation and Planning: Students

Students play a fundamental role in school planning and evaluation activities. They are represented on the Dean’s Council, Web Council, Global Health Advisory Committee, and most other key leadership groups for the school (see Criterion 1.5.e.). Bi-monthly Dean’s Council meetings include representatives from both SPH Student Government and the Minority Student Caucus, who report to the Council about student concerns and provide feedback about actions the school has taken to respond to student-identified issues. In addition, the dean, senior associate dean, and assistant dean for students meet each term with representatives of these student organizations and the Global Health Student Committee to obtain feedback and provide input into their activities. These are open discussions in which the student groups are comfortable raising concerns and issues.


17

These periodic discussions have helped the school identify easily solvable problems (e.g., quality of computers in the Computer Center), as well as more difficult problems (e.g., lack of adequate student aid, concerns about the school climate for minority students, perceived need of students for more support for global summer internships). The assistant dean for students meets weekly with leaders of student organizations, and each semester attends executive board meetings of the SPH Student Government and the Minority Student Caucus. At both the school and department levels, the school uses several additional tools to elicit input and involvement from students. The Office of Student Affairs (OSA) conducts annual schoolwide surveys to gather data on a range of student services, including academic advising and OSA effectiveness. Many departments also gather exit data from their students at graduation to refine their programs. Each department and school unit has strategies to involve students in planning, evaluation, and decision-making processes. For example, Health Behavior and Health Education (HBHE) extensively involved students on committees and in student surveys during the recent departmental review and revision of its master’s program. (See Criterion 4.6.b. for additional discussion of student feedback mechanisms.) Strategic Constituencies in Evaluation and Planning: Alumni Alumni are represented on internal and external advisory committees, and the school encourages their participation in school standing committees. Most search committees and administrative reviews of senior UNC Chapel Hill leaders, including deans and center directors, also include alumni (and students). At least annually, and, usually twice each year, the dean, representatives from External Affairs, and the senior associate dean meet with the school’s Alumni Association, which serves the interests and needs of alumni, to present updates on the school and to get feedback on a variety of topics. The association currently is conducting several activities to improve its services, including a review and critique of its communications with alumni. The school’s External Affairs staff and Dean Rimer visit with many alumni each year as part of the school’s outreach efforts. The visits—and other methods ranging from formal surveys to email—provide vital opportunities for the school to solicit honest feedback and valuable input from alumni on the school’s strategic planning and self-assessment processes. In fall 2007, the school surveyed 2280 alumni (32% response rate) to examine perceptions and needs at both the school and department levels. For comparison purposes, the school used a survey instrument identical to that used in 2000. (The survey instrument, survey results, and specific follow-up by departments are in the Resource File.) Each department also has its own alumni group. Several departments (including EPID, HBHE, HPM, and MCH) have conducted ad hoc surveys with alumni to obtain recommendations on program improvement.


18

Strategic Constituencies in Evaluation and Planning: Practice Communities As part of its strong commitment to service and practice, the school seeks input from public health practitioners on specific projects and initiatives as well as the school’s strategic directions. Much of this input is obtained through facilitation by the North Carolina Institute for Public Health, the school’s service and outreach arm; (see Criterion 3.2.b. for a discussion of the institute). For example, the institute’s Office of Continuing Education (OCE) coordinates the work of continuing education “state of practice” committees. The committees, comprising practitioners in select public health fields, conduct workforce training needs assessments and plan practitioner training programs to be carried out by OCE. In addition, the school leadership has used information from the practice community to assess local health department training and education needs. Departments also involve their practice communities in planning and evaluation activities. For example, HBHE solicited intensive feedback from mentors and employers as part of their master’s program review and revision. Formal Structures and Processes for Evaluation and Planning Graduate School Reviews The Graduate School conducts regular reviews of all degree-granting units. These reviews, now on a nine-to-ten-year cycle (formerly a five-year cycle), often result in substantive recommendations for program improvement. The process begins within the academic unit, which develops and reviews a comprehensive self-study. The stringent review process of the academics units conducted within the School of Public Health constitutes one of the most thorough examinations of academic programs within the university. The SPH dean and the associate dean for academic affairs review the self-study initially. Next, a review team appointed by the Graduate School and comprising both internal and external faculty members receives the self-study and conducts a one-to-three-day site visit. The visit concludes with a debriefing meeting that involves key department leaders, the SPH dean and associate dean for academic affairs, and selected university leaders including the dean of the Graduate School. The review team then prepares and submits a draft report for the dean of the Graduate School and others. A group consisting of the dean of the School of Public Health, the department chair or program director, and the school’s associate dean for academic affairs reviews the draft report and meets to discuss results and recommendations. The department or program head provides a formal response to the Graduate School, followed by another debriefing meeting with the Graduate School dean and other administrators. This meeting provides an important opportunity to review the department’s response, examine performance, consider changes of course, and plan for the future. Follow-up discussions with the dean continue even after the review’s formal conclusion.


19

Since the last CEPH accreditation, the Graduate School has reviewed six academic units: MCH (2005), NUTR (2006), EPID (2007), PHL (2007), HBHE (2007), and BIOS (2008). (Reports are available in the Resource File.) Reviews are scheduled for ESE in 2009 and HPM in 2011.

Regular Reviews of Deans, Chairs, and Institute and Center Heads Deans, department chairs, and university center directors are reviewed every five years in an extensive and intensive process that produces written reports used for evaluation and planning. The reviews are a major source of accountability for university leaders and provide timely opportunities for feedback from a broad range of constituencies. The provost conducts the review of the dean who, in turn, is responsible for reviewing department chairs. The vice-chancellor for research and development oversees center and institute directors’ reviews. The lead administrator for the review (i.e., the provost, dean, or vice-chancellor) selects and delegates the practical work of the review to a committee, which is accountable to the administrator. The review committee then invites participation by key constituencies and offers opportunities for public comment, which allow constituents to raise questions about leadership and broader issues related to priorities, funding, and governance. In most cases, alumni and students are members of these committees. These regular assessments result in concrete suggestions for improvement, and also provide a mechanism for removal of the individual being reviewed, if indicated.

Specialty Review Processes Several departments are subject to accreditation and review processes specific to their discipline. For example, HPM’s MHA program is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Management Education (CAHME); its current accreditation period runs until the completion of the program’s next review—the site visit will take place in December 2009. Public Health Nursing (PHN) (a component of the Public Health Leadership Program—PHLP) is accredited by the National League of Nursing to provide an MPH and MS in Occupational Health Nursing, as well as a public health nursing focus area in the PHLP MPH program. The most recent National League of Nursing site visit, in January 2008, awarded the PHN program full accreditation. The American Dietetic Association (ADA) provides accreditation for Nutrition’s MPH/RD program, which was accredited most recently in 2004, for ten years. In the past, Nutrition’s BSPH program offered two core concentrations, one of which was accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Dietetics Education (CADE), ADA’s accrediting agency for education programs preparing students for careers as registered dieticians or dietetic technicians. However, a change in CADE standards has led to a department decision to


20

close that concentration (effective August 2010), and students are no longer being accepted into the program. External Leadership Boards and Committees Recommendations from several formal, external boards are central to the school’s evaluation and planning processes. External groups include the External Advisory Committee, the Advisory Council, the Board of Directors of the Public Health Foundation, and the Acceleration Advisory Committee. (The groups’ mandates and membership are included in Criterion 1.5.a.) Internal Leadership Groups Internal leadership committees play central roles in evaluation, planning, and quality improvement, serving as the main decision-making bodies for the school on a range of issues. These groups meet regularly and are responsible for assessing the school’s progress and performance in key areas as well as suggesting appropriate remedies when problems are identified. They include the Dean’s Council; Chairs’ Committee; Committee on Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure; Academic Programs Committee; and Research Council. (Criterion 1.5.a. describes these committees in detail, including membership.) Three additional groups that focus primarily on operations also play a role in evaluation, planning, and quality improvement. They are the Web Council, the Administrative Coordination Group, and the Administrative Operations Group. (The membership of each group is included in Appendix 1.2.a.2.) The Web Council meets quarterly to consider the goals of the school website and make recommendations for its improvement. The council’s broad group of stakeholders includes faculty, students, staff, and representatives from every unit in the school. The Administrative Coordination Group serves a high-level planning function and meets monthly to monitor progress in achieving strategic administrative objectives. The group consists of the heads of school administrative units (Business and Finance, Communications, External Affairs, Instructional and Information Systems, Student Affairs, Carolina Public Health Solutions), along with the senior associate dean. Finally, the Administrative Operations Group is focused on execution and monitors the operations of all administrative groups (Finance Office, Communications, External Affairs, Human Resources, Facilities, Institutional Research, Instructional and Information Systems, Student Affairs, Research, Global Health, Carolina Public Health Solutions, NC Institute for Public Health). The latter group shares information and coordinates efforts on a wide range of administrative issues, including events, projects, changes in business procedures, standards for publications, building and renovation issues, and budget development.


21

“Engaged Institution”—Communities The school has a strategic plan for community engagement, developed as a product of its participation in the Kellogg Foundation’s Engaged Institutions Initiative. That initiative seeks to move the school and university away from a direct service (one-way) model to a two-way model in which the school and various communities interact for mutual benefit, and community input is enhanced; (see further details in Criterion 3.2.a.). 1.2.b. Using Results To Enhance Quality Required Documentation: Description of how the results of evaluation and planning are regularly used to enhance the quality of programs and activities Quality assessment and improvement are an iterative process in the school. To enhance the quality of its programs and activities, the school actively uses a variety of information sources. These include survey and other data, feedback from internal and external bodies, and results of assessments and reviews, including special reviews of programs and operations. As outlined in the previous section, the school has used evaluation and feedback results to address student and faculty concerns, implement program improvements suggested by Graduate School reviews, and address topics of common concern to departments and other units. Strategic planning is a particularly vital component of the school’s quality improvement efforts. Strategic Planning

Strategic Initiatives The School of Public Health conducts strategic planning efforts at regular intervals, along with environmental scans in high priority domains. In 2005, the dean worked with several people in the school to map recommendations from prior strategic planning efforts. We concluded that several different strategic planning efforts, including a comprehensive process conducted while Dr. Roper was dean, had identified nearly identical priorities, including overcoming the obesity epidemic, improving global health, eliminating health disparities, and improving global environmental health. We discovered some frustration that little had happened in terms of follow-up to prior recommendations. Dean Rimer shared this information with the Dean's Council and also met with a strategic planning consultant to discuss how to proceed. Instead of beginning the process anew, we decided to build on prior strategic planning exercises and experiences and to move forward to develop plans in several key areas we identified as strategic initiatives. Faculty leads have developed strategic initiative plans for global health, health disparities, and overcoming obesity. (Strategic initiative statements completed to date are in the Resource File.) These have included slightly different but wide-ranging efforts to solicit and integrate input from a variety of stakeholders across the school


22

and beyond. We have added cancer as an additional initiative and have been a leader in investigating a wide range of important issues in cancer, including determining risk factors for cancer, ways to reduce cancer risk, informing treatment options, improving quality of life among cancer survivors, and disseminating information and best practices to stakeholders. Moreover, the school’s cancer research and practice community has placed a high priority on reducing disparities in cancer risk, prevention, and survival among the citizens of North Carolina. The school’s efforts have been greatly aided by a long-standing relationship with UNC’s Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center and the school is participating in the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center’s strategic planning process, playing a major role in the planning and implementation of the major goals to develop a cancer-related plan for the population sciences (available in the Resource File). We are also launching a new Global Water Institute, the planning process initiated by ESE faculty member Jamie Bartram, formerly coordinator of WHO’s program, Managing Environmental Risks to Health, and their Water, Sanitation and Health Program. Development staff also are conducting fundraising in these areas. We will begin new strategic planning efforts after completion of the reaccreditation process, so that feedback from the assessment will be an integral part of these efforts. We will build on where we are, asking what is missing and what will be public health challenges in the future. As a final element of our planning efforts, we are gearing up for a major examination of teaching for the 21st century. This began within HPM but will be expanded across the school in 2009-2010. Strategic Tracking Data sources and efforts are coordinated through the quality assessment work of the Dean’s Council. Since academic year 2006-2007, the council has received periodic updates on the school’s financial health, fundraising, student recruitment, race/ethnicity of faculty and students, and research portfolios. Although helpful, this information sometimes lacks the frequency and depth needed for sustained strategic tracking. The council examines metrics including the following: • Research funding (school total, by department, by strategic initiative, by PI) • Research impact (traditional scholarly impact assessment, chairs’ assessment of impact) • Progress in fundraising, including by key priority areas of the school • Education and training assessments (student course evaluations, peer teaching

evaluations and mentoring, teaching, alumni surveys, fulfillment of competencies), and • Service and outreach assessments (service activities by type, duration, and purpose) The Dean’s Council also regularly assesses more general strategic issues pertaining to the school’s research, teaching, and service missions, and, in 2008, the school added an opportunity for academic unit leaders to brief the council about their unit’s strategic mission, objectives, and activities, so that participants would gain a common understanding of the priorities and pressures of each group.


23

Evaluation and Change Course Evaluation The school is encouraging a schoolwide approach to online course evaluation as an important step in improving instructional effectiveness. Since fall 2007, the school has served as a pilot site for an online course evaluation instrument developed by the university; the instrument combines core questions with questions selected and/or developed by the school, departments, and individual course instructors. Instructors and their department chairs can review the evaluation results to identify quality improvement activities, and share key results broadly with students to inform course selection decisions. The university did not make a permanent decision on a vendor during the 2008-09 academic year, however, and so the school has been unable to make full use of this potential source of information. This will change when the new system is selected and operationalized. Special Internal Administrative Reviews The school sometimes conducts special reviews that extend beyond assessments required by the university. This strategy, implemented by Dean Rimer, assures that critical functions within the school are maximally effective and responsive to key constituencies. In 2006-2007, Dean Rimer commissioned two special assessments, one of the North Carolina Institute for Public Health (NCIPH) and the other of the school’s student services operations. For the NCIPH review, the dean appointed a 21-member committee with broad participation from within the school as well as from the external public health community and other stakeholders. Chaired by Jo Anne Earp (HBHE), the assessment team made a number of recommendations to strengthen the already strong NCIPH and enhance its integration with other school units. One committee recommendation led to the creation of a Liaison Committee composed of department faculty who identify opportunities for department and NCIPH collaboration. The report’s summary is online at http://tinyurl.com/nciph. The committee that examined student services operations, chaired by Ned Brooks (HPM) and with UNC-wide membership, recommended that the school build on existing organizational arrangements to achieve improvements in services, while also sharing and implementing best practices across departments, modifying and coordinating information management systems, and possibly rearranging clerical functions. The special review also highlighted the need further to assess career services functions and faculty advising. The process led to better integration of schoolwide and departmental student services activities, including regular meetings between the assistant dean for students and department student services managers.


24

1.2.c. Outcome Measures

Required Documentation: Identification of outcome measures that the school uses to monitor its effectiveness in meeting its mission, goals and objectives. Target levels should be defined and data regarding the school’s performance must be provided for each of the last three years. In an extended and iterative self-assessment process in preparation for its reaccreditation review, the school’s academic and administrative leadership developed a comprehensive list of metrics to capture the school’s effectiveness in reaching its intended outcomes. School leaders reviewed multiple metrics for each of the objectives, ultimately focusing in many cases on a single critical success factor (CSF) for each objective that allows the school to take its “pulse” at any given time. Table 1.2.c. (placed at end of Criterion 1.2.) enumerates the CSFs, along with target levels and performance data for each of the last three years. In two cases, metrics are still under development. The dissemination metric (objective 4 of the research goal) is discussed in Criterion 3.1.a. Objectives 2 and 3 of the education goal are issues that will be discussed during the academic visioning process (AVP) that has already started and will continue through the next year. It is expected that the Academic Programs Committee will be engaged in examining how we teach millennial students and recommending an overall approach for adapting our teaching and learning strategies to millennial students. Departments will also be supported in considering how they should adapt their teaching and learning for millennial students and in beginning to develop appropriate teaching innovations. 1.2.d. Self-Study Document

Required Documentation: 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, including a candid assessment of strengths and weaknesses in terms of the school’s performance against the accreditation criteria. Preparation of this self-study document has provided a structured approach to jumpstart development of an integrated series of mechanisms and processes for continuous quality improvement. Such mechanisms had been previously discussed but not systematically pursued. The self-study process and document also have allowed the school to critically reexamine its mission, goals, and objectives to ensure that the latter are understandable and acceptable to the school’s key constituencies. The process of developing measurable goals and objectives has vastly improved the school’s ability to assess its strengths and weaknesses. We are confident that our assessment of our performance against the CEPH criteria provides an accurate look at where we are, as well as a secure platform for launching future activities. 1.2.e. Responses to 2001 Accreditation Report

Required Documentation: An analysis of the school’s responses to recommendations in the last accreditation report (if any).


25

At its October 2001 meeting, the CEPH Board of Councilors continued the accreditation of the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Public Health for the maximum term possible. The official report indicated that all criteria had been met. In the 2001 report, (then) Criterion V.B. (Core Knowledge, Practice and Culminating Experiences) was the only criterion met with commentary, but there was no formal recommendation. The commentary stated: “A few departments were found to use the [field experience] waiver option more frequently than others, and, in the opinion of the site visit team, without always ascertaining the competencies that would otherwise be developed in the practicum.” Criterion 2.4.c. in this self-study documents the extremely rare use of the waiver. Moreover, changes in expectations regarding practica mean that all departments now comply with this requirement. A new dean has been on board since June 2005. In addition to supporting activities already in place to address the 2001 site visit team’s observations, Dean Rimer has acted proactively to take the school from good to great. Activities undertaken by the school since 2001 include increasing available space, particularly to support the school’s expanding research agenda; creating an environment that enhances staff retention within the constraints of a public institution operating in a very competitive economic region; seeking increased funding for students through research grants and privately funded scholarships; and aggressively pursuing the development and implementation of information management systems. More detailed descriptions of these actions are woven into our responses to specific accreditation criteria throughout this self-study document. 1.2.f. Development of the Self-Study Document

Required Documentation: A description of the manner in which the self-study document was developed, including effective opportunities for input by important school constituents, including institutional officers, administrative staff, teaching faculty, students, alumni and representatives of the public health community. The development of the self-study document was the impetus for a three-and-a-half-year period of intense introspection. This self-assessment allowed the school to take stock of current and future directions, as well as to consider how better to achieve its goals, not only for accreditation purposes but also for improved organization and administration. In 2006, the dean appointed Dr. Peggy Leatt, associate dean for academic affairs, and Dr. Laurel Files to serve as co-directors of the self-study effort. Together they assembled the Self-Study Committee, chaired by Dr. Files, including relevant administrative staff, faculty, students, alumni, and public health community representatives. The Self-Study Committee’s membership has changed only slightly over time. The full committee met three times the first year, during which brainstorming and discussing alternative approaches to the process were the focus. After the first year, the committee primarily met in subgroups that were established to address specific criteria and functional areas. Subgroups comprised work


26

groups focused on specific criteria and teams focused on data gathering and analysis relevant to all of the criteria:

• Work Groups 1. Mission and Goals, Organization and Administration, Resources, Governance:

Senior associate dean, plus business/finance and HR staff 2. Students: Assistant dean for students and Office of Student Affairs staff 3. Service: NC Institute for Public Health staff 4. Research :Associate dean for research, and staff 5. Instructional Programs: Chair, Academic Programs Committee 6. Faculty: Associate dean for academic programs

• Teams 1. Data: Instructional and Information Systems Staff 2. Surveys

Representative research faculty (BIOS, ENVR, EPID, HBHE, HPM) 3. Outcomes/Evaluation

Representative evaluation specialists (HPM, MCH, NCIPH)

The contribution of the teams was concentrated in the early phase of the self-study and provided guidance for the much longer period of data collection and analysis that would be carried out by the work groups. (The Resource File includes Self-Study Committee membership at the time of the final report, membership of the work groups and teams, and the periodic activity updates prepared for the committee.)

As noted in Criterion 1.1.d., the Self-Study Committee’s stream of activities and its focus on the work of developing specific objectives merged by 2007 with the process of redeveloping the mission, goals, objectives (and metrics) begun by Dean Rimer. The incorporation and input of a variety of internal and external constituencies for both activities became part of the day-to-day process of the multiple work groups of the CEPH Self-Study Committee, as they conceptualized their tasks, and generated, organized, and analyzed data. In 2007 and 2008, the Self-Study Committee met annually for a comprehensive update, but by that point the committee was functioning as a coordinated set of work groups (or task forces) rather than as a single body. Rather than call the full committee together on a regular basis, broader meetings included only the work group chairs (occasionally accompanied by staff). They met often as a group, supplemented by meetings with the self-study codirectors of either individuals or single work groups.

During the self-study process, Dr. Files provided periodic work group activity updates to the full committee. The self-study codirectors also made regular presentations to the school’s constituencies, particularly during the final year of work, at semi-annual Faculty and Staff Meetings, and at meetings of the Dean’s Council, Chairs’ Committee, and External Advisory Committee. On request, Dr. Files also provided updates at individual department faculty meetings.


27

Committee members and other critical constituencies were invited to review the preliminary draft of the self-study and share comments that would improve the final document. Many, including alumni and practitioner members, provided in-depth feedback on key criteria in their areas of expertise, as did volunteers from NC Citizens for Public Health (http://www.nccph.com/members.htm). The school posted the final self-study on its website, and has welcomed continuing comments and suggestions.


28

1.2.g. Assessment of Evaluation and Planning Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths

Focused approach to quality assessment and improvement around academic units Strong focus on using data for quality improvement

Leadership attention to all aspects of evaluation and to developing metrics that are used

consistently The majority of resources are focused on strategic objectives and outcomes

Regular attention to overarching strategic initiatives, as well as reporting on schoolwide

and unit-level outcomes, providing a multilayered understanding of progress in achieving the school’s mission

Recognition of the need to develop better data systems and allocation of resources to

process

Challenges

Working with a university data warehouse that is not fully developed and legacy data systems that are extremely cumbersome

Addressing inadequacies in the availability and accessibility of real-time data for decision

making Generating sufficient resources to create an in-house (school) data mart that will mitigate

the school’s immediate reporting and metric tracking needs Future Directions

Finish developing an internal data mart to collect and report on data required for high-quality evaluation and planning

Increase the range of reliable and valid indicators. Continue to develop processes and

methods to assess quality and outcomes at the aggregate, school level Achieve increasingly greater integration of data and analysis so that we can use

evidence-based measures for real-time decision making and setting strategic directions This Criterion is met.


29

Table 1.2.c. Outcome Measures, Targets, and Performance Data, AY 2006-07 to 2008-09 Education Goal Metric Target 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Prepare the next generation of leaders who will improve the public’s health through innovations in research, policies, systems, programs, and service

Objective 1: Recruit and retain a diverse, accomplished student body.

Average verbal and quantitative GRE scores at matriculation (Cf. Table 4.4.f.)

Above the 65th percentile (Master’s)* Above the 70th percentile (Doctoral)*

Master’sV = 72Q = 55

DoctoralV = 80Q = 64



Master’s V = 73 Q = 61

Doctoral V = 83 Q = 74

Degree completion rates* for all students and for underrepresented minority students (Cf. Table 4.5.d.)

95% (All students) 95% (Underrepresented minority students)

UG = 92%M = 90%D = 74%

UG = 100%M = 88%D = 60%

UG = 90%M = 89%D = 72%

UG = 89% M = 85%D = 69%

UG = 89% M = 92% D = 83%

UG = 100% M = 79% D = 83%

Proportion of underrepresented minority students in the student body (fall) (Cf. Table 4.5.d.)

Maintain or increase UG = 12%M =14%D =15%

UG = 17%M = 15%D = 13%

UG = 18% M = 14% D = 11%

Objective 2: Provide world-class, innovative educational opportunities, grounded in evidence-based practices and the school’s mission.

See Criterion 1.2.c. text N/A N/A N/A N/A

Objective 3: Sustain a supportive, active learning environment. See Criterion 1.2.c. text N/A N/A N/A N/A

Objective 4: Produce graduates who contribute to individual well-being and the health of the public through application of evidence-based practices, innovations, and leadership in research, policies, systems, programs, and service.

Public health job placement rates within 12 months (Cf. Table 2.7.b.2.)

100% 99% 99% N/A

* Time to completion is designated by the University: undergraduate (UG) degrees = 2 years (in major, i.e., junior and senior years), master’s (M) degrees = 5 years, and doctoral (D) degrees = 8 years. Degree completion rates were calculated by identifying the cohorts of students who matriculated two, five, or eight years in advance of the May graduation dates (depending on the degree level) and calculating the proportion of students who completed their degree within that time period. TBD: To be determined; NA: Not yet available


30

Table 1.2.c. Outcome Measures, Targets, and Performance Data, AY 2006-07 to 2008-09, continued

Research Goal Metric Target 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 Discover new knowledge that will lead to the creation and improvement of programs, policies, and practices that will have a maximum, positive, sustainable impact on the public’s health

OBJECTIVE 1: Maintain the school’s strong productivity in research grants and contracts.

Maintain or increase grant and contract funding to SPH faculty PIs (Cf. Table 3.1.d.)

Increase $117.4 million $103.8 million $150.2 million

OBJECTIVE 2: Strengthen research productivity and research training experience among emerging faculty and student scholars.

Percentage of school tenure-track assistant professors who are PIs on awarded grants and/or contracts (Cf. Table 3.1.d.)

Increase 70% 62% 62%

OBJECTIVE 3: Facilitate innovative, interdisciplinary research that contributes to public health improvements in North Carolina and worldwide.

Percentage of SPH faculty-led grants or contracts that have a coinvestigator listed who is not appointed in the PI’s home department (Cf. Table 3.1.d.)

Increase 42.5% 42.2% 45.4%

OBJECTIVE 4: Disseminate research findings to research and practice communities to enhance scientific knowledge and translate research to practice.

See Criterion 3.1 text TBD N/A N/A N/A

TBD: To be determined; N/A Not available


31


Service Goal Metric Target 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 Serve North Carolina and beyond through outreach, engagement, education of citizens and health professionals, and application of solutions to health threats and problems

OBJECTIVE 1: Maintain or increase overall service outreach effort of faculty and staff, with a focus on reducing health threats and problems.

Number of service activities reported (Cf. Table 3.2.c.)

500 activities 486 327 426

Number of service hours reported (Cf. Table 3.2.c.) 10,000 hours 10,022 8,467 8,765

OBJECTIVE 2: Improve measurement and documentation of the school’s service outreach efforts in applying solutions to health threats and problems.

Number and percentage of faculty who provide information about service outreach efforts (Cf. Table 3.2.c.)

N = 100 % = 50

N = 35 % = 17

N = 37 % = 18

N = 38 % = 18

OBJECTIVE 3: Increase opportunities for health professionals and citizens to contribute to the school’s work and service.

State of Practice Committees; Description of service agreements initiated with the school by NC Division of Public Health and others (e.g., Local Public Health Department Accreditation Program)

Maintain State of Practice Committees; maintain current diversity of service agreement partners despite difficult economic climate

See Criterion 3.2.c. text



OBJECTIVE 4: Offer an outstanding program of lifelong learning that enhances the knowledge, skills, and practices of public health workers and their capacity to apply solutions to health threats and problems.

Enrollment in continuing education courses Repeat participants (≥2 courses) Enrollments among “public health workers” (Table 3.3.c.1.)

Minimize reductions in CE programs and enrollments relative to budget cuts and training contract reductions and cancellations.

6,800

24%

3,969

8,277

27%

4,686

6,703

23%

3,992


32


Faculty/Staff Goal Metric Target 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 Sustain the highest quality faculty and staff and their ability to contribute to public health

OBJECTIVE 1: Recruit and retain a diverse faculty who are leaders in research, scholarship, education, service, and the global application of public health to human welfare.

Maintain or increase percentage of core faculty from underrepresented minorities (Cf. Table 4.3.f.)

Increase

7%

8%

8%

OBJECTIVE 2: Recruit and retain a diverse staff that can support the mission, goals, and values of the school.

Maintain or increase percentage of underrepresented minorities on staff (Cf. Table 4.3.f.b)

Increase

13%

13%

13%

OBJECTIVE 3: Balance the ratio of tenure-and tenure-track faculty to fixed-term faculty

Number of Core tenured/tenure track faculty to Core fixed-term faculty (Cf. Table 4.1.d.)

2:1 126:81 124:84 130:78

OBJECTIVE 4: Maintain faculty with public health practice experience

Balanced ratio between faculty with and without public health practice experience (Cf. Table 4.1.d.)

50% faculty with public health practice

experience 67% N/A 50%

OBJECTIVE 5: Increase the number of Professors of the Practice

Number of Professors of the Practice (Cf. Table 4.1.d.)

Minimum of 1/department/program 2:2 3:2 5:3

OBJECTIVE 6: Increase the number of distinguished/named professors Number (Cf. Table 4.1.d.) 30 25 25 28

OBJECTIVE 7: Cultivate the School of Public Health as an environment conducive to outstanding productivity, and discovery and the application of discovery, within a collegial and collaborative context

Demonstrable impact of teaching, research, and service (Cf. Table 4.1.d.) N/A

See Appendix 3.1.a.for impact summaries of

research/projects


research/projects


research/projects

OBJECTIVE 8: Mentor faculty to optimize their success and promote excellence

New tenure track assistant professors assigned to mentors (Cf. Table 4.1.d.)b 100% 100% 100% 100%*

NA: Not applicable; not available * This included one BIOS, four ENVR, two EPID, four HBHE, one HPM, and one NUTR faculty member.


1.3 Institutional Environment

CEPH Criterion The school shall be an integral part of an accredited institution of higher education and shall have the same level of independence and status accorded to professional schools in that institution. CEPH Required Documentation a. A brief description of the institution in which the school is located, along with the names

of accrediting bodies (other than CEPH) to which the institution responds.

b. One or more organizational charts of the university indicating the school’s relationship to the other components of the institution, including reporting lines.

c. A brief description of the university practices regarding: – lines of accountability, including access to higher-level university officials – prerogatives extended to academic units regarding names, titles and internal

organization – budgeting and resource allocation, including budget negotiations, indirect cost

recoveries, distribution of tuition and fees, and support for fundraising – personnel recruitment, selection and advancement, including faculty and staff – academic standards and policies, including establishment and oversight of curricula

d. Identification of any of the above processes that are different for the school of public

health than for other professional schools, with an explanation.

e. If a collaborative school, descriptions of all participating institutions and delineation of their relationships to the school.

f. If a collaborative school, a copy of the formal written agreement that establishes the rights and obligations of the participating universities in regard to the school’s operation.


Criterion 1.3 The School of Public Health: Institutional Environment

34

1.3.a. The School’s Institutional Home Required Documentation: A brief description of the institution in which the school is located, along with the names of accrediting bodies (other than CEPH) to which the institution responds. The University of North Carolina (UNC) is a public, multischool university system encompassing 16 diverse constituent institutions and other educational, research, and public service organizations. Each shares in the overall mission of the university, which is to serve all the people of the state and the nation as a center for scholarship and creative endeavor. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (hereafter “the university” or “UNC-CH”), chartered in 1789, is the flagship campus of the UNC system and the nation’s oldest state university. The university has been recognized for the quality of its graduate programs in every national survey conducted in the past 30 years. U.S. News and World Report's survey of American colleges and universities consistently ranks the Chapel Hill campus among the best colleges in the nation and among the top research universities. In December 2008, Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine ranked UNC-Chapel Hill the number one best value in American public higher education, a position the university has held since 1998. The School of Public Health (aka SPH) is one of the university’s fourteen schools and colleges, nine in Academic Affairs and five in Health Affairs; see Appendix 1.3.b., Charts B and C. The combined offerings of these schools include 78 bachelor’s, 102 master’s, and 66 doctoral degree programs. In fall 2008, the university enrolled more than 28,000 students from all 100 North Carolina counties, 49 other states, and 117 countries; 1,100 students were matriculated in the School of Public Health. The university’s approximately 3,200 faculty members hold or have held positions in almost every major national scholarly or professional organization. Many also have been elected to the most prestigious academic organizations, including the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Sciences. In 2007, the Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to a School of Medicine faculty member. The university is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The university’s most recent reaccreditation review was completed in 2006 and expires in 2016. In the School of Public Health, two departments (Health Policy and Management, and Nutrition) and one program (Public Health Nursing, part of the Public Health Leadership Program) have specific degree programs that undergo accreditation by separate bodies (see Criterion 1.2.a., “Specialty Review Processes”). Department accreditation reports are in the Resource File.


35

1.3.b. Organization Charts Required Documentation: One or more organizational charts of the university indicating the school’s relationship to the other components of the institution, including reporting lines. Appendix 1.3.b. provides (three) university organization charts indicating the school’s relationship to the other components of the university, as well as reporting lines. 1.3.c. University Practices Required Documentation: A brief description of the university practices regarding: lines of accountability, including access to higher-level university officials; prerogatives extended to academic units regarding names, titles and internal organization; budgeting and resource allocation, including budget negotiations, indirect cost recoveries, distribution of tuition and fees, and support for fundraising; personnel recruitment, selection and advancement, including faculty and staff; academic standards and policies, including establishment and oversight of curricula. Accountability The chancellor is the principal administrative officer of the university, and is accountable to the university’s Board of Trustees and to the system president and Board of Governors of the UNC system. The chancellor is charged with ensuring that the university operates in accordance with the policies and regulations defined by the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors. (Copies of these policies can be found in the Resource File.) A number of staff support the chancellor in these duties, including the Equal Opportunity/Americans with Disabilities Act officer, the secretary of the university, the internal auditor, the senior university counsel, and the chief investment officer. In addition, the chancellor has direct relationships with the Faculty Council, the General Faculty, and the Employee Forum. Holden Thorp, PhD (Chemistry), was selected as the university’s 44th chancellor in July 2008. Several line offices responsible for university operations are under the immediate supervision of Chancellor Thorp. Through these administrative offices, all units of the university have access to the chancellor and, through the chancellor, to the university’s external governing bodies. Deans of the nine academic affairs schools and five health affairs schools report directly to the university provost who, in turn, reports directly to the chancellor. Barbara Rimer, DrPH, SPH dean, holds the same degree of autonomy and responsibility as the deans of the other four health affairs schools (Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy). Dean Rimer works closely with other senior administrative officers of the university, and meets monthly with the provost and other deans in the provost’s Deans Council to discuss policies and strategic directions for the university.


36

Prerogatives The university extends prerogatives regarding names, titles, and internal organization to its academic units. The school has the prerogative to set its own mission and organizational structures within the scope of the university’s mission and organizational structures. Likewise, departments within the school set their own missions and organizational structures within the scope of the school’s mission. The school’s dean and faculty have the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges that are afforded to other deans and faculty in the university. Budgeting and Resource Allocation The annual budget and resource allocation process begins each January within the school as department and administrative units contribute to a proposal submitted to the provost. The provost and campus financial and business leaders meet with the dean, the senior associate dean, and the associate dean for business and finance in the spring to discuss the budget proposal for the coming fiscal year. That proposal, along with those of other schools, is combined into a campus budget proposal submitted to UNC General Administration and then to the governor for consideration by state legislators. The North Carolina State Legislature determines the budget for the state government, typically in the summer, and begins the allocation of funds with the publication of the state budget for the fiscal year that starts each July. The decision-making process then proceeds downward from UNC General Administration, to the UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor’s Office, to the deans and institute and center directors, and to department chairs and program directors. The process and procedures are discussed in detail in Criterion 1.6.a. Personnel Recruitment, Selection, and Advancement Most university staff members are subject to the State Personnel Act (SPA); SPA staff recruitment and advancement matters are governed by state regulations, administered on the university campus by the Office of Human Resources. Some staff in professional or administrative positions are nonfaculty, Exempt from the State Personnel Act (EPA N-F); the university has more control over selection and advancement of EPA N-F staff. A major change in advancement since the school’s last accreditation is the “career banding” process that supplements performance review by considering position requirements and competencies, and individual attainment of those competencies. This change was developed over four years, and was fully implemented by the university in 2008. See the university’s Office of Human Resources website (http://hr.unc.edu/?folderView=collapsed) for additional information about staff recruitment, selection, and advancement. Faculty members are Exempt from the State Personnel Act (EPA). The school establishes search committees when filling faculty and top-level administrative positions. Search committee membership is consistent with the discipline and the nature of the position to be filled, and includes faculty, staff, alumni, and, usually, students; the goal is to achieve


37

diversity with regard to position held, demographics, etc. The special assistant to the dean for diversity offers support to all search committees in an effort to enhance the school’s diversity. A minimum of two candidates is interviewed for every position, with a broad selection of stakeholders participating in the interview process. The special assistant to the dean for diversity offers support to all committees in an effort to enhance the school’s diversity. Following a search committee recommendation, the final decision is the dean’s. In the case of hiring a new dean, the prerogative is in the Chancellor’s Office. Academic Standards and Policies Overall academic standards and policies are set at the system level by the Board of Governors and at the campus level by the university’s Board of Trustees and the chancellor. Three documents outline these standards and policies: the Code of the Board of Governors, the Faculty Handbook, and the Faculty Code of University Government (see Resource File for all documents). The school supplements the system and university standards with its own Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Manual (http://tinyurl.com/sphaptmanual; copy also in the Resource File). (Cf. Criterion 4.2.a.) The Graduate School dean is responsible for the admission and training of all university graduate students except for candidates for MBA, DDS, JD, and MD degrees. The dean, along with the Graduates School’s policymaking Administrative Board, also supervises additions, changes, and deletions in graduate curricula, including the School of Public Health and the other graduate schools and colleges. (Morris Weinberger, PhD, Slee Professor, HPM, currently serves on the Graduate School’s Administrative Board.) School faculty members participate fully in university-wide committees that play a role in determining academic standards and policy. For example, Peggye Dilworth-Anderson, PhD, professor (HPM) is an elected member of the university’s Faculty Executive Committee (http://tinyurl.com/uncfec), and Andrea Biddle, PhD, associate professor (HPM) is an elected member of the Educational Policy Committee (http://tinyurl.com/uncepc). Interdisciplinary Academic Planning The school faculty and administrative leaders actively work with peers across campus and beyond to create and sustain new programs and curricula. These range from joint certificate programs such as that in health communications between Health Behavior and Health Education and the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, to dual degree programs such as those between Health Policy and Management and the School of Information and Library Science. Department leaders manage these efforts and work to sustain these types of interdisciplinary programs. The school as a whole works across departments, across campus schools, and beyond in developing new programs such as the interdisciplinary effort in health informatics that includes Epidemiology and Biostatistics in Public Health, Information and Library Science, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Dentistry on this campus, with the North Carolina Health Information and Communications Alliance


38

and the NC Division of Public Health. These efforts have reached a level of engagement that require formally incorporating them into the school’s strategic planning efforts. 1.3.d. Distinct School of Public Health Processes Required Documentation: Identification of any of the above processes that are different for the school of public health than for other professional schools, with an explanation. No processes are different for the School of Public Health than for other professional schools. 1.3.e. Collaborative School Participating Institutions Required Documentation: If a collaborative school, descriptions of all participating institutions and delineation of their relationships to the school. Not applicable. 1.3.f. Collaborative School Written Agreement Required Documentation: If a collaborative school, a copy of the formal written agreement that establishes the rights and obligations of the participating universities in regard to the school’s operation. Not applicable.


39

1.3.g. Assessment of Institutional Environment Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths

Accreditation is at the university level, in addition to specialized accreditation of many of the university’s professional schools and departments

School’s dean reports directly to university provost, and serves (along with other

university deans) on the provost’s Deans Council School is autonomous within UNC-Chapel Hill

School’s faculty members participate actively and fully in university-level academic

governance policy roles

Challenges

Maintaining a balance between university-wide and school perspectives Promoting effective interdisciplinary relationships that transcend this school, and

beyond academia, to include strategic stakeholders locally and globally

Future Directions

Plan for the school’s future within the context of an increasingly interdisciplinary academic and professional environment, with planning processes to include broad participation across the school, with input from across the university other stakeholders including the Public Health Foundation Board, Advisory Council External Advisory Committee, and others

We have begun the first stages of an academic visioning process to examine how

the world will change over the next five to ten years and how our departments may have to adapt to meet these changing needs

Examine how the school’s strategic initiatives and other foci may require alterations

to reflect changing local and global challenges This Criterion is met.


1.4 Organization and Administration

CEPH Criterion The school shall provide an organizational setting conducive to teaching and learning, research and service. The organizational setting shall facilitate interdisciplinary communication, cooperation and collaboration. The organizational structure shall effectively support the work of the school’s constituents. CEPH Required Documentation a. One or more organizational charts showing the administrative organization of the

school, indicating relationships among its component offices, departments, divisions, or other administrative units.

b. Description of the roles and responsibilities of major units in the organizational chart.

c. Description of the manner in which interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation and collaboration are supported.

d. Identification of written policies that are illustrative of the school’s commitment to fair and ethical dealings.

e. Description of the manner in which student grievances and complaints are addressed, including the number of grievances and complaints filed for each of the last three years.


Criterion 1.4 The School of Public Health: Organization and Administration

1.4.a. Organizational Relationships Required Documentation: One or more organizational charts showing the administrative organization of the school, indicating relationships among its component offices, departments, divisions, or other administrative units. The school has two complementary domains—academics and administration. The academic portion of the school’s organization chart (table 1.4.a.) includes seven department chairs and one program director, as well as the associate deans for academic affairs, global health, and research. The work of these associate deans, as well as that of the senior associate dean for coordination, planning and administration, the associate dean for external affairs, and the special assistant for diversity, all falls under the administrative leadership of the dean; (see description of these positions in 1.4.b.). Six school leaders (administrative portion of chart) report directly to the senior associate dean: the assistant dean for student affairs (who directs the Office of Student Affairs); the director of the North Carolina Institute for Public Health (NCIPH); the assistant dean for information technology; the associate dean for business and finance; the director of communications; and the director of special projects. Finally, three external advisory bodies advise the dean and the school: the Public Health Foundation, the Advisory Council, and the External Advisory Committee. The dean also confers directly with two schoolwide student organizations (Student Government and Minority Student Caucus). Criterion 1.2, Evaluation and Planning, provides detailed descriptions of the roles of these committees and the other committees through which faculty, staff, and students make decisions and provide advice about issues that are important to the school. 1.4.b. Roles and Responsibilities Required Documentation: Description of the roles and responsibilities of major units in the organizational chart. Senior Leadership The dean, with support of senior leaders and dedicated staff, leads and guides school operations and activities, including academic programs, research, service, and outreach. The dean and her leadership team also manage the school’s institutional relations with the university, with other health affairs schools, centers, and institutes on campus and beyond, and with other universities nationwide and around the world. (The dean’s senior leadership team, including department chairs and program director, comprise the Dean’s Council, to be detailed in Criterion 1.5.a.)

42


Table 1.4.a. Organization Chart: Gillings School of Global Public Health

43


Academic Units The school has seven departments and one program that offer different combinations of baccalaureate, master’s, and/or doctoral degrees:

• Biostatistics • Environmental Sciences and Engineering • Epidemiology • Health Behavior and Health Education • Health Policy and Management • Maternal and Child Health • Nutrition • Public Health Leadership Program

The heads of these units manage and provide oversight for day-to-day operations, and report directly to the dean, and meet regularly as the Chairs’ Committee (see Criterion 1.5.a. for a description of their role in school governance). Some departments also have associate chairs; all have student services staff, a business manager, and degree program directors. (Organizational charts and program descriptions for each of the departments/program are in the Resource File.) Associate Deans/Academic

Academic Affairs The associate dean for academic affairs is accountable for the quality of the school’s academic programs. Her responsibilities include serving in an oversight capacity on two key committees: the Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee and the Academic Programs Committee. She also represents the school on university-wide committees, as well as committees at professional associations (e.g., the Association of Schools of Public Health, the Council on Education for Public Health). (See http://tinyurl.com/sphoaa.)

Global Health

The school’s model for global health is integrative, rather than to create a separate department. The associate dean for global health and her staff actively support the school’s faculty, staff, and students in their efforts to improve public health worldwide. The office organizes the school's global health activities and helps integrate them into each department, facilitating more effective and interdisciplinary global health research, teaching, and practice; (see http://www.sph.unc.edu/globalhealth/).

Research

The responsibility of the associate dean for research is to strengthen the research enterprise at the school through active support of faculty, staff, and students. She facilitates responses to large grant announcements, works with people across the university to create new tools for faculty members who conduct research, and prepares an annual research report. She

44

http://www.sph.unc.edu/content/view/26/43/








http://tinyurl.com/sphoaa

http://www.sph.unc.edu/globalhealth/


also leads the school’s Research Council. (See Criterion 3.1.a. and http://tinyurl.com/sphresearch for more information.) Other Direct Reports to the Dean

External Affairs

The associate dean for external affairs directs a staff that strengthens relationships between the school and its alumni, donors, and friends. The associate dean’s responsibilities include development, alumni affairs, and other aspects of the school’s relationships with external constituencies. She is responsible for supporting the school’s Advisory Council and Public Health Foundation Board, and all fundraising is conducted under her leadership.

Carolina Public Health Solutions

The $50 million gift to the school from Dennis and Joan Gillings in spring 2008 provided critical resources to accelerate delivery of real-world solutions for some of humankind's most challenging public health problems. To provide guidance in managing this gift, the dean established Carolina Public Health Solutions (CPHS) (http://tinyurl.com/sphcphs). The managing director of CPHS and the dean also formed the Acceleration Advisory Committee (AAC), which brings a robust set of skills and expertise, as well as an alternative, unbiased perspective, to critically evaluate and provide advice on the portfolio of CPHS program awards and investment opportunities. The AAC has no fiduciary responsibilities; those belong to the Public Health Foundation and to the school’s leadership.

Special Assistant for Diversity

In January 2006, Jessie Satia, PhD, associate professor (EPID and NUTR) was appointed the first special assistant to the dean for diversity. One of her first responsibilities was to draft a strategic plan to identify specific goals, strategies, and measurable criteria for creating a more diverse environment at the school. She has developed annual objectives and processes to assist in the recruiting of a more diverse student, faculty, and staff, and has worked with school leaders and faculty to craft a strategic initiative for addressing health disparities. The special assistant’s other ongoing activities include meeting with department chairs to discuss minority faculty and student recruitment and retention, and working with new minority faculty to make their transition to the university as seamless as possible. Senior Associate Dean and Administrative and Support Units

Senior Associate Dean for Coordination, Planning and Administration The senior associate dean plays a key role in several areas, including developing and maintaining partnerships, and leading strategic planning, quality assessment, and evaluation. As the school’s “chief of staff,” the senior associate dean oversees the school’s administrative functions, and has direct oversight of five units (described below). He also represents the dean on various internal and external committees, leads special school

45

http://tinyurl.com/sphresearch

http://tinyurl.com/sphcphs


initiatives, and assists with planning for critical external functions. External roles include sitting on the campuswide Data Governance Committee for enterprise resource planning and serving as the school representative to the ASPH Distance Learning Council.

Student Affairs

The assistant dean for student affairs is responsible for schoolwide services and programs, including student recruitment, BSPH admissions processing, academic and personal counseling, career development, and support of student organizations and student-centered events. She also plays a liaison role between the school’s leadership and the student body, particularly student organizations. The assistant dean represents the school on a number of university-wide committees and also is responsible for leading selection of recipients of schoolwide scholarships and student awards. (For more information, see Criteria 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6, and http://tinyurl.com/sphosa.)

North Carolina Institute for Public Health The North Carolina Institute for Public Health, established in 1999, is the school’s primary service and outreach arm. The institute (described further in Criterion 3.2.b.), under the leadership of its director, optimizes a staff of 86 to extend the school's service capabilities, promoting the school's commitment to community service as a public responsibility (see http://www.sph.unc.edu/nciph/). The institute engages “state of practice” committees to identify the training needs of public health practitioners (see Criterion 3.3), a collaboration that provides direction in developing and delivering training to more than 10,000 public health practitioners in North Carolina in areas of environmental health, public health nursing, community preparedness, etc., and provides consultative services for local health departments across North Carolina. The institute houses the academic-credit certificate programs in Core Public Health Concepts and Field Epidemiology, as well as a number of externally-funded efforts for preparedness research, urban development and healthy lifestyles, and leadership training.

Instructional and Information Systems The assistant dean for information technology oversees the central computing systems that support the school’s administrative, instructional, and research activities. The group is recognized across the campus and beyond as innovators in the realm of distance education technology and has developed systems for public health workforce skills assessment to guide training efforts. The assistant dean serves on the campuswide Information Technology Executive Council that provides feedback and guidance about school-level IT issues to the campus vice chancellor for information technology. The assistant dean and the IT staff also manage the provision of desktop computing services in any department that requests such services, and coordinate data management and information technology needs and services between the school and the wider campus; (see http://www.sph.unc.edu/iis/).

46

http://tinyurl.com/sphosa

http://www.sph.unc.edu/nciph/

http://www.sph.unc.edu/iis/


Business and Finance The associate dean for business and finance is the school’s chief financial officer, running the administrative unit that conducts institutional research, manages data, performs business and systems analysis, and carries out metric reporting on the school’s operations and finances. In addition to business analysis, the associate dean oversees the school’s human resources, facilities, and budget, including serving as treasurer for the Public Health Foundation. The associate dean and her staff provide significant services to the foundation for compliance, auditing, and reporting. She works with all department and other unit business managers to interpret and implement campus and school business procedures and policies, and to ensure consistency in data and reporting throughout the school; see http://tinyurl.com/sphsupp.

Communications The director of communications oversees a number of important communications tools and processes, provides message coordination, and assists in responding to queries from the school, community, and public at large. These include media relations, school publications, event publicity, speech writing, slide presentation preparation, and photography. The communications team uses a variety of media available, including the school’s website and videos, to provide information and shape awareness of the school. The group trains and manages the 60+ web content managers throughout the school and works to achieve accuracy, consistency, and clarity in the school’s messages.

Special Projects The director of special projects is a “utility player” who serves a vital role across a number of areas, as assigned. She helped lead the Ad Hoc Implementation Group, tasked with developing steps for the school to implement the findings of the Engaged Institution report and the assessment of the NCIPH; (see Criterion 3.2). She serves as an observer to several state and local public health organizations to bring back perspectives from the field, and has also worked with the global health staff and the NC Secretary of State’s Office to travel to Moldova and report on needs there for public health training and education. Advisory Groups

External Groups The Public Health Foundation, the Advisory Council, and the External Advisory Committee are described in Criterion 1.5.a., under “External Advisory Groups.”

Student Groups

Two key schoolwide student groups are the School of Public Health Student Government (SPH-SG) and the Minority Student Caucus; see Criterion 1.5.e.

47

http://tinyurl.com/sphsupp


1.4.c. Interdisciplinary Relationships Required Documentation: Description of the manner in which interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation and collaboration are supported. The school has a decentralized structure with strong, independent departments. This is a major strength, promoting an entrepreneurial spirit and enhancing the school’s growth and international reputation. Departments and faculty are able to develop their academic programs and pursue intellectual interests with minimal constraints from central administration. At the same time that departments enjoy a high degree of autonomy, the school is firmly committed to interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation, and collaboration. This is evident in the day-to-day activities of the school’s departments and programs. For example, the school has developed an innovative interdisciplinary Certificate in Health Disparities that trains health professionals to address and eliminate disparities by drawing on multiple disciplines such as public health, economics, and sociology (see http://tinyurl.com/certhd). And the Health Care and Prevention MPH concentration in PHL brings together medical students, residents, and fellows from the UNC and Duke Schools of Medicine. The school encourages faculty research collaborations across departments and with entities outside of public health. The definition of research in the school’s Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Manual (http://tinyurl.com/sphaptmanual, p. 16; copy also in the Resource File) includes “studies which are conducted in collaboration with public or private organizations and/or communities.” The manual also places importance on researchers’ “ability to incorporate new developments in the discipline, and transfer knowledge and techniques to current problems influencing the health of the public” [p. 17].) An example of this type of research is the three-year grant received by Dr. Lewis Margolis (MCH) from the Health Resources and Services Administration (USDHHS) to study the effects of interdisciplinary training on maternal and child health professionals, organizations, and systems. The training focus of the study encompasses maternal and child health, nutrition, social work, pediatric dentistry, and development and learning. The NC Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Center is a multiyear NIOSH-funded (re-funded for five years in 2006), PHL (OHN)-administered program involving collaboration with SPH departments, Duke’s Department of Occupational Medicine, and NCSU’s Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering (http://osherc.sph.unc.edu/) . The school’s linkages with external institutes, centers, schools, and departments provide further evidence of its strong support for interdisciplinary activities. For example, the school’s working relationship with the prestigious Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research brings public health researchers together with researchers from universities throughout North Carolina, the United States, and the world, representing fields as diverse as medicine, sociology, demography, and political science (see http://www.shepscenter.unc.edu/). The school also is a major participant in the North

48

http://tinyurl.com/certhd

http://tinyurl.com/sphaptmanual

http://osherc.sph.unc.edu/

http://www.shepscenter.unc.edu/


Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (TraCS), funded through the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards; (see Criterion 3.1). The school provides a portion of the funding for large pilot initiatives to match funds TraCS awards to SPH faculty, as well as leadership and services in the Biostatistics core. The school, with funding from the TraCS Institute, has created a new master’s in clinical research to serve the need for trained professionals from all fields to develop clinical research skills (MSCR/EPID). 1.4.d. Ethics Policies Required Documentation: Identification of written policies that are illustrative of the school’s commitment to fair and ethical dealings. Ethics is an integral part of the university’s value system. The school adheres to the university’s ethics-related policies and procedures, including those pertaining to non-discrimination, conflict of interest, and harassment. (A full listing of the university’s ethics policies and procedures can be found at http://www.unc.edu/campus/policies.html). School of Public Health faculty, staff, and students also commit to the university’s Code of Student Conduct (see http://tinyurl.com/unccodes), which makes explicit the expectations of each of them. The School of Nursing and the School of Public Health have, for efficiency, joined their Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). The joint IRB oversees research ethics and offers training to faculty, staff, and student groups several times during the academic year. A Guide to the IRB Process describes basic policies and procedures for IRB review and approval (see http://ohre.unc.edu//guide_to_irb.php). Beyond policies, the school offers a graduate-level certificate program in Public Health Ethics that provides students with the basic skills needed to think and act ethically in public health. The program provides a Foundations in Public Health Ethics course as well as curricular flexibility to support student interests across the spectrum of public health disciplines (see http://tinyurl.com/sphethics). 1.4.e. Student Grievances and Complaints Required Documentation: Description of the manner in which student grievances and complaints are addressed, including the number of grievances and complaints filed for each of the last three years. See Criterion 4.6.

49

http://www.unc.edu/campus/policies.html

http://tinyurl.com/unccodes

http://ohre.unc.edu//guide_to_irb.php

http://tinyurl.com/sphethics


50

1.4.f. Assessment of Organization and Administration Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths

A variety of organizational entities (e.g., the Dean’s Council, Chairs’ Committee, and others) that fosters communication and collaboration across the school

An organizational setting that fosters interdisciplinary communication, coordination, cooperation, and collaboration among school faculty, staff, and students, as well as with external constituencies

Concerted efforts to promote engagement of a diverse faculty, staff, and student body in

interdisciplinary teaching, learning, research, and service An environment that encourages people to speak up about issues that concern them

Challenges Balancing the school’s decentralized structure and strong departments with the need for

collaboration among departments is an ongoing tension. A model based on strong, autonomous departments has contributed to the strength of the school, but increasingly, there are issues that require us to make decisions for the good of the school

Within UNC, there are increasing concerns about the number of autonomous units providing services such as IT and HR. Over the next few years, we will be engaged in UNC-wide planning processes that may challenge our school’s organizational methods and processes

Future Directions Use a variety of formal and informal venues for school members to bring issues to the

fore, as well as to provide information and guidance from leaders

Assure that we communicate in a variety of ways, using a range of channels, to reach all critical audiences

Assess the methods used to enhance the school’s effectiveness and increase the range

of reliable and valid indicators This Criterion is met.


1.5 Governance

CEPH Criterion The school administration and faculty shall have clearly defined rights and responsibilities concerning school governance and academic policies. Students shall, where appropriate, have participatory roles in conduct of school and program evaluation procedures, policy-setting and decision-making. CEPH Required Documentation

a. Description of the school’s governance and committee structure and processes, particularly as they affect: general school policy development planning budget and resource allocation student recruitment, admission and award of degrees faculty recruitment, retention, promotion and tenure academic standards and policies research and service expectations and policies

b. A copy of the constitution, bylaws or other policy document that determines the rights

and obligations of administrators, faculty and students in governance of the school.

c. A list of school standing and important ad hoc committees, with a statement of charge, composition, and current membership for each.

d. Identification of school faculty who hold membership on university committees, through which faculty contribute to the activities of the university.

e. Description of student roles in governance, including any formal student organizations, and student roles in evaluation of school and program functioning.


Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance

52

1.5.a. Governance and Committee Structure and Processes Required Documentation: Description of the school’s governance and committee structure and processes, particularly as they affect: general school policy development; planning; budget and resource allocation; student recruitment, admission and award of degrees; faculty recruitment, retention, promotion and tenure; academic standards and policies; research and service expectations and policies. As discussed under Criterion 1.3., the School of Public Health enjoys a peer relationship with the other schools comprising the university. The school’s faculty members participate fully in campus top-level governance; see Criterion 1.5.d. and Appendix 1.5.d. for membership. At the same time, the school has the independence required to assure integrity of its programs and to accomplish its stated mission, goals, and objectives. Although the school has a tradition of strong departmental autonomy, it also has a well-established system for policy determination and decision making for the school as a whole. Policy Development and Planning Formal authority for most budgetary, personnel, programmatic, and space issues is vested in the dean, whose style generally is to make decisions through a process of consensus building among individuals and departments. Constituencies at the school recognize that final decisions in most matters rest with the dean, and accept that the school’s best interests will guide her. Internally, the dean is advised by the Dean’s Council and by the Chairs Committee (see below for details on these groups). The dean also obtains feedback from numerous external leadership boards and committees; mandates of these groups are described below; their membership is included in Appendix 1.5.a. Most committees are not populated by formula, although many have representatives from each department/program, e.g., the Public Health Foundation Board. Internal Advisory Groups The size and complexity of the school and the development of a complex organizational structure require a number of administrative groups to provide the venues for policy recommendations and decision. These groups provide complementary and representative bodies that address the myriad governance issues that arise. The Dean’s Council is the major policy making body for the school, and most major decisions are made by this group. It is composed of the dean; department chairs; the senior associate dean and associate and assistant deans; several key program directors, including communications, Carolina Public Health Solutions, and the North Carolina Institute for Public Health; and representatives of the SPH Student Government and the Minority Student Caucus. The Dean’s Council meets bimonthly to review, discuss, and react to issues important to the school and school operations, including consideration of changes in policy and direction. Recent meeting topics have included bridge funding proposals,


53

diversity goals, mentoring, faculty response to student requests for online course information, and online course evaluation system. Every meeting includes several standing topics, including a report from the dean, status of the school’s budget, an update on fundraising, and the student representatives’ reports on any issues that concern them. Chairs and other unit heads are expected to report back to their constituencies on issues discussed at the meeting. Frequently, the dean polls the Dean’s Council between meetings if there are topics about which feedback is needed. The [department] Chairs Committee, led by Peggy Leatt (associate dean for academic affairs, and chair of Health Policy and Management), meets monthly to provide advice to the dean on all aspects of the school’s short-term and long-term goals, policies, and operations, including academic affairs, research, and student affairs. Committee membership consists of the department chairs, director of the Public Health Leadership Program, dean and senior associate dean. Other members of the school’s or university’s leadership team may be present for discussion of specific topics. Discussion topics have included issues such as budget allocations to departments, mentoring across the school, and how to handle students’ grievances. There is a strong tradition of faculty, staff, and student involvement in all major processes of the school. Recommendations about faculty promotions are made, as required by the university, by a committee of full professors. However, nearly all other committees of the school include representatives drawn from faculty, students, and staff. We seek diversity in membership in terms of rank, interests, and ethnicity. External Advisory Groups Several formal, external boards meet regularly and offer substantive advice to school leaders on different aspects of the school’s life, including strategic opportunities and initiatives, fundraising, and school policies. The school seeks diversity of board members, who can offer different perspectives and experiences, and strives for meaningful give-and-take at the meetings. Departments, centers, and even some large programs within departments also have their own advisory groups. (See Appendix 1.5.a. for membership of all groups described below.) The External Advisory Committee (EAC) was created by Dean Rimer in November 2006 to provide input into the school’s academic and research programs. The EAC’s current six members include three current or former deans of schools of public health, a national leader in health disparities, a leader in community-based participatory research, and a former SPH chair who now leads a program in clinical epidemiology at another university. The committee helps identify potential academic concerns, provides advice on best practices, and offers a useful perspective on how other schools of public health handle issues such as academic program development, faculty governance, indirect costs, global health, and centers.


54

The SPH Advisory Council (SPHAC) was created in 1999 by Dr. Roper during his term as dean. It is a high-level group of up to 24 business, public health, communication, and community leaders that provides advice about overall directions for the school and fundraising, including counsel on strategic initiatives. The SPHAC is chaired by Dennis Gillings, PhD, former professor Biostatistics, who is now CEO of Quintiles Transnational, Corp. We are attempting to increase the diversity of the council. (The SPHAC charter is available in the Resource File.) The Public Health Foundation, Inc. is a 501(c)3 organization that manages the school's endowments and charitable gifts. The Board of Directors of the Public Health Foundation (PHFB) convenes twice a year to provide fiduciary oversight to the foundation’s assets. Board membership, which is weighted toward alumni, is ethnically diverse, represents the majority of departments in the school, and includes people from the private and public sectors. (The PHFB bylaws are available in the Resource File.) Budget and Resource Allocation The annual budget and resource allocation process begins within the school each January. The steps in the process of decisions through the university system to the state legislature and back to the universities and departments is outlined in Criterion 1.3.c. Criterion 1.6.a. elaborates the budgetary process and procedures within the school. Student Recruitment, Admission, and Award of Degrees The school’s departments, Public Health Leadership Program, and Office of Student Affairs share student recruitment responsibilities (see Criterion 4.4.a.). The university sets general admission requirements that are supplemented by specific department requirements. Department chairs, who delegate the initial admissions process to department committees, make final decisions and submit their recommendations for approval to the Graduate School or to the school’s Office of Student Affairs (for undergraduates). Criterion 4.4.b. details the school’s governance, committee structures, and processes related to student recruitment and admissions. Awarding of degrees is at the university level, and is a process handled by the University Registrar. The university outlines academic procedures for both undergraduates (http://tinyurl.com/ugradbull) and graduates (http://handbook.unc.edu/), in addition to procedures specified by schools and departments. Faculty Recruitment, Retention, Promotion, and Tenure Recruitment Department search committees normally handle faculty recruitment for positions carrying more than a one-year appointment. Departments assemble search committees on an ad


55

hoc basis—i.e., for specific searches—and faculty members establish selection standards. The search committee is then responsible for ensuring that the proper procedures (as stipulated by the university) are followed in the search and hiring process. The special assistant to the dean for diversity is a resource for search committees to consult in seeking diverse applicants, and she makes a point of reaching out to these committees to offer her assistance. Most search committees include student representatives, and students often interview applicants, make recommendations and, in some departments, may have a vote on the committee. The search committee then makes recommendations to the chair, who submits the applicant either to the department’s full faculty or to the department’s full professors for final approval. Each department’s designated Equal Employment Opportunity Officer is responsible for assuring compliance with the university’s affirmative action protocol. Search committees for chairs are managed by the dean’s office. Such committees include faculty members of different ranks, students, staff, and alumni. Diversity also is a factor in committee composition. Chair search committees provide to the dean the roster of the top three candidates, with a characterization of the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. The dean makes a recommendation to the provost (who has always supported the dean’s recommendations), and the chancellor makes the final determination in the appointment. Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure University policy requires that department chairs consult with, and obtain the vote of, their department’s full professors in making recommendations regarding appointments, promotion, and tenure; in the case of a search for a new faculty member, this must first be authorized by the dean. University policy allows tenured associate professors to be included in the consideration for recommendations for faculty ranks lower than their own, but their votes must be recorded separately; fixed-term faculty can be consulted, but only for appointments and promotion of fixed-term faculty. The chair then submits a request to the school’s Committee on Appointments, Promotions and Tenure (APT), which reviews the request and makes a recommendation to the dean. The APT Committee is a standing committee appointed by, and advisory to, the dean; the committee and the review process are overseen by the associate dean for academic affairs. The committee reviews all appointments, reappointments, and promotions that result in permanent tenure, and all appointments to the rank of associate professor and above (including fixed-term appointments); a quorum consists of a majority of the members eligible to vote on any given candidate, plus one. A tenured full professor from each department serves on the committee for a period of three years. Members of the school’s APT committee may be present during discussion of a candidate from their own department or a department in which they have a joint appointment. In such cases, they may brief the committee and answer questions on promotion standards within


56

their department; they also may vote on the candidate but may not present the candidate’s dossier nor advocate for the candidate. After receiving the APT Committee’s recommendation, the dean may exercise the right to deny an appointment, promotion, or tenure request, or can override an APT recommendation not to appoint or promote, although either of these would be an extremely unusual occurrence. If approved by the dean, the request goes successively to the Health Sciences Advisory Committee at the provost’s level, then to the campus Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure Committee, the chancellor, the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees, and, depending on the action recommended, to the Board of Governors. University policies detailed in the UNC Board of Trustees’ document, Policies Governing Appointments and Promotion for EPA Personnel, govern all faculty appointments, promotions, and tenure decisions (see Criterion 4.2 for further policy details). The university’s posttenure review policy (included in the Resource File) assures that each tenured faculty member is reviewed at least every five years. Students also provide significant input through teaching evaluations, which form an important part of a candidate’s teaching portfolio. Students’ course evaluation results are provided to individual faculty, program directors, and chairs. These evaluations can form part of an essential discussion of faculty annual reviews and can influence faculty salary increases. Academic Standards and Policies Schoolwide responsibility for academic standards and policies rests with the Academic Programs Committee (APC), which also acts as a liaison between the School of Public Health and the Graduate School. The APC is accountable to the dean through the associate dean for academic affairs. The committee monitors teaching quality, learning experiences, and educational program quality and outcomes, and assesses and provides advice on proposals for new degree and certificate programs and other major changes to academic programs. Committee membership consists of a director of graduate studies from each of the seven departments and the Public Health Leadership Program. The group conducts its meetings on a regular schedule throughout the academic year. At the department level, each department and program in the school has its own structure for developing new programs, reviewing and evaluating existing programs, and generally ensuring high academic standards. Research and Service Expectations and Policies The school’s APT guidelines state that all faculty members are expected to demonstrate research, teaching, and service. How those expectations are turned into measurable and assessable activities are determined by each department. Under the guidance of the associate dean for academic affairs, each chair has developed (with input from his/her


57

faculty) a set of expectations reflected in documents that set forth the department’s criteria for promotion or appointment of tenure track/tenured faculty; (these are available in the Resource File). They also are in the process of developing similar criteria for non-tenure track faculty members. Each document specifies the criteria for that department. In that way, the school acknowledges that departments represent different disciplines with their respective expectations about research productivity and publication. Some fields, such as environmental sciences and engineering, have not had access to the range of grant funding available to others, epidemiology, for example. Biostatisticians are expected to publish at a rate that exceeds those in some other fields, such as maternal and child health. MCH states an expectation of 50-60% outside funding per faculty member, while some departments have higher levels and others are lower. HPM has the most comprehensive criteria document, which clearly differentiates expectations across ranks and tracks. We respect differences across departments but expect each department to articulate its expectations in a clear, transparent manner. The criteria documents have been shared among chairs and are available in the Resource File. Each chair informs the APT committee about his/her department’s expectations so that when a faculty member is reviewed for promotion, the department’s expectations are the frame the committee uses for review. 1.5.b. Governance Rights and Obligations Required Documentation: A copy of the constitution, bylaws or other policy document that determines the rights and obligations of administrators, faculty and students in governance of the school. The school faculty has no governance organization apart from the university-wide Faculty Council. That organization has forerunners to the beginnings of the university in the late 18th century, but its current form began in 1951. The council represents faculty from all parts of the university and derives its formal legal standing from the UNC Board of Governors. It has legislative powers over educational policies, rules, and regulations; requirements for admissions, programs of study, and award of academic degrees; recommendations for honorary degrees and special awards; regulations governing student conduct that affect academic standards or performance; and can establish committees of the council. (See The Code of The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina and The UNC Policy Manual http://www.northcarolina.edu/policy/index.php, and The Faculty Code of University Government [UNC-Chapel Hill] http://tinyurl.com/unccode; these documents are also available in the Resource File).

1.5.c. School Standing and Ad hoc Committees Required Documentation: A list of school standing and important ad hoc committees, with a statement of charge, composition, and current membership for each. See tables 1.5.c. for current information on school standing and important ad hoc committees.


58

Table 1.5.c. School Standing and Ad Hoc Committees Academic Programs Committee Membership: The associate dean for academic affairs oversees this committee, and committee membership consists of the director of graduate studies from each of the seven departments and the Public Health Leadership Program. Term of membership: Departments’ directors of graduate studies Charge: To consider admission quotas, current and newly proposed courses, curricula and degree requirements of all departments in the School of Public Health, and to recommend actions to the dean. These reviews include studies on a long-term basis as well as for current needs. BIOS Jane Monaco ESE Steve Whalen EPID Gerardo Heiss HBHE Carol Runyan HPM Peggy Leatt, Ex-officio HPM Suzanne Hobbs MCH Anita Farel (Chair) NUTR Amanda Holliday, Marlyn Allicock PHLP Bill Sollecito Dean’s Office David D. Potenziani NCIPH Ed Baker Doctoral student Stephanie Baker (HBHE) Master’s student Jeff Nguyen (HPM)

Appointments Promotions and Tenure (APT) Committee Membership: Five persons holding the rank of professor and representing the natural and social sciences as well as the measurement sciences and medical service professions. The membership should also, insofar as practical, represent the range of service, teaching, and research orientation. If possible, no two members will be from the same department. Term of Membership: Three years. Charge: To review all appointments, reappointments or promotion that result in permanent tenure, all appointments to the rank of associate professor and above, and all promotions to the ranks of associate professor and professor in accordance with the school protocol entitled "Policies Governing Appointments and Promotions for EPA Personnel" and university tenure regulations. To recommend to the dean approval or disapproval of such appointments, reappointments and promotions. To establish guidelines, standards and criteria for appointments, reappointments and promotions which will ensure increasing levels of competence and faculty dedication to the tripodal foundations on which the school's program and reputation depends. A recommendation for appointment, reappointment or promotions must have the concurrence of at least three members of the committee. Department Representative BIOS Jason Fine EPID Wayne Rosamond ESE Michael Flynn HBHE Eugenia Eng HPM Peggy Leatt, Ex-officio HPM Joseph Morrissey MCH Michael Foster NUTR Linda Adair (Chair)


59

Bernard G. Greenberg Alumni Endowment Award Committee Membership: Composed of three alumni volunteers, appointed by the Governing Board, three faculty members appointed by the Dean and a volunteer representative from the SPH Student Government. An effort is made to represent all Departments in the School. Term of membership: Formed at the beginning of the spring semester and the members serve until awardees are selected in time for the awards to be given at the Foard Lecture – usually in April Charge: The Greenberg Award was established by the School’s Alumni Association to honor Dr. Bernard G. Greenberg, founder and chair of the Department of Biostatistics from 1949 to 1972 and dean of the School from 1972 to 1982. The award is given annually to an outstanding full-time faculty member for excellence in the areas of teaching, research and service. Special consideration is given to candidates who have seamlessly integrated these areas of focus. A major criterion is continuous demonstrated excellence over a number of years in service to the broader public health community. The award is intended for an established faculty member as an incentive for continued excellence in these three areas. The award may support faculty at the assistant, associate or full professor level, and carries with it a stipend of $12,000 for each of three years. Previous recipients of the award are not eligible. Nominations are accepted from members of the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health faculty or the Governing Board of the SPH Alumni Association. All nominations are reviewed by the Endowment Awards Committee. Department Representative ESE David Leith, ScD ESE Liz Naess, PhD ESE Jacky Rosati, PhD HBHE Susan Ennett, MSPH, PhD HBHE Shelley Golden, MPH NUTR Alice Ammerman, MPH, DrPH UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention

Joan Kavanagh

Chairs Committee Membership: currently led by Peggy Leatt (chair of Health Policy and Management); the seven department chairs and the director of the Public Health Leadership Program; other members of the school’s leadership team or the broader university may be present for the discussion of specific topics Term of membership: Term of service as chair Charge: Meet monthly to provide advice to the dean on all aspects of the school’s long-term and short-term goals, policies, and operations, including academic affairs, research, and student affairs. Department Representative BIOS Mike Kosorok ESE Mike Aitken Epidemiology Andy Olshan HBHE Jo Anne Earp HPM Peggy Leatt (Chair) MCH Bert Peterson Nutrition June Stevens PHLP, HPM Bill Sollecito Dean’s Office Barbara Rimer

Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) Self-Study Committee – see Appendix 1.2.f.1.


60

Dean’s Council Membership: Dean, department chairs; the senior associate dean and associate and assistant deans; several key program directors, including communications, Carolina Public Health Solutions, and the North Carolina Institute for Public Health; and representatives of SPH Student Government and the Minority Student Caucus. Term of Membership: Indefinite except for students, one year. Charge: Advise the dean on matters pertaining to the school, its operation, and future, including changes in policy and direction. Department Representative ESE Michael Aitken NCIPH Edword Baker IIS Kathy Barboriak Global Health Margaret (Peggy) Bentley Minority Student Caucus Yasmin Cole-Lewis (student) Communications Ramona Dubose HBHE Jo Anne Earp External Affairs Peggy Dean Glenn SPH Student Government Mohamed Jalloh (student) BIOS Michael Kosorok HPM Peggy Leatt Carolina Public Health Solutions Julie MacMillan Research Sandra Martin Student Affairs Felicia Mebane Dean’s Office Brenda Motsinger SPH Student Government Jeffrey Nguyen (student) Business and Finance Charlotte Nunez-Wolff Epidemiology Andrew Olshan MCH Herbert Peterson Minority Student Caucus Patsy Polston (student) Dean’s Office David D. Potenziani Dean’s Office Barbara K. Rimer Dean’s Office Jessie Satia PHLP, HPM William Sollecito Nutrition June Stevens


61

Global Health Advisory Committee (GHAC) Membership: The GHAC includes representatives from each department in the Gillings School of Global Public Health, as well as members from the Student Global Health Committee, School of Medicine, Health Sciences Library, University Center for International Studies, Carolina Asia Center, and SPH alumni, as well as from several organizations in the Triangle (e.g., Family Health International, RTI International, IntraHealth, ABT Associates and IPAS). Each departmental representative serves as the Certificate in Global Health advisor to their department. These faculty members are primary resources for students interested in global health in their departments. Term of membership: Indefinite; committee members continue to serve as per the invitation of the Office of Global Health. Charge: The Global Health Advisory Committee (GHAC) provides input and guidance on the development and progress of educational, research, and service/outreach programs in global health. This is done in an advisory capacity to the Office of Global Health on such topics as curriculum, policy issues, seminar speakers, and grants, among many other areas. Purpose: 1) Increase the School’s funding opportunities for global health-oriented teaching, research and practice; 2) Enhance cooperative partnerships with individuals and institutions across UNC, North Carolina, the U.S., and other countries around the world; 3) Increase the emphasis of global health issues in curricula in the School and its departments; 4) Update and maintain information, education, and communication resources about global health activities in the School of Public Health; and 5) Provide a visible focal point for global health activities within the School.

Department Representative BIOS Shrikant Bangdiwala (Co-Chair) NUTR Peggy Bentley UNC SOM Office of International Activities Martha Carlough UNC Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases Myron S. Cohen Student Global Health Committee Daniel Cothran Carolina Public Health Solutions Francesca Florey HPM Bruce Fried (Co-Chair) HPM Dean M. Harris IntraHealth International Roxanne Henderson/ Rebecca Kohler UNC Health Sciences Library Mellanye Lackey ESE Don Lauria Family Medicine James Lea IPAS Brooke Levandowski EPID, NCCPHP Pia D Macdonald HBHE Suzanne Maman Nutrition & Health Research, Abt Associates, Inc. Bernadette Marriott Carolina Asia Center Tom Martineau NUTR Barry Popkin RTI International, Global Health Technologies Doris Rouse RTI International, Research Resource Development Lucy Siegel MCH Ilene Speizer HBHE Allan Steckler PHLP David Steffen UNC Center for Global Initiatives Niklaus Steiner Student Global Health Committee Juliana Thornton External Affairs Barbara Wallace EPID Sharon Weir Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy Corrina Moucheraud Vickery Office of Global Health Gretchen Van Vliet Meganium Corp Tom Wong


62

Harriet Hylton Barr Distinguished Alumni Award CommitteeMembership: The nomination committee is made up of at least three SPH alumni and should include a member from the previous year’s committee. Term of membership: Formed at the beginning of the spring semester and the members serve until awardees are selected in time for the awards to be given at the Foard Lecture – usually in April Charge: Established in 1975, the Barr Award recognizes the achievements of alumni and their contributions to public health. For many years the award has carried the name of its 1980 recipient – Harriet Hylton Barr – to honor her contributions to the field. Barr, who earned her Master of Public Health degree from UNC in 1984, is a clinical associate professor emeritus in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education. She was the School’s first director of alumni affairs, a position she held for 25 years. Charged with inviting alumni to continue their involvement with the School, her work also kept the School in closer touch with public health practitioners in communities throughout North Carolina and the United States. The nominator or one of the two endorsers must be a graduate of the UNC Gillings School of Public Health. The nominee must be a graduate and be a professional working full-time in public health or a related field. The nomination committee selects a candidate to refer to the Dean.

Department Representative ESE Jacky Rosati, PhD ESE Chris Trent, MS EPID Penny Padgett, MPH HBHE Shelley Golden, MPH HPM Danica L. Patterson, MHA MCH Joseph Lee, MPH

North Carolina Institute of Public Health Review Committee Membership: The North Carolina Institute of Public Health Review Committee includes representatives from several departments in the School of Public Health, as well as members from the North Carolina Institute of Public Health, the School of Medicine, the School of Government, as well as from community organizations such as Cabarrus Health Alliance and the Orange County Health Department. Term of membership: July 2006 – June, 14 2007 Charge: In July 2006, Dean Rimer of the School of Public Health appointed a 21 member team to undertake a review of the North Carolina Institute of Public Health at the School of Public Health. The task force solicited wide input into how, and how well, the Institute is functioning, meeting its goals and missions, and those of the School of Public Health.

Department/Organization Representative Social Medicine Thomas J. Bacon, DrPH Association of NC Boards of Health Robert R. Blackburn, MS, MPH North Carolina Division of Public Health J. Steven Cline, DDS, MPH National Public Health Leadership Institute Donna Dinkin, MPH NUTR Janice Dodds, EdD, RD HBHE Jo Anne Earp, ScD, Team Chair Office of the Vice Chancellor for University Advancement Kevin FitzGerald, MPA North Carolina Institute of Public Health John W. Graham, PhD HPM Sandra B. Greene, DrPH School of Government Jill Moore, JD, MPH


63

North Carolina Institute of Public Health Review Committee, continued Department/Organization Representative

Dean’s Office Brenda McAdams Motsinger, MS, RD, LDN North Carolina Division of Public Health Rick Mumford, DMD, MPH, CPH North Carolina Institute of Public Health Sheila Pfaender, MS Cabarrus Health Alliance William (Phred) Pilkington, DPA Social Medicine Deborah Porterfield, MD, MPH Justus-Warren Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Task Force

Elizabeth Puckett, PT

HPM Thomas Ricketts III, PhD HPM R. Gary Rozier, DDS PHLP William Sollecito, DrPH North Carolina Institute of Public Health Rachel Stevens, EdD, RN Orange County Health Department Rosemary Summers, DrPH

Office of Student Affairs Student Advisory Board Membership: The Executive Board of the school’s student government (a representative from each department, the co-presidents, and a representative for BSPH students and distance learning students, any other officers [e.g., treasurer]) Term of Membership: Length of term on student government (typically one year) Charge: This group meets with the dean for students twice a year to review Office of Student Affairs activities, receive an overview of student issues, and give feedback and advice.

Department/Organization Representative Student Affairs Felicia Mebane BIOS Diana Lam ESE Jenna Kolling EPID Vacant HBHE Mohamed Jalloh (Co-President) HBHE Jeff Quinn HPM Kathryn Shaia HPM Jeff Nguyen (Co-President) MCH Subasri Narasimhan and Elizabeth Weinstein NUTR Vacant PHLP Will Ray Undergraduate Chirag Rajpuria and Alice Wang (Social & Service Chair)

Research Council Membership: faculty representatives from each department; chaired by the associate dean for research Term of Membership: Either a two- or three-year term (on a rotating basis) Charge: Identify issues that should be considered by the dean, associate dean for research, and other faculty members, focusing especially on issues that are important to advance the research environment and research program at the school.

Department Representative BIOS Danyu Lin ESE Leena A. Nylander-French EPID Steve Marshall HBHE Edwin Fisher HPM Gary Rozier MCH Jon Hussey MCH Sandra Martin (Chair) NUTR Penny Gordon-Larsen NUTR Barry Popkin PHLP Diane Calleson


64

SPH All-Hazards Preparedness Committee Membership: faculty, staff, and a representative from the North Carolina Institute for Public Health Term of Membership: Term of representative’s position in the school. Charge: Primary functions include: (1) Ensure leadership, faculty, staff and students’ awareness and understanding of the School-wide All Hazards Committee and the School-wide emergency management system (ICS). (2) Develop and maintain a School-wide emergency management system based on the FEMA Incident Command System. (3) Serve as the Incident Command Center during an emergency event. (a) Assign individuals as lead/back-up to sections/function –maintain skills/knowledge needed. (b) Coordinate functions between emergency management and business continuity. (3) Review emergency events and recommend corrective actions, develop procedures in coordination with University. (4) Oversee development of departments/units COOPs; coordinate and monitor COOPs. (5) Revise and complete written procedures that require an annual review and update; includes Interface with UNC –how our records are current at School and UNC level, provides information about location of electronic copies, hard copies/master notebooks, etc.

Department Representative Instructional and Information Systems Kathy Barboriak Communications Ramona Dubose HPM Bill Gentry Facilities Rob Kark Office of Student Affairs Felicia Mebane Dean’s Office Brenda Motsinger, Chair Dean’s Office Charlotte Nunez-Wolff EPID Andy Olshan Dean’s Office Dave Potenziani, Incident Commander NCIPH, Center for Public Health Preparedness Rich Rosselli EPID Jim Thomas Business Office Justin Woodard

SPH McGavran Teaching Award Committee Membership: Faculty representatives from each of the school’s departments. Term of Membership: Indefinite Charge: Review nominations; select nominee who best fit the description of the McGavran Teaching Award.

Department/Organization Representative BIOS Kant Bangdiwala ESE Steve Whalen EPID Charles Poole HBHE Wizdom Powell-Hammond HPM Laurel Files HPM Peggy Leatt (Chair) MCH Sherri Green NUTR Ka He PHLP Lori Evarts


65

SPH Student Awards Committee Membership: Faculty, staff, and students. Term of Membership: Faculty members to be appointed for a 3-yr term, staff a 2-yr term, students a 1-yr term.Charge: Review proposed awards, develop criteria for awards deemed appropriate by the dean and the committee, form ad hoc committees for the selection of recipients of appropriate awards and recommend these to the dean.

Department/Organization Representative NUTR Marci Campbell BIOS Michael Hudgens ESE David Leith Student Affairs Felicia Mebane (non-voting member) EPID Charlie Poole HPM Kristin Reiter MCH Marcia Roth HBHE To be appointed ASAP PHLP To be appointed ASAP

Web Council Membership: Stakeholders from every unit including faculty, students, and staff Term: Representatives’ job tenure or at will of representative or Instructional and Information Systems dean Charge: Consider the goals of the school website and make recommendations for its improvement.

Department/Organization Representative IIS Kathy Barboriak HBHE Noel Brewer Communications Ramona Dubose EPID Spencer Gee NCIPH John Graham MCH Joumana Haidar Student Affairs Amy Hitlin IIS Charlie Hitlin BIOS Michael Hudgens HPM Lynnette Jones Student Affairs Felicia Mebane Research Christin Minter Communications Christine Perry Business & Finance Robert Pitts Nutrition and Epidemiology Jessie Satia ESE Marc Serre Office of Global Health Gretchen Van Vliet PHLP Willie Williamson

1.5.d. Faculty Participation on University Committees

Required Documentation: Identification of school faculty who hold membership on university committees, through which faculty contribute to the activities of the university. The school’s faculty participates fully in campus governance; (see Appendix 1.5.d. for current committee memberships). They serve on the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee, Faculty Executive Committee, Faculty Council, Enrollment Policy Advising Committee, Administrative Board of the Graduate School, Administrative Board of the university Division


66

of Extension and Continuing Education, Affirmative Action Committee, and many other campuswide academic committees. (For additional information about faculty service on university committees, see Criterion 3.2.) 1.5.e. Student Roles in Governance Required Documentation: Description of student roles in governance, including any formal organizations, and student roles in evaluation of school and program functioning. Students play a vital role in the school’s governance. They actively participate as full members of schoolwide and department committees and have a rich history of self-governance that is well supported by the school; (see table 1.5.e.1.). The co-presidents of the SPH Student Government and co-presidents of the Minority Student Caucus serve as full members of the Dean’s Council; they regularly present issues concerning students and lend a student perspective to the council’s discussion and recommendations. Table 1.5.e.1. Schoolwide Committees with Student Representation (as of July 21, 2009) Acceleration Advisory Committee All Hazards Planning Committee Alumni Association Governing Board Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) Self-Study Committee Dean’s Council Financial Literacy Committee Global Health Advisory Council (GHAC) Space Committee Speakers Committee Office of Student Affairs Student Advisory Board Web Council

Every academic department in the school has student representation on key governing committees. For example: ESE students have a formal role in the selection process for new faculty members, meeting with potential candidates and providing feedback on selection criteria and their choice among candidates. HBHE students are integral to various program curriculum committees, and in HPM, a student representative attends department faculty meetings and serves as a liaison between the student body and the faculty. Student Organizations The school supports myriad student organizations; (see http://tinyurl.com/stdorgs and table 1.5.e.2. for groups officially recognized by the university). Student organizations include official and unofficial schoolwide and department-based organizations, as well as campuswide organizations with significant participation from public health students. Two key schoolwide student groups are Student Government and the Minority Student Caucus.


67

Table 1.5.e.2. Student Organizations (as of July 21. 2009) Schoolwide (open to all Public Health students) AcademyHealth (UNC Student Chapter/HPM) Carolina Breastfeeding: Evidence-based Education and Support (Carolina BEBES) Health Executives Student Association (ACHE Affiliate) (HPM) Minority Student Caucus (including Minority Health Conference) Nutrition Coalition Student Global Health Committee School of Public Health Running Club School of Public Health Student Government School of Public Health Undergraduate Student Council (under review) Department-specific Biostatistics Student Association Environmental Sciences and Engineering Student Organization (ENVRSO) Epidemiology Student Organization Healthy Heels (Nutrition) Health Policy and Management Master’s Student Council Other Public Health-Related Student Organizations Engineers Without Borders (Daniel A. Okun Chapter) Health Sciences Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Alliance GlobeMed (UNC Chapter) Minority Association for Pre-health Students (undergraduates) NC-HCAP Health Careers Club (undergraduates) Start for the Heart UNC-Chapel Hill Student Parent Association

SPH Student Government represents and advocates for the causes and interests of the student body. It functions as a channel of communication between students and the faculty and school leadership. It also disseminates information and supports student-initiated projects on behalf of public health students to faculty and staff and the university community. Each department has representation. The Minority Student Caucus (MSC) is open for all students of color in the school and anyone else interested in supporting the Caucus's mission. MSC was founded in the early 1970s to advocate for issues of concern to minority students. The Caucus promotes research and programs aimed at addressing health issues that particularly affect people of color (e.g. health disparities). It also collaborates with the school’s leadership to recruit and attract more students of color to the school, working, for example, on Project Reach, which reaches out to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (especially in North Carolina) and to institutions serving other minority groups. The Caucus founded the Minority Health Conference in 1977 and has conducted it annually since that time. This year, the 30th annual Minority Health Conference registered over 540 people in Chapel Hill, while five other universities participated remotely and held events on their campuses.


68

Office of Student Affairs The school’s Office of Student Affairs (OSA) supports student organizations and student leaders in several ways. Until fall 2008, OSA provided space to Student Government and to the Minority Student Caucus; since then, the school has provided separate office space to each group. Since spring 2006, OSA has provided an average of $6,000 a year to support student organization’ activities, including professional development, student recruitment/outreach, and public health awareness and promotion. Since fall 2006, the assistant dean for students has offered a Student Leadership Seminar for officers of the school’s organizations. Monthly sessions and an accompanying Blackboard site:

• Provide an opportunity for students to engage across departments; • Allow student leaders and the assistant dean for student affairs to share best

practices for student organizations and leadership; • Introduce student leaders to the school’s leadership; and • Help student organizations collaborate with each other.

The assistant dean for student affairs serves as the faculty advisor for Student Government and the Minority Student Caucus, and meets monthly with leaders of these two organizations, as well as the Student Global Health Committee. In addition, the assistant dean for student affairs arranges meetings among herself, representatives of key student organizations, and the dean at least once each semester. Student Feedback The school offers students a variety of in-person and online mechanisms for sharing their opinions at both the school and department levels, detailed in Criterion 4.6.b. Twice each academic year, the OSA conducts a schoolwide survey of all students that provides an opportunity to evaluate their experiences and provide feedback on a variety of topics. In addition, in January 2007, the OSA established Hotlink, an online tool for students to provide anonymous feedback about the school and their experiences. The assistant dean for students follows up on specific items identified through the surveys and Hotlink (e.g., lack of access to wireless Internet), and is developing a plan for regular feedback loops to all students. Course evaluations are another means of obtaining vital feedback from students (see Criterion 4.2.d.) Each department also has mechanism(s) through which its students can express their concerns and provide evaluative feedback. For example, Maternal and Child Health (MCH) and Health Policy and Management (HPM) conduct exit interviews—the former with every student individually, and the latter with voluntary groups. HPM also conducts anonymous online “midprogram evaluations” annually, providing feedback to all program directors and to key department administrators.


69

1.5.f. Assessment of Governance Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths

Extensive and effective committee structure at school and department levels. The school has engaged alumni and leaders in multiple sectors in a number of committees, including the Public Health Foundation Board, Alumni Association, and Advisory Council

Broad representation in school and department governance structure and activities;

faculty from different ranks, and staff, participate in a variety of key committees across the school

Comprehensive and explicit academic policy documentation

Quality and breadth of opportunities for student governance, including a strong student

government organization and outstanding organizations for global health and minority student issues

Quality and level of student participation in school governance, including membership on

key decision making committees, such as Dean’s Council and Academic Programs Committee

Challenges

Increasing faculty representation or input to school decision-making among faculty who have not been active heretofore

Increasing diverse representation of student participation in student governance

activities Providing timely feedback to students, and to faculty and administrators about students,

about the issues that engage them

Constantly seeking the levers that interest and engage faculty and staff

Engaging staff to feel that the school is responsive to their interests Future Directions

Implement faculty representation for the Dean’s Council

Work with the university to implement an online course evaluation tool used by all departments in the school


70

Conduct regular student, faculty, and staff climate surveys, and use the data for self-

improvement

Review and update all policy documents on the school’s intranet for community access



1.6 Resources

CEPH Criterion The school shall have resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission and goals, and its instructional, research and service objectives,

CEPH Required Documentation

a. A description of the budgetary and allocation processes, sufficient to understand all sources of funds that support the teaching, research and service activities of the school. This should include, as appropriate, discussion about legislative appropriations, formula for funds distribution, tuition generation and retention, gifts, grants and contracts, indirect cost recovery, taxes or levies imposed by the university or other entity within the university, and other policies that impact on the resources available to the school.

b. A clearly formulated school budget statement, showing sources of all available funds and expenditures by major categories, since the last accreditation visit or for the last five years, whichever is longer. This information must be presented in table format as appropriate to the school. See CEPH Data Template A.

c. If the school is a collaborative one sponsored by two or more universities, the budget statement must make clear the financial contributions of each sponsoring university to the overall school budget. This should be accompanied by a description of how tuition and other income is shared, including indirect cost returns for research generated by school of public health faculty who may have their primary appointment elsewhere.

d. A concise statement or chart concerning the number (headcount) of faculty in each of the five concentration areas (and any other concentration areas identified in Criterion 2.1) employed by the school as of fall for each of the last three years. If the school is a collaborative one, sponsored by two or more institutions, the statement or chart must include the number of faculty from each of the participating institutions.

e. A table showing faculty, students, and student/faculty ratios, organized by department or specialty area, or other organizational unit as appropriate to the school for each of the last three years. These data must be presented in table format (see CEPH Data Template B) and include at least the following information: a) headcount of primary faculty who support the teaching programs (primary faculty are those with primary appointment in the school of public health), b) FTE conversion of faculty based on % time or % salary support devoted to the instructional programs, c)

Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources

72

headcount of other faculty involved in the teaching programs (adjunct, part-time, secondary appointments, etc), d) FTE conversion of other faculty based on estimate of % time commitment, e) total headcount of core faculty plus other faculty, f) total FTE of core and other faculty, g) headcount of students in department or program area, h) FTE conversion of students, based on 9 or more credits per semester as full-time, i) student FTE divided by regular faculty FTE and j) student FTE divided by total faculty FTE, including other. All schools must provide data for a), b) and i) and may provide data for c), d) and j) depending on whether the school intends to include the contributions of other faculty in its FTE calculations. Note: CEPH does not specify the manner in which FTE faculty must be calculated, so the school should explain its method in a footnote to this table. In addition, FTE data in this table must match FTE data presented in 4.1.a and 4.1.b.

f. A concise statement or chart concerning the availability of other personnel (administration and staff).

g. A concise statement or chart concerning amount of space available to the school by purpose (offices, classrooms, common space for student use, etc.), by program and location.

h. A concise statement or floor plan concerning laboratory space, including kind, quantity and special features or special equipment.

i. A concise statement concerning the amount, location and types of computer facilities and resources for students, faculty, administration and staff.

j. A concise statement of library/information resources available for school use, including description of library capabilities in providing digital (electronic) content, access mechanisms and guidance in using them, and document delivery services.

k. A concise statement describing community resources available for instruction, research and service, indicating those where formal agreements exist.

l. A concise statement of the amount and source of “in-kind” academic contributions available for instruction, research and service, indicating where formal agreements exist.

m. Identification of outcome measures by which the school may judge the adequacy of its resources, along with data regarding the school’s performance against those measures for each of the last three years. At a minimum, the school must provide data on institutional expenditures per full-time-equivalent student, research dollars per full-time-equivalent faculty, and extramural funding (service or training) as a percent of the total budget.

n. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.


73

1.6.a. Budgetary and Allocation Processes Required Documentation: A description of the budgetary and allocation processes, sufficient to understand all sources of funds that support the teaching, research and service activities of the school. This should include, as appropriate, discussion about legislative appropriations, formula for funds distribution, tuition generation and retention, gifts, grants and contracts, indirect cost recovery, taxes or levies imposed by the university or other entity within the university, and other policies that impact on the resources available to the school. Key Resources The school is well positioned from a resource standpoint to maximize its impact on public health in North Carolina and the world. Although there are never sufficient resources to accomplish all that is desired, the school strives effectively to manage, leverage, and invest its resources, so that faculty, students, and staff have full opportunity to learn, grow, and truly make a difference. The school’s annual budget, including expendable resources available to it through the Public Health Foundation, exceeds $110 million in FY 2009, made up primarily of state appropriations, direct funding from grants and contracts, and gifts. State funding levels have increased substantially since the last CEPH self-study and have grown more than 15% in the last two years, now exceeding $25 million per year. Much of this recent increase, however, has been due to allocations for special projects or programs such as the Nutritional Research Institute (http://www.nri.unc.edu/), special faculty hires, and the conversion of Environmental Sciences and Engineering from 11-month to 9-month faculty appointments. There have been increases in extramural funding as well, with sponsored research awards administered through the school exceeding $60 million per year. Other research awards administered outside of the school but involving the school’s faculty add more than $40 million annually to the total of extramurally funded research activities. The school’s development activities have produced several large gifts, most notably the recent gift of $50 million from Dennis and Joan Gillings, which is allowing us to fund higher-risk and high-impact public health projects. The Gillings gift also enhances the school’s institutional and educational capacity in several ways, providing professorships to encourage interdisciplinary interaction, diversity, and retention of key faculty; helping the school to improve curricula; and providing resources to encourage exemplary achievement and contributions to public health. The university, the state, and the school have invested significant capital funds during the last several years to improve the school’s physical plant; (see Criterion 1.6.g., Available Space). In addition, several units within the school operate service centers, providing support and services to campus and off-campus users and sponsors. For example, BIOS runs the Survey Research Unit (http://sru.sph.unc.edu/) and the Collaborating Studies Coordinating


74

Center (http://tinyurl.com/bioscscc). In addition, the Instructional and Information Systems (IIS) unit provides instructional design and materials creation assistance to other schools on campus in teaching with technology. Allocation Framework General Administration of the UNC system distributes state funding to its component universities and schools based on enrollment and using a formula that includes weighting based on credit hours, degree level, and cost benchmarks for disciplines. In addition, the system also provides special state appropriations to the Chapel Hill campus for programs. The School of Public Health receives a portion of the university’s increase or decrease in state funding based on enrollment changes, as well as adjustments to budgeted state funding based on legislative directives (direct and indirect) and initiatives sanctioned by the provost. UNC-Chapel Hill operates through a centralized budget model with regard to its many schools and other academic units. Tuition and fees, state appropriations, indirect cost recoveries, and other resources are collected and managed centrally, with a portion reserved for campuswide services such as facility operation and maintenance, payroll, and accounting. Each year, the school and its departments receive a separate allocation calculated as a proportion (19.5%) of the indirect cost generated from grants and contracts administered within the school in the previous fiscal year. Of this 19.5% allocation, 15.6% goes directly to the department that administered the research grant, while the remaining 3.9% is reserved for the school’s central administration. Research grants administered outside of the school that require significant resources of the school’s faculty usually involve a negotiated agreement for some indirect cost recovery sharing between the other unit and the school’s department. Budget Process State Budget Process Although the state’s fiscal year begins on 1 July, the state legislature typically does not complete the state budget until mid to late summer. After the legislature provides a budget to the UNC system and the university receives its approved budget from the system, usually in late summer, the provost provides the school with its annual budget allocation, including support for special funding initiatives. Because of this timeline—which is not under the school’s control—the school cannot accurately quantify the effects of the new fiscal year state budget until the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year at best, and most likely after the end of the second quarter. This uncertainty heightens the importance of balancing state funding with nonstate-derived resources, so that the school can continue to operate seamlessly.


75

Depending on economic circumstances, in any given year the university system’s state budget allocation may be subject to positive and/or negative adjustments, which are then passed on to the system’s component universities, the school, and the school’s departments at any time during the course of the fiscal year. The school determines what amount of these increases or decreases will be allocated to its departments and other units. The dean also retains some unallocated funds to support targeted initiatives, new faculty hires, bridge funding for faculty and their research staff, and central support functions.

School Planning Process The university’s annual budget planning process provides the framework for the school’s overall budget and resource allocation process. The budget process for any fiscal year involves about 18 months of effort from planning, revising, executing, and closing a fiscal year’s budget. The process begins in the winter preceding the fiscal year when the dean solicits requests for new budget initiatives from the departments and other units. After consultation with the members of the Dean’s Council, the dean and her staff prepare the school’s budget planning document, which summarizes achievements during the past fiscal year, states goals and objectives for the coming year, and identifies future budget year priorities and associated resource requirements. The school also prepares a document that identifies resources required for faculty start-up packages. The school then submits its budget and start-up request documents to the provost for review and consideration. Within the university framework, the school provides guidance on resource management to its departments, institutes, and centers. The dean, the senior associate dean and the associate dean for business and finance meet with the department chairs and their administrators to discuss department finances several times during the year. In the spring and early summer, participants also review the department’s past performance and future projections, and consider faculty salaries with regards to equity and their relation to benchmarks of the Association of Schools of Public Health, or specific disciplines. Once the annual state allocation to the school is determined, usually in August, the dean and her staff meet again with each department to set the annual budget. The Business and Finance staff works with each department and unit to monitor spending to optimize the use of all resources and end each year in a favorable financial state. They report the yearend financial status of the school to the Dean’s Council and at the Faculty and Staff Meeting in the fall. The school is continuously seeking better methods and models to assess and allocate funding to promote efficiency and effectiveness in all operations and to ensure adequate funding for state-of-the-art instruction, research, and community outreach. In 2009, the school began the process to strengthen its process for conducting financial and faculty salary reviews with departments and units, and also evaluated new methods for allocating state resources to individual departments and units.

ConnectCarolina


76

ConnectCarolina is the university-wide effort to replace aging software systems that manage student information, human resources, payroll and finance. The new system is built on PeopleSoft technology and will be implemented in phases. The first phase includes student services: admissions, student records, financial aid, and student finances. Beginning summer 2009, it will support undergraduate admissions, with graduate admissions to follow. The next phase encompasses human resources, payroll, and finance. The project will take several years to complete. School leaders are engaged in serving on advisory and governance committees that relate to the determination of information needs, business rules, data definitions, data use and security, and technology configuration. 1.6.b. Budget Statement Required Documentation: A clearly formulated school budget statement, showing sources of all available funds and expenditures by major categories, since the last accreditation visit or for the last five years, whichever is longer. This information must be presented in table format as appropriate to the school. See CEPH Data Template A. Budgets from fiscal years 2000 to 2009 are shown in table 1.6.b (Template A), Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major Category. 1.6.c. Collaborative Budget Statement Required Documentation: If the school is a collaborative one sponsored by two or more universities, the budget statement must make clear the financial contributions of each sponsoring university to the overall school budget. This should be accompanied by a description of how tuition and other income is shared, including indirect cost returns for research generated by school of public health faculty who may have their primary appointment elsewhere. Not applicable.


77

1.6.d. Concentration Area Faculty Required Documentation: A concise statement or chart concerning the number (headcount) of faculty in each of the five concentration areas (and any other concentration areas identified in Criterion 2.1) employed by the school as of fall for each of the last three years. If the school is a collaborative one, sponsored by two or more institutions, the statement or chart must include the number of faculty from each of the participating institutions. CEPH defines five concentration areas: biostatistics, environmental health sciences (i.e., environmental sciences and engineering), epidemiology, health services administration (i.e., health policy and management), and social and behavioral sciences (i.e., health behavior and health education). In addition, our school has concentration areas of maternal and child health, nutrition, and public health leadership. Table 1.6.d. shows the number of faculty in each concentration area for academic years 2006-2007 through 2008-2009.


78

Table 1.6.b. Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major Category, Fiscal Years 2000 to 2009 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Sources of Funds Tuition & Fees Returned from State $ 5,894,408 $ 6,637,616 $ 7,530,587 $ 8,169,912 $ 8,404,108

Continuing Education Fees $ 1,200,206 $ 1,143,678 $ 1,027,476 $ 1,293,507 $ 1,402,295 Program Fees & State Subsidy $ 11,868,906 $ 13,211,285 $ 12,256,538 $ 10,539,365 $ 9,510,015 Contracts & Grants Direct Costs $ 26,127,540 $ 30,153,398 $ 34,522,163 $ 40,421,859 $ 45,082,046 Indirect Cost Allocation $ 6,617,986 $ 7,280,230 $ 7,390,188 $ 6,524,006 $ 6,522,451 Restricted & Unrestricted Funds $ 8,136,183 $ 7,739,528 $ 9,453,821 $ 10,500,119 $ 12,721,221 Gift Income $ 1,655,343 $ 2,333,670 $ 2,232,536 $ 3,113,479 $ 3,670,656 Investment & Other Income $ 2,060,273 $ 2,522,797 $ 2,090,252 $ 3,082,482 $ 2,812,350 Auxiliary $ 885,131 $ 1,106,826 $ 1,622,315 $ 2,890,654 $ 2,730,950 Total Sources $ 64,445,975 $ 72,129,028 $ 78,125,875 $ 86,789,109 $ 92,856,092 Expenditures Compensation $ 39,347,514 $ 41,894,939 $ 44,338,849 $ 48,115,547 $ 52,438,421 Operations $ 13,388,917 $ 16,152,931 $ 16,879,957 $ 21,696,204 $ 19,888,430 Student Support $ 2,390,344 $ 2,793,538 $ 3,144,844 $ 3,890,337 $ 4,237,847 Net Transfers $ (514,819) $ (136,286) $ (788,944) $ 253,725 $ (214,404) Total Expenditures $ 54,611,955 $ 60,705,123 $ 63,574,706 $ 73,955,813 $ 76,350,295 Long Term Investment Market Value $ 5,165,614 $ 4,819,969 $ 6,740,266 $ 6,900,707 $ 13,868,732

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Sources of Funds Tuition & Fees Returned from State $ 8,721,945 $ 8,969,277 $ 9,475,993 $ 8,537,138 $ 10,425,167

Continuing Education Fees $ 2,034,039 $ 2,379,236 $ 2,545,726 $ 1,401,177 $ 2,084,613 Program Fees & State Subsidy $ 10,024,707 $ 10,508,842 $ 13,643,804 $ 21,222,860 $ 25,133,356 Contracts & Grants Direct Costs $ 49,791,701 $ 49,501,277 $ 48,588,926 $ 48,457,683 $ 58,663,095 Indirect Cost Allocation $ 7,617,809 $ 9,474,179 $ 9,964,019 $ 11,842,137 $ 11,329,029 Restricted & Unrestricted Funds $ 14,944,759 $ 16,951,383 $ 18,177,236 $ 19,423,612 $ 44,345,379 Gift Income $ 4,749,238 $ 5,171,702 $ 5,082,631 $ 28,093,856 $ 5,162,010 Investment & Other Income $ 4,731,573 $ 3,393,045 $ 4,861,658 $ 5,414,609 $ 5,636,593 Auxiliary $ 3,137,472 $ 2,807,300 $ 2,819,646 $ 3,914,802 $ 3,061,406 Total Sources $105,753,243 $ 109,156,242 $ 115,159,638 $ 148,307,873 $ 165,840,649 Expenditures Compensation $ 57,565,693 $ 60,195,536 $ 63,595,463 $ 66,636,043 $ 70,006,402 Operations $ 23,128,714 $ 22,556,904 $ 22,955,831 $ 26,175,960 $ 37,906,256 Student Support $ 4,677,720 $ 5,144,977 $ 4,927,395 $ 4,170,954 $ 4,808,928 Net Transfers $(2,039,779) $ (1,302,816) $ (1,014,346) $ (697,982) $ (1,849,514) Total Expenditures $ 83,332,348 $ 86,594,602 $ 90,464,343 $ 96,284,975 $ 110,872,072

Long Term Investment Market Value $ 15,515,698 $ 22,661,253 $ 29,247,135 $ 48,821,951 $ 37,693,108

Note: Figures include balances, investments, income and expenditures from School of Public Health University funds and the University of North Carolina Public Health Foundation, Inc.


79

Table 1.6.d. Faculty Headcount in Core Concentration* Areas Core Faculty 2008 2009 2010 Biostatistics 31 30 30 Environment Sciences & Engineering 27 27 26 Epidemiology 45 44 48 Health Behavior & Health Education 19 20 20 Health Policy and Management 30 31 29 Maternal & Child Health 21 19 19 Nutrition 25 27 30 PH Leadership Program 5 6 6 Public Health Nursing 5 4 4 Core Subtotal 208 208 212 Other Faculty 2008 2009 2010 Biostatistics 26 30 30 Environment Sciences & Engineering 20 23 35 Epidemiology 102 113 123 Health Behavior & Health Education 51 56 56 Health Policy and Management 80 79 87 Maternal & Child Health 60 74 75 Nutrition 17 23 22 PH Leadership Program 17 17 18 Public Health Nursing 17 14 15 Other Faculty Subtotal 390 429 461 TOTAL Faculty 598 637 673

* Concentration Area is equivalent to department/program 1.6.e. Faculty and Students Required Documentation: A table showing faculty, students, and student/faculty ratios, organized by department or specialty area, or other organizational unit as appropriate to the school for each of the last three years. These data must be presented in table format (see CEPH Data Template B) and include at least the following information: a) headcount of primary faculty who support the teaching programs (primary faculty are those with primary appointment in the school of public health), b) FTE conversion of faculty based on % time or % salary support devoted to the instructional programs, c) headcount of other faculty involved in the teaching programs (adjunct, part-time, secondary appointments, etc), d) FTE conversion of other faculty based on estimate of % time commitment, e) total headcount of core faculty plus other faculty, f) total FTE of core and other faculty, g) headcount of students in department or program area, h) FTE conversion of students, based on 9 or more credits per semester as full-time, i) student FTE divided by regular faculty FTE and j) student FTE divided by total faculty FTE, including other. All schools must provide data for a), b) and i) and may provide data for c), d) and j) depending on whether the school intends to include the contributions of other faculty in its FTE calculations. Note: CEPH does not specify the manner in which FTE faculty must be calculated, so the school should explain its method in a footnote to this table. In addition, FTE data in this table must match FTE data presented in 4.1.a and 4.1.b.


80

Table 1.6.e. Faculty, Students and Student/Faculty Ratios by Department, Fall 2006 HC Core

Fac. FTEF Core HC

Other Fac.

FTEF Other**

Total FAC HC

Total FTEF HC Students

FTE Non Doc

Students*

FTE Doc Students

FTE All Students

SFR by Core FTEF

SFR by Total FTEF

BIOS 34 34 27 1.25 61 35.25 139 46.5 69.25 115.75 3.41 3.29ESE 29 29 20 0.98 49 29.98 153 80.75 56.25 137 4.73 4.57EPID 44 44 98 0 142 44 162 36.25 92.25 128.5 2.93 2.93HBHE 18 18 52 0.51 70 18.51 138 86.5 35.25 121.75 6.77 6.58HPM 29 29 79 3.2 108 32.2 368 259 51.5 310.5 10.71 9.65MCH 18 18 57 0.8 75 18.8 80 52.25 19.25 71.5 3.98 3.81NUTR 25 25 19 4.09 44 29.09 110 58 46.75 104.75 4.19 3.61PHLP 10 10 32 1.41 42 11.41 168 130.25 0 130.25 13.03 11.42

Schoolwide 207 207 384 12.24 591 219.24 1318 749.50 370.50 1120 5.42 5.11

*Public Health Nursing has been combined into Public Health Leadership Program for this table

**FTEF Other does not include FTE counts for adjunct other teaching faculty occasionally used for single lectures and student committees, FTE counts for these faculty are not recorded

Table 1.6.e. Faculty, Students and Student/Faculty Ratios by Department, Fall 2007 HC

Core Fac.

FTEF Core HC Other Fac.

FTEF Other**

Total FAC HC


FTE Non Doc

Students*

FTE Doc Students

FTE All Students SFR by Core FTEF

SFR by Total FTEF

BIOS 31 31 26 1.8 57 32.8 133 38.25 70.5 108.75 3.51 3.32ESE 27 27 20 0.4 47 27.4 137 71 56.25 127.25 4.72 4.65EPID 45 45 102 0.8 147 45.8 171 28.75 105.5 134.25 2.99 2.94HBHE 19 19 51 0.5 70 19.5 129 83 32.75 115.75 6.1 5.94HPM 30 30 80 2.9 110 32.9 411 289.25 55 344.25 11.48 10.47MCH 21 21 60 0 81 21 81 54.75 20.75 75.5 3.6 3.6NUTR 25 25 17 3.3 42 28.3 124 77.5 43.5 121 4.84 4.28PHLP 10 10 34 2 44 12 205 146 0 146 14.6 12.17

Schoolwide 208 208 390 11.70 598 219.70 1391 788.50 384.25 1172.75 5.64 5.34

*Public Health Nursing has been combined into Public Health Leadership Program for this table

**FTEF Other does not include FTE counts for adjunct & other teaching faculty occasionally used for single lectures and student committees, FTE counts for these faculty are not recorded


81


Core Fac.

FTEF Core

HC Other Fac.

FTEF Other**

Total FAC HC


FTE Non Doc

Students*

FTE Doc Students


SFR by Total FTEF

BIOS 30 30 30 4.05 60 34.05 146 41.75 75.75 117.5 3.92 3.46ESE 27 27 23 2.11 50 29.11 151 81.25 56.75 138 5.12 4.75EPID 44 44 113 5.7 157 49.7 172 24.75 111.5 136.25 3.1 2.75HBHE 20 20 56 2.26 76 22.26 120 8.125 27.27 108.5 5.43 4.88HPM 31 31 79 5.68 110 36.68 449 312 59 371 11.97 10.12MCH 19 19 74 2.7 93 21.7 85 58 19.5 77.5 4.08 3.58NUTR 27 27 23 5.43 50 32.43 135 84.25 46 130.25 4.83 4.02PHL 10 10 31 1.75 41 11.75 207 150.25 0 150.25 15.03 12.79

Schoolwide 208 208 429 29.68 637 237.68 1465 833.50 395.77 1229.25 5.91 5.18*Public Health Nursing has been combined into Public Health Leadership Program for this table



Core Fac.

FTEF Core

HC Other Fac.

FTEF Other**

Total FAC HC


FTE Non Doc

Students*

FTE Doc Students


SFR by Total FTEF

BIOS 30 30 30 4.05 60 34.05 146 47.00 72.75 119.75 4.00 3.52ESE 26 26 35 6.61 61 32.61 170 94.25 61.00 155.25 5.98 4.77EPID 48 48 123 8.25 171 56.25 183 26.00 118.75 144.75 3.02 2.58HBHE 20

20 56 3.25 76 23.25 120 78.25 30.75 109.00 5.45 4.69

HPM 29 29 87 6.53 116 35.53 478 340.00 54.75 394.75 13.62 11.12MCH 19 19 75 3.45 94 22.45 92 65.75 19.75 85.50 4.50 3.81NUTR 30 30 22 7.05 52 37.05 131 87.00 39.50 126.50 4.22 3.42PHL 10 10 33 2.65 43 12.65 209 147 0.00 147.00 14.70 11.63

Schoolwide 212 212 461 41.84 673 253.84 1529 885.25 397.25 1282.50 6.05 5.06*Public Health Nursing has been combined into Public Health Leadership Program for this table



82

1.6.f. Other Personnel Required Documentation: A concise statement or chart concerning the availability of other personnel (administration and staff). Table 1.6.f. indicates the categories of the school’s “other personnel,” and the number of employees in each category. Table 1.6.f. Availability of Other Personnel, AY 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09

AY 2006-07 AY 2007-08 AY 2008-09 Full-Time 421 389 402 Part-Time 20 18 17 Student Temporary 384 398 452 Other Temporary 108 110 105 Other Personnel Total 933 915 976

1.6.g. Available Space Required Documentation: A concise statement or chart concerning amount of space available to the school by purpose (offices, classrooms, common space for student use, etc.), by program and location. The majority of the school is housed in four buildings located in the health affairs complex on the Chapel Hill campus. The four buildings (Rosenau Hall, McGavran-Greenberg Hall, Baity Laboratories, and the Michael Hooker Research Center [MHRC]) comprise over 377,000 gross square feet (sf), of which approximately 207,000 sf are assignable space. The largest building is Rosenau Hall, originally built in 1945 and added to in 1962, which has 72,071 assignable square feet (asf). McGavran-Greenberg Hall and Baity Laboratories were both built in 1991 (with 62,299 asf and 4,559 asf, respectively). The MHRC, with 63,149 asf, is the most recent addition to the school’s building complex, completed and occupied in April of 2005. Miller Hill (4,598 asf), completed in 1942, is a short walk from the other four buildings and has housed the Environmental Resource Program since 1999. In addition, the school occupies approximately 70,600 additional asf in multiple off-campus locations through leasing, university-owned properties, or other arrangements. The majority of off-campus locations are necessary to meet space needs that the school cannot otherwise satisfy on campus. However, some off-campus locations provide unique or enhanced research capabilities, such as the Orange County Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) Wastewater Treatment Plant, where the school occupies a building to support wastewater-related research. The MHRC was built to accommodate the expansion of wet laboratory research at the school, and to replace aging, outmoded laboratories in Rosenau; the state-of-the-art facility also provides space for teaching, service, and events. MHRC includes an atrium that joins the laboratory wings to the rest of the School of Public Health complex and provides internal


83

connections among the school’s three major buildings. The atrium acts as the school’s “living room” and provides, for the first time in the school’s history, a gathering space capable of facilitating both formal and informal interaction among the school’s nine separate academic, service, and administrative units. In addition to food service and open seating, the atrium provides access to seven separate centrally scheduled conference and meeting rooms ranging from 12 to 25 seats, as well as the 100-seat teleconference-capable Blue Cross Blue Shield Auditorium. The oldest of the school’s four buildings, Rosenau Hall, underwent a major renovation, completed in 2008, which has improved instruction delivery and research capabilities, and provided more functional administrative work spaces. The upgrade included replacement of all building-wide mechanical systems, as well as reprogramming space use and limited floor plan reconfiguration. As a result of the renovations, Rosenau Hall now offers an expanded range of teaching facilities, including two new 56-seat classrooms, a renovated 258-seat auditorium, an open 55-station computer lab that includes a 20-seat computer-based instruction room, a 30-seat teaching kitchen for Nutrition, and a reconfigured 30-seat teleconference facility with a control room that can remotely operate the 100-seat teleconference facility in MHRC. Both McGavran-Greenberg and Baity have undergone some renovation since the last CEPH self-study. Capital improvement projects completed at McGavran-Greenberg include renovation of an existing laboratory to operate at biological safety-level three (BSL-3), replacement of the building-wide fire alarm and life safety systems, rebalancing of HVAC systems in the laboratory wing, and replacement of corridor ceilings and lighting in the research and teaching half of the building. The school anticipates making classroom improvements during FY 2009-2010. At Baity, the fire alarm system was replaced at the same time as that of McGavran-Greenberg; during construction of MHRC, Baity also underwent replacement of a series of exhaust fans and ducting used for air quality research. Plans are underway to construct a new building on the proposed Carolina North campus to provide much needed space for the NCIPH. Although planning is in early stages, the Institute needs a site that provides training and conference space as well as proximity to transportation facilities. In addition to enabling future expansion of the school, the new facility will allow the school to return to campus several programs that currently reside in off-campus leased facilities. Table 1.6.g., based on data as collected by the university, shows a breakdown of the school’s space by purpose and location.


84

Table 1.6.g. Available Space

Building Class-rooms

Teaching Labs Open Labs Research

Labs Academic

Offices Conference

/ Meeting Study Assembly / Exhibit

Other Academic

Space Total ASF*

Baity Lab 4,153 406 4,559 Hooker Research Center

2,035 1,079 39,356 9,614 4,811 184 4,843 1,227 63,149

McGavran-Greenberg Hall

7,637 13,779 35,261 1,317 2,199 2,106 62,299

Miller Hall 317 3,804 315 162 4,598 Rosenau Hall 4,806 1,200 1,419 7,065 47,635 5,799 2,064 2,083 72,071

Off-campus/ Leased space**

- - - 5,811 64,788 - - - 70,599

Totals 14,478 2,279 1,419 70,481 161,508 12,242 4,609 4,843 5,416 277,275 *Assignable square feet **Includes space for the North Carolina Institute for Public Health


85

1.6.h. Laboratory Space Required Documentation: A concise statement or floor plan concerning laboratory space, including kind, quantity and special features or special equipment. The school’s combined facilities include a total of approximately 61,000 asf of wet lab space, including two BSL-3 laboratories overseen by the university’s Department of Environment, Health and Safety; (see table 1.6.h.). MHRC, completed in 2005, significantly increased the school’s modern laboratory space (approximately 40,000 of the 67,000 asf are located in Hooker); a total of approximately 17,000 asf were built in 1991 in McGavran-Greenberg and Baity, while approximately 4,000 asf of newly renovated wet lab space is located in Rosenau. Laboratory space is divided among three departments—ENVR, EPID, an NUTR. In addition, the school built and maintains an approximately 1,700 cubic foot rooftop smog chamber that researchers use to analyze the effects of sunlight on hydrocarbon exhaust emissions. The school is unique in that it maintains its own 3,000 asf instrument shop that fabricates custom equipment and provides specialized research tools to support experimental and field research, as well as a smog chamber in Pittsboro NC (approximately ten miles from Chapel Hill).. Table 1.6.h. Laboratory Space Laboratories McGavran-

Greenberg MHRC Rosenau Baity Total ASF*

Instrument Shop - - 3,035 - 3,035BSL III 784 457 - - 1,241Wet Labs 12,995 39,978 4,037 4,153 61,163Dry Labs - - 2,619 - 2,619Totals 13,779 40,435 9,691 4,135 73,869*Assignable square feet 1.6.i. Computer Facilities and Resources Required Documentation: A concise statement concerning the amount, location and types of computer facilities and resources for students, faculty, administration and staff. School Computing Resources Technology Infrastructure The school’s Instructional and Information Systems (IIS) group provides central computing systems for administrative, instructional, and research activities, and manages the provision of desktop computing services. IIS also coordinates the school’s data management and information technology needs with those of the campus. IIS’s central technology infrastructure includes forty servers running Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Microsoft Windows Server, and Citrix XenServer Enterprise server operating systems,


86

connecting to Fibre Channel and iSCSI storage area networks. This infrastructure supports the wide and local area networks, data repositories, streaming media, and collaboration tools including Adobe Connect, in addition to providing Internet services to students, faculty, and staff. The school uses a large switched network for data communications among the three main buildings, buildings across campus, and beyond. All of the 1,760 network ports in the school provide at least 100-megabit connections with most connections running at 1 Gbps in occupied spaces in Rosenau and Hooker. Secure wireless networking is available in the majority of public spaces and in all classrooms in the building complex. A total of 39 wireless access points have been installed, with future plans for additional coverage in McGavran-Greenberg. Guest wireless access is available within the complex. The school also has eleven servers residing in its academic departments for research and administrative purposes. Approximately 900 desktop computers are active on the school’s network daily, supplemented by 170 network printers and other devices. Media technology is available in 17 classroom facilities throughout Rosenau, McGavran-Greenberg, and Hooker. Each room is equipped with a computer with Internet access, a mounted LCD projector, a DVD/VCR playing unit, and connections for a laptop. The larger classrooms include document cameras. Users control the devices through push-button controls on the lecterns and wall interfaces. Additionally, an equipment check-out service allows students, faculty, and staff to borrow media equipment, including audio kits, digital cameras, camcorders, speaker phones, laptops, DVD/VCRs, and LCD projectors. The W. Fred Mayes Telecommunications Center facilitates the school’s videoconferencing activities. Established in 1993, the Mayes Center averages more than 100 video conference sessions each year, serving more than 10,000 participants. The center includes tiered classroom-style seating with a lectern, camera, display, and microphones to conduct classes, seminars, and meetings, as well as a cutting-edge control room that operates each session. Multiple sites are bridged through the center’s Multipoint Control Unit (MCU). Videoconference sessions are typically connected but not limited to CDC, the state’s Public Health Training and Information Network, the North Carolina Research and Education Network, and the North Carolina Information Highway data networks using H.323, H.264 or Internet Protocol (IP) Video. The center offers on-demand webcasting services and has the ability to downlink both Kµ and C band satellite programming. In addition, the Mayes Center currently houses a postproduction suite to provide nonlinear digital editing as well as a narration booth to record voiceovers. IIS is a founding partner, with the Schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmacy, of the UNC Adobe Connect collaborative, hosting and providing web-based audio, video, chat, and screen-sharing capabilities for teaching, meetings, and presentations.


87

Technology Staff The school’s Instructional and Information Systems (IIS) staff has expertise in a number of different technologies; its six functional subgroups focus on IIS administration, end user support, systems, instructional media, online instruction, and software development. Each subgroup serves as a primary leader in a set of services and technologies that it is uniquely skilled to provide, but also works with other subgroups in a matrix of interrelated technologies. The Administration group provides leadership coordination and business functions for the IIS subgroups. It manages a set of recharge models used by the subgroups that provides a forecasting and feedback model for current services throughout the fiscal year, and coordinates with school and campus officials and groups to understand larger and strategic issues. The End User Support group provides support for Windows desktop and laptop machines as well as personal digital assistants and some Macintosh OSX machines, leveraging the campus Remedy Ticket system for reporting and tracking end user problems. Assistance can be in the form of in-person hands-on support or secure remote desktop support. The End User group also provides support for the school’s security systems, acting as security consultants, implementing patch solutions, and working with the Systems group to define and implement security policies. The Systems group provides both the hardware and the administrative and networking skills to keep the school’s varied servers online and functional. This group also supports virtualization efforts as the school moves to become more agile and connected with globally based clients. The Instructional Media group offers support in videoconferencing. This includes expertise in analog and digital satellite links, DS-1, DS-3, H.320, and H.323 technologies to link school electronic classrooms to anywhere on the planet with appropriate equipment. The group also manages instructional technology in the school’s classrooms. The Online Instruction group includes instructional designers with years of experience in computer-assisted instruction and web-based learning. The group supports collaborative learning and provides interactive exercises and assessments in online graduate training. IIS’s instructional designers also provide instructional consulting for the school’s partners on campus. Finally, the Software Development group hosts and supports a 10,000+-page web site (http://www.sph.unc.edu) for the school. To maintain the web site, the group has implemented and supports a Content Management System with over 60 departmental, center, and program content managers participating. The group also supports the


88

Management Information System used across the school to understand current financial status and make projections for planning. Campus Computing Resources IIS coordinates closely with other information technology resources on campus, including the central Information Technology Services (ITS). ITS offers 24-hour telephone support to the UNC community and assists with planning, provision, and management of data and video communications services to the campus, including campus network support. ITS operates public computer labs across campus. The ITS Computer Lab housed in the School of Public Health includes 60 Intel CPU machines running Windows XP. In addition to Office 2007, these systems run a variety of graphical, modeling, and statistical software appropriate for public health students. All machines have network access to external services such as the MEDLINE system and the Internet, and connections to shared space on central servers providing substantial and secure data storage. The ITS Computer Lab provides laser printing on site. UNC’s Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI) facilities provide high-performance computing (http://www.renci.org/about/). This facility includes a 128-processor SGI Altix (Cedar/Cypress), a 1024-processor Dell Linux cluster (Topsail), a 352-processor Beowulf Linux cluster (Emerald), and a 32-processor IBM P690 (Happy/Yatta). The RENCI facilities support programming, software and applications for science, GIS, mathematics and statistics, and scientific visualization. 1.6.j. Library and Information Resources Required Documentation: A concise statement of library/information resources available for school use, including description of library capabilities in providing digital (electronic) content, access mechanisms and guidance in using them, and document delivery services. In terms of expenditures, collections, and staff, the Health Sciences Library ranks among the top ten of the 130-plus U.S. and Canadian medical school libraries. The library is located in the medical complex directly across the street from the School of Public Health. It currently contains over 333,000 total volumes, over 4,000 electronic books and receives 4,116 serial titles, most of which (3,460, or 84%) are available electronically. The library also houses 7,400 audiovisual programs, 45,000 microform pieces, and a fine rare books collection. The library has over 2800 print books (published since 2000) specifically for public health across several disciplines. The original six-story Health Sciences Library was completed in 1982. In 2005, the library underwent extensive renovation, expanding the seating capacity from 600 to 716. The building now has full wireless access, 42 public computer workstations, 19 small group study rooms, 2 teaching labs with a total of 45 workstations, a campus-equipped computer lab


89

with 28 workstations, and a café for informal study and group meetings. Two Media Design Studios offer a range of multimedia and GIS software. The library’s advanced technology also includes a high performance computing center with large-scale computing applications and a display wall for enhanced visualization of research projects. Additionally, several of the classrooms and conference rooms have videoconference capabilities to enrich cross-discipline collaboration. There are 70.25 FTE library staff in the Health Sciences Library, including one FTE public health librarian who serves as a dedicated liaison between the Health Sciences Library and the school. The public health librarian proactively seeks opportunities to help students and faculty improve the quality of their scholarship through a variety of innovative services, including student and faculty research consultations, teaching seminars for research assistants and students, interdisciplinary database training, and development and production of research posters. Library instruction is a key part of students’ orientation, and the librarian teaches over 30 classes each year. The classes are routinely praised as informative, efficient, and “the most enjoyable part of orientation.” The public health librarian holds weekly Librarian Office Hours in the school, serving as a mobile reference desk to meet students’ needs on their own turf. The library’s research consult service is extremely popular, with almost 200 consultations for students and faculty every year. Two faculty members and one student from the school serve as school representatives on the Library Advisory Committee; the committee enlists suggestions for new services and responds quickly to recommendations for purchases from all users. Library users can easily access a variety of electronic periodicals and over 204 databases and bibliographies, including PubMed, Global Health, Global Health Archive, Global Infectious Disease and Epidemiology Network, CINAHL, ISI Citation Databases, ERIC, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, Rand Publication Database, LexisNexis, and Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management. The library subscribes to electronic journals and databases such as the American Journal of Tropical Medicine Legacy Archive, Health Care Policy and Management Backfiles, and hundreds of electronic books. The library purchased 266 print books specifically for public health students and faculty in FY 2007-08. The books span topics such as global health, water management and engineering, epidemiology, maternal and child health, health behavior, minority health, biostatistics, health policy and management, and nutrition. Electronic document delivery (InterLibraryLoan) is available for items the library does not own, and the library is a full member of DOCLINE. The School of Public Health is the second largest requestor of InterLibraryLoan materials, with almost 200 requests per year. All UNC students, staff, and faculty may request free book delivery from the libraries at Duke University, North Carolina State University, and North Carolina Central University. This network makes available over 13 million volumes of combined library resources, which can be easily accessed through a computerized, online search platform. The campus libraries have aggressively added full text electronic resources and jointly licensed them in cooperation with campus and regional area libraries. (See http://www.trln.org/) Users may


90

also employ the “Request A Copy” service—a fee-based, copy service for materials owned by the library. In addition to the Health Sciences Library, users can access the university’s extensive library system with 39 branch locations. The central Walter Royal Davis Library holds collections in the humanities and social sciences (over 2.2 million volumes). Key branch libraries include the Brauer Library (mathematics, statistics, computer science, and operations research), the Chapin Library (city and regional planning), the Law Library, the School of Government Library (North Carolina public law and government), the Carolina Population Center Library (worldwide population studies), the Zoology Library, the Odum Institute Library (statistics, SAS, GIS), and the Highway Safety Research Center Library. Together, these libraries offer over 5,000,000 volumes; 4,000,000 microforms; nearly 2,000,000 government publications; 20,000,000 manuscripts; hundreds of thousands of audiovisuals, maps, and photographs; and thousands of electronic titles. (See http://www.lib.unc.edu/aboutlib.html) 1.6.k. Community Resources Required Documentation: A concise statement describing community resources available for instruction, research and service, indicating those where formal agreements exist. Across the School of Public Health, in every department, in the Office of Global Health (OGH), in the North Carolina Institute of Public Health (NCIPH), and in a number of other centers and institutes, the school has deep, longstanding relationships with a variety of community groups and agencies that provide critical resources for teaching, research, and service. Community resources are made available through the multitude of community-based participatory projects conducted by the school’s faculty and students, and with community members providing expertise and resources through every stage of research. Such connections often subsequently lead to community members participating in advisory groups and research teams, reviewing grant proposals, speaking to classes, developing educational materials such as real-life case studies, serving as preceptors for practicum placements, mentoring students and junior faculty, and providing opportunities for students and faculty to work in communities or sometimes just to observe. Many instructors for the school’s continuing education programs are local practitioners or state public health staff. All formal agreements are documented in the Resource File. 1.6.l. “In-Kind” Contributions Required Documentation: A concise statement of the amount and source of “in-kind” academic contributions available for instruction, research and service, indicating where formal agreements exist. Examples of “in-kind” contributions to the school from external sources are predominantly the kinds of resources noted in Criterion 1.6.k. In other words, expertise available through


91

the many relationships established by the school is often directed toward classroom teaching, student mentoring, faculty research opportunities, and the like, at no cost. Internally, the school is fortunate to have well-developed relationships with other units on campus, and these also often provide in-kind resources to support the school’s mission. For example, the Dissemination Core and the Biostatistics Core at the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center both offer services to investigators and their research teams; neither core charges for services delivered during the proposal development phase. The Dissemination Core also provides services for selected projects at no charge, its goal being to build the field of dissemination research, at no charge. Lineberger also offers consultation to local Komen Foundation grant applicants to help them choose and adapt evidence-based approaches. All formal agreements are documented in the Resource File. 1.6.m. Outcome Measures Required Documentation: Identification of outcome measures by which the school may judge the adequacy of its resources, along with data regarding the school’s performance against those measures for each of the last three years. At a minimum, the school must provide data on institutional expenditures per full-time-equivalent student, research dollars per full-time-equivalent faculty, and extramural funding (service or training) as a percent of the total budget. Table 1.6.m. Outcome Measures Related to Adequacy of Resources

OUTCOME MEASURES/METRICS Target 2006- 2007

2007- 2008

2008- 2009

Institutional Expenditures per Student FTE

Total Expenditures Increase $ 90,464,343 $ 96,284,975 $110,872,072 Enrollment FTE Increase 1120.00 1172.75 1229.25Expenditures / FTE Increase $ 80,772 $ 82,102 $ 90,195

Research Dollars/Faculty FTE*

Research Expenditures Increase $ 48,588,926 $ 48,457,683 $ 58,663,095 Research Core Faculty FTE Increase 207 208 208Research Expenditures / Core Faculty FTE Increase $ 234,729 $ 232,970 $ 282,034

Research Expenditures / Total Faculty FTE Increase $ 221,624 $ 220,563 $ 246,815

Extramural Funding for Service and Training as a Percent of Total Budget**

Total Extramural Funding Increase $ 23,902,485 $ 18,555,270 N/A Budget Sources Increase $ 115,159,638 $ 148,307,873 $ 165,840,649 Percent Increase 21% 13% N/A* Contracts & Grants for School PI's at campus research centers are included ** Training & Service Contracts & Grants includes Grants for Student Support, from ASPH Annual Reports for FY2007 & FY2008; figures for the Training & Service Contracts & Grants values are not available (N/A) for FY2009 until ASPH reports are completed in September of 2010; training & Service Contracts & Grants are expenditure figures & do not include indirect costs


92

1.6.n. Assessment of Resources Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Strengths • The school has sufficient physical resources on campus for its research and teaching

missions. Improvements to the physical plant of Rosenau Building and the addition of the MHRC greatly strengthened the school’s resources. We are improving classrooms in McGavran-Greenberg, and these changes will add substantially to the teaching resources in that building.

• The school resides in a rich environment of information and technology resources across

campus

• Strong relationships with centers across campus add immeasurably to our research resources

Challenges • Achieving the school’s mission in the context of the current economic situation and

resulting state budget changes • Providing sufficient and appropriate space for training and outreach programs (until

Carolina North becomes a reality)

• Providing contiguous space for interdisciplinary collaborations

• Providing continued funding so that information and technology resources remain cutting edge

Future Directions • Full participation in the planning, development, and implementation of ConnectCarolina,

a large enterprise administrative system • Continue renovations of the classrooms in McGavran-Greenberg 1301 and 2301 This Criterion is met.

Criterion 2.0 Instructional Programs

Tom Fuldner, 2008 Distance LearningTom Fuldner, 2008

Clinical Experience Linda Kastleman, 2009

Group Work

Criterion 2 Instructional Programs

2.1 Master of Public Health and Other Degree Programs

CEPH Criterion The school shall offer instructional programs reflecting its stated mission and goals, leading to the Master of Public Health (MPH) or equivalent professional master’s degree in at least the five areas of knowledge basic to public health. The school may offer other degrees, professional and academic, and other areas of specialization, if consistent with its mission and resources. CEPH Required Documentation a. An instructional matrix (see CEPH Data Template C) presenting all of the school’s

degree programs and areas of specialization, including undergraduate degrees, if any. If multiple areas of specialization are available within departments or academic units shown on the matrix, these should be included. The matrix should distinguish between professional and academic degrees and identify any programs that are offered in distance learning or other formats. Non-degree programs, such as certificates or continuing education, should not be included in the matrix.

b. The school bulletin or other official publication, which describes all curricula offered by the school for all degree programs. If the school does not publish a bulletin or other official publication, it must provide for each degree program and area of concentration identified in the instructional matrix a printed description of the curriculum, including a list of required courses and their course descriptions.

c. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Criterion 2.1 Instructional Programs: Master of Public Health and Other Degree Programs

94

2.1.a. Instructional Matrix Required Documentation: An instructional matrix (see CEPH Data Template C) presenting all of the school’s degree programs and areas of specialization, including undergraduate degrees, if any. If multiple areas of specialization are available within departments or academic units shown on the matrix, these should be included. The matrix should distinguish between professional and academic degrees and identify any programs that are offered in distance learning or other formats. Non-degree programs, such as certificates or continuing education, should not be included in the matrix. The school has seven departments and one program that offer nine professional and academic degrees; see table 2.1.a, Instructional Matrix (Template C). Degrees range from the BSPH (in four departments), to six master’s degrees (MPH, MSPH, MHA, MS, MSCR, MSEE), and two doctoral degrees (DrPH in four departments and PhD in seven). Some departments offer the same degree with distinct subspecialties with an additional set of requirements. The school also offers eleven dual degree options. Appendix 2.1.a. describes the courses that comprise the school’s four informal certificates (specific academic concentrations within degree programs): Global Health Certificate, Interdisciplinary Certificate in Health Disparities, Certificate in Interdisciplinary Health Communication, and Certificate in Public Health Ethics. Criterion 3.3 discusses the school’s five formal certificates (self-contained continuing education programs independent of degree programs): the Certificate Program in Community Preparedness and Disaster Management; the Certificate in Core Public Health Concepts; the Certificate in Field Epidemiology; the Public Health Leadership Certificate, and the Occupational Health Nursing Certificate. 2.1.b. School Bulletin Required Documentation: The school bulletin or other official publication, which describes all curricula offered by the school for all degree programs. If the school does not publish a bulletin or other official publication, it must provide for each degree program and area of concentration identified in the instructional matrix a printed description of the curriculum, including a list of required courses and their course descriptions. The Graduate School Record lists and describes school courses by department (http://tinyurl.com/gradrecord). The Undergraduate Bulletin provides the same information but also includes extended degree program and curricula descriptions (http://www.unc.edu/ugradbulletin/). Department web pages provide the most complete information on courses for each department. The School Bulletin describes the curriculum (including required courses and their descriptions) for each degree program and area of concentration identified in the instructional matrix. (These publications are all in the Resource File.) Criterion 2.2.b., Professional Degree Program Minimum Requirements, summarizes curriculum information by type of degree.


95

Table 2.1.a. Instructional Matrix – Degree/Specialization Academic Professional Bachelor’s Degrees BSPH/Biostatistics X BSPH/Environmental Sciences and Engineering X BSPH/Health Policy and Management, Residential Program X BSPH/Nutrition X Master’s Degrees MPH/Biostatistics X MPH/ Environmental Sciences and Engineering X MPH/Epidemiology X MPH/Health Behavior and Health Education X MPH/Health Policy and Management, Residential Program X MPH/Health Policy & Management, Executive Program* X MPH/Maternal and Child Health X MPH/Nutrition X MPH/Public Health Leadership, Residential X MPH/Public Health Leadership, Distance X MSPH/ Environmental Sciences and Engineering X MSPH/Epidemiology X MSPH/Health Policy and Management, Residential Program X MSPH/Maternal and Child Health X MSPH/Nutrition X MHA/Health Policy and Management, Residential Program X MHA/Health Policy & Management, Executive Program* X MS/Biostatistics X MS/ Environmental Sciences and Engineering X MS/Public Health Leadership, Public Health Nursing X MS/Public Health Leadership, Occupational Health Nursing X MSCR/Epidemiology X MSEE/Environmental Engineering X Doctoral Degrees DrPH/Biostatistics X DrPH/Health Policy & Management, Executive Program* X DrPH/Maternal and Child Health X DrPH/Nutrition (discontinued as of fall 2010) X PhD/Biostatistics X PhD/ Environmental Sciences and Engineering X PhD/Epidemiology X PhD/Health Behavior and Health Education X PhD/Health Policy and Management, Residential Program X PhD/Maternal and Child Health X PhD/Nutrition X Continued on next page (Dual Degrees)


96

Table 2.1.a. Instructional Matrix – Degree/Specialization, continued Academic Professional Dual Degrees MPH/MRP, Health Behavior and Health Education, Regional Planning

X

MSPH/MBA, Health Policy and Management, Business Administration

X

MSPH/MSIS, Health Policy & Management, Information & Library Sci

X

MSPH/MSLS, Health Policy & Management, Information & Library Sci

X

MSPH/MRP, Health Policy and Management, Regional Planning X MSPH/MSW, Maternal and Child Health, Social Work X MSPH/DPT, Maternal & Child Health, Allied Health (Physical Therapy)

X

MHA/MBA, Health Policy and Management, Business Administration

X

MHA/MSIS, Health Policy & Management, Information & Library Sci X MHA/MSLS, Health Policy & Management, Information & Library Sci X MHA/MRP, Health Policy and Management, Regional Planning X


97

2.1.c. Assessment of Degree Programs Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths Detailed degree and course information available for each department

All curriculum information available on the Web

Most course syllabi available on the Web—in response to students’ request

Challenges Locating program information that currently is not all in one place

Comparing information across departments or degrees

Navigating the school website, which is not always user-friendly

Future Directions Work closely with students, chairs, student services manager, and others to enhance

accessibility of curricula and course information, and assure that students have the information they need to make informed course decisions

Establishing a single source of information for certificates offered by the school

Reconcile the inherent tension between the 20th century print world and the 21st century digital world to assure that information provided about courses and policies is accurate, accessible, and easy to use



2.2 Program Length

CEPH Criterion An MPH degree program or equivalent professional master’s degree must be at least 42 semester credit units in length. CEPH Required Documentation a. Definition of a credit with regard to classroom/contact hours.

b. Information about the minimum degree requirements for all professional degree curricula

shown in the instructional matrix. If the school or university uses a unit of academic credit or an academic term different than the standard semester or quarter, this should be explained and an equivalency presented in a table or narrative. .

c. Information about the number of MPH degrees awarded for less than 42 semester credit units, or equivalent, over each of the last three years. A summary of the reasons should be included.

d. Assessment of the extent to which the criterion is met.

Criterion 2.2 Instructional Programs: Program Length

100

2.2.a. Credit Definition Required Documentation: Definition of a credit with regard to classroom/contact hours. Following university policy, the school considers one semester credit to be the value of each in-class hour or two to three laboratory-hours per week, for 17 weeks. 2.2.b. Professional Degree Program Minimum Requirements Required Documentation: Information about the minimum degree requirements for all professional degree curricula shown in the instructional matrix. If the school or university uses a unit of academic credit or an academic term differently than the standard semester or quarter, this should be explained and an equivalency presented in a table or narrative. The school has three categories of curricula requirements: requirements in the five core areas of public health; required core curricula in the departments; and specific degree requirements. The School Bulletin is a compendium of degree program curricula, along with a list of all SPH courses, and provides the minimum requirements for the school’s professional degree programs. BSPH For the BSPH degree, the school requires that students earn a C (not C-) or better in prerequisite, core public health, and department-required courses. (Nutrition requires at least a B- in BIOL 252, CHEM 102, CHEM 261, and NUTR 240.) A first-year and sophomore load (taken in the College of Arts and Sciences) is approximately 60 semester hours of courses; requirements for these two years of “General College” are defined at the university level and must include all Foundations and Approaches requirements and at least five Connections courses, including courses in global issues, experiential education, and US diversity (http://tinyurl.com/ugradcurr). One of the two physical and life science Approaches courses must be BIOL 101 or 101L. The junior and senior load of approximately 60 semester hours includes BIOS 600, ENVR 600, EPID 600, and a minimum of three electives (seven credit hours) outside the School of Public Health. BSPH students must take the last 30 hours of degree credit in residence in Chapel Hill. The School Bulletin indicates the specific requirements of the four departments that offer the BSPH. Master’s Degrees For all master’s degrees, the Graduate School requires a minimum of 30 credit hours of graduate course credit, 24 of which must be taken in residence. The School of Public Health, in compliance with recent changes to CEPH criteria, requires a minimum of 42 credit hours (two full semesters of which must be completed in residence, either by full-time registration or by part-time registration over several semesters). For students with limited time available for full-time study—such as physicians prior to a residency—this has meant


101

that a program that was previously completed relatively easily within a year now either takes longer to complete or requires a heavier work load/semester. Credit hour requirements for individual programs within the school may be higher than the school’s 42-credit-hour minimum. Students are expected to complete a program of study that provides mastery of their major field within the parameters of course requirements specified by each academic program. At least 18 course credit hours should be in the major field, and at least half the courses taken for a graduate degree should be numbered 700 and above. All professional master’s students (MPH, MSPH, MHA) must complete a supervised practicum requirement in the field of public health and the school’s core courses (BIOS 600, ENVR 600, EPID 600, HPM 600, and HBHE 600) or approved alternatives. Major courses must also include a minimum of three credit hours of thesis substitute (992) or thesis (993) registration. All master’s degree programs require a written or oral examination (or both), or an approved substitute, for degree completion. A master’s student has five calendar years from the date of first registration in the master’s program to complete the degree. The School Bulletin provides the specific master’s degree requirements defined by each department. DrPH The Graduate School stipulates that individual academic programs establish credit hour requirements for doctoral degree students. At a minimum, doctoral students must complete a program residence credit of four full semesters, either by full-time registration or by part-time registration over several semesters. At least two of the required four semesters of residence must be earned in contiguous registration of no fewer than six credit hours at UNC-Chapel Hill. As with master’s degree programs, doctoral students are expected to complete a program of study that provides mastery of their major field in accordance with course requirements specified by the academic program; (see departments’ academic manuals in Resource File). Major courses must also include a minimum of six credit hours of dissertation (994) registration. Degree completion requires a doctoral written examination, doctoral oral examination, and a final oral examination covering the dissertation and other topics (as determined by the examining committee). A doctoral student has eight calendar years from the date of first registration in the doctoral program to complete the degree. 2.2.c. MPH Degrees Awarded with Fewer than 42 Semester Credits Required Documentation: Information about the number of MPH degrees awarded for less than 42 semester credit units, or equivalent, over each of the last three years. A summary of the reasons should be included. No degrees were awarded for fewer than 42 semester hours over the past three years.


102

2.2.d. Assessment of Program Length

Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Strengths A minimum of 42 semester credits now is required for all professional degrees

Challenges Completing 42 credits in one year, for those who have only 12 months (one calendar

year) available for study

Future Directions Develop flexible course offerings year round and via the web to enable master’s

students to complete 42 credits in a one-year period



2.3 Public Health Core Knowledge

CEPH Criterion All professional degree students must demonstrate an understanding of the public health core knowledge. CEPH Required Documentation

a. Identification of the means by which the school assures that all professional degree students have a broad understanding of the areas of knowledge basic to public health. If this means is common across the school, it need be described only once. If it varies by degree or program area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each program.

b. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Criterion 2.3 Instructional Programs: Public Health Core Knowledge

104

2.3.a. Assuring Basic Public Health Knowledge among Professional Degree Students Required Documentation: Identification of the means by which the school assures that all professional degree students have a broad understanding of the areas of knowledge basic to public health. If this means is common across the school, it need be described only once. If it varies by degree or program area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each program. The school requires that all professional degree students satisfy competency requirements in the five core areas of public health: biostatistics, environmental health, epidemiology, health policy and management, and social and behavioral science; this is typically done by completing the appropriate core course in each area. The one exception is that BSPH students do not have a specific course identified to meet the social/behavioral sciences requirement. However, they are required by the university to take nine hours of social and behavioral sciences courses in the “Approaches” sequence of the required undergraduate curriculum; (http://tinyurl.com/ugradcurr). Departments may specify further requirements that assure a broad understanding of the areas of knowledge basic to public health. Table 2.3.a. indicates the core courses (and their approved substitutions) that students must satisfactorily complete. Under specific circumstances, students may request waiver of a core course requirement; (http://tinyurl.com/coresubs). Appendix 2.3.a. provides brief descriptions of each of the core courses and the approved alternatives. Table 2.3.a. Required Core Courses Discipline Core Core Course Requirements Approved Substitution Biostatistics BIOS 600 (Principles of

Statistical Inference)

-Any 3- or 4-credit BIOS course above 540 -HPM 470 (HPM majors only) -SOWO 510 and 911 (dual degree students only)

Environmental Health

ENVR 600 (Environmental Health)

-ENVR 430

Epidemiology EPID 600 (Principles of Epidemiology)

-EPID 710, 711 -PUBH 760

Health Policy & Management

HPM 600 (Introduction to Health Policy and Management)

-HPM 660, 564 or 754 (HPM majors only) -MCH 701 & 702 -PUBH 600 (PHLP majors only)

Social & Behavioral Science

HBHE 600 (Social & Behavioral Sciences in Public Health)

-HBHE 700, 730 & 772 (HBHE only) -MHCH 700; 701, 702 & 723 (MCH majors only) -MHCH 859/860 (MHCH DrPH students only) -NUTR 715 -PHYT 824 (MCH DPT/MSPH students only) -PUBH 750 (PUBH majors only) -SOWO 500, 505, 510, 517, 530, 570 (dual degree students only)

Criterion 2.3 Instructional Programs: Public Health Core Knowledge

105

2.3.b. Assessment of Public Health Core Knowledge

Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths Incorporation of ASPH competencies into school curricula

Required competency in five core public health areas (biostatistics, environmental

health, epidemiology, health policy and management, and social and behavioral science) for the MPH and equivalent professional degree programs

Challenges Balancing core course requirements with students’ desires for flexibility (e.g., finding

time to take desired discipline electives) and growing interest in global health

Future Directions Continue to implement competency-based curricula

Develop measures to assess students’ mastery of competencies while in programs and

upon graduation

Implement strategies for high retention, activity-based learning



2.4 Practical Skills

CEPH Criterion All professional degree students must develop skills in basic public health concepts and demonstrate the application of these concepts through a practice experience that is relevant to the students’ areas of specialization. CEPH Required Documentation a. Description of the school’s policies and procedures regarding practice experiences,

including selection of sites, methods for approving preceptors, approaches for faculty supervision of students, means of evaluating practice placement sites and preceptor qualifications, and criteria for waiving the experience.

b. Identification of agencies and preceptors used for practice experiences for students, by program area, for the last two academic years. .

c. Data on the number of students receiving a waiver of the practice experience for each of the last three years.

d. Data on the number of preventive medicine, occupational medicine, aerospace

medicine, and public health and general preventive medicine residents completing the academic program for each of the last three years, along with information on their practicum rotations.

e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Criterion 2.4 Instructional Programs: Practical Skills

108

2.4.a. Practice Experience Policies and Procedures Required Documentation: Description of the school’s policies and procedures regarding practice experiences, including selection of sites, methods for approving preceptors, approaches for faculty supervision of students, means of evaluating practice placement sites and preceptor qualifications, and criteria for waiving the experience. The school requires all professional degree students (BSPH, master's, and DrPH) to complete a formal, supervised fieldwork (practicum) experience in the field of public health. Fieldwork placements must be within the broad practice of public health and relevant to the major. All practice experiences require that students develop a contract or learning agreement that states their objectives, activities, timeline, and outcome. The student’s faculty advisor approves the contract, and the student enters into a contractual agreement with a community preceptor, who contributes to the student’s supervision and evaluation. Preceptors are approved on the basis of their expertise in the relevant field of public health. Typically, this experience takes place during the summer. Table 2.4.a. provides additional details, by department.


109

Table 2.4.a. Professional Degree Program Practicum Experience Policies and

Procedures for Practicum Experience

Course Number Credits Report: Written/Oral/NA

Biostatistics BSPH BIOS 691 1 Written MPH BIOS 841, 842 3, Var* Written

DrPH BIOS 841, 842

3; at least 3

Written; written

Environmental Sciences and Engineering BSPH Experiential Education/Gen’l College Varies N/A MPH, MSPH ENVR 981 Var* Written

Epidemiology MPH, MSPH EPID 900 4 Written

Health Behavior and Health EducationMPH HBHE 742, 743 4 Both

Health Policy and Management BSPH HPM 301 2 Written MPH HPM 704 1 Both MSPH, MHA HPM 704 2 Both DrPH Format for practicum is under development

Maternal and Child Health MPH MHCH 717, 718 8 Written MSPH MHCH 717 6 Written DrPH Applied field research required N/A N/A

Nutrition BSPH NUTR 295, 710, various** 3 or 9, 3 N/A MPH, MSPH NUTR 730 4 Oral DrPH No students admitted during study years; program to be

discontinued as of fall 2010 N/A N/A Public Health Leadership

MPH PUBH 886; PHNU 783, 784, 886 3-6* Written *Number of credits depends on agreement between faculty and student; **Students complete a research practicum (NUTR 295 - 12 hours, 3 credits each time). Honors students complete NUTR 295 (9 credits) and NUTR 672 (3 credits). Students enroll in various courses university-wide for practicum.


110

Practicum Process and Requirements Students begin the fieldwork process by meeting with their academic advisors to discuss available opportunities and the student’s individual goals. Students then negotiate the specifics of their practicum experience with both their faculty advisor and community preceptor. These are summarized in a detailed fieldwork contract or learning agreement, which is signed at the start of the placement by all three parties. Although approaches and methodologies may vary, each practicum experience is designed to expose students to the core functions, essential services, and competencies of public health. To this end, the practicum experience requires all students to integrate and apply the knowledge, principles, and skills acquired through classroom instruction, independent readings and other methods. Specifically, students must collect and analyze data (qualitative and/or quantitative); participate in regular, focused supervision; and deliver an oral or written summary that demonstrates mastery of public health principles, values, and practice. Site Selection To serve as an approved School of Public Health fieldwork site, an agency or organization must meet four basic criteria. First, the agency must provide public health-related planning and/or services. Second, the agency must have one or more staff members on site who are willing to serve as designated preceptors, and who have graduate credentials in public health (or equivalent professional experience and education). Third, the placement must allow the student to be involved in the essential public health functions of assessment, policy development, and assurance. Finally, students must be able to develop, enhance, and/or apply core public health competencies in a public health setting related to their field. It is desirable for students to have a paid placement, although this is not always possible. Preceptors All preceptors must have a minimum of an MPH or equivalent degree. Exceptions may be made when the proposed mentor has equivalent work experience in the content or skill area of the practicum. The student’s faculty advisor and the department’s practicum coordinator assess and approve all practicum sites and preceptor qualifications. Alumni often make ideal preceptors because of their familiarity with, and support of, the program. Supervision Faculty advisors and department practicum coordinators supervise the development of students’ learning agreements, which clearly specify responsibilities and expectations regarding placements. Advisors and practicum coordinators also monitor the practicum experience and departments continue to improve the collection of evaluative information about the practicum experience. For example, in HBHE and MCH, students, preceptors, and


111

faculty advisors all complete a formal evaluation about the practicum experience. HBHE also requires students to conduct an oral or poster presentation about their practicum experience during Practicum Day, an annual event held in November during which students share the results and lessons learned from their practica. In HPM, all returning master’s students are required to participate on an Internship Panel early in the fall semester, to share their practicum experiences with the first-year students. With the trend in public health education toward making competency specification explicit, the need to monitor and assess competency attainment has become more apparent. In summer 2008, the school piloted a schoolwide online practicum form (http://www.sph.unc.edu/forms/practicum/), and in summer 2009 students were required to submit a pre and post assessment of competency attainment during the summer practicum. This form is helping to generate useful assessment data for program planning and student advising purposes at the department level, as well as cross-department data for the school as a whole. Students complete the online form twice, first when they are making plans for their practicum and again after its completion. This allows the department to track achievement of specific competencies, and the school to monitor competency attainment in the aggregate. Methods of Student Assessment Preceptors complete an evaluation at the end of the placement. In addition, students complete an oral or written report about the practicum experience. These evaluations are used to provide guidance for future students planning their practica, including site selection. Criteria for Waiver Students are not permitted to waive the practicum experience in any department. (See Criterion 2.4.c. for information regarding three students whose department made an exception to this policy over the past three years.) 2.4.b. Practice Experience Agencies and Preceptors Required Documentation: Identification of agencies and preceptors used for practice experiences for students, by program area, for the last two academic years. Appendix 2.4.b. lists the field placement sites and preceptors for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. 2.4.c. Practice Experience Waivers Required Documentation: Data on the number of students receiving a waiver of the practice experience for each of the last three years. Three students received waivers of the practicum requirement in the past three years: two students in 2007, and one in 2006; all three students were enrolled in the dual MPH/MRP


112

degree program in Health Behavior and Health Education and the Department of City and Regional Planning. The school granted the waivers because each student had already completed a practicum through City and Regional Planning that met the school’s practicum criteria. Beginning in 2008, however, the school no longer granted waivers for students enrolled in the MPH/MRP dual degree program, regardless of prior practicum experiences.


113

2.4.d. Preventive, Occupational, Aerospace, Public Health and General Preventive Medicine Residents Required Documentation: Data on the number of preventive medicine, occupational medicine, aerospace medicine, and public health and general preventive medicine residents completing the academic program for each of the last three years, along with information on their practicum rotations. Twenty-one medical residents in HPM and eight preventive medical residents in PHLP completed academic programs and practicum rotations in the last three years (see table 2.4.d.); some sites hosted more than one student. Table 2.4.d. Medical Resident Practicum Rotations, Summers of 2006-2008

Health Policy and Management 2006 Family Health International Sheps Center Avalere Health American Cancer Society RTI-UNC Evidence Based Practice Center (Sheps Center) Dept. of Homeland Security Hancock, Daniel, Johnson & Nagle, PC (Law Firm) Moore & Van Allen, NorthEast Regional Hospital Health Planning Source 2007 Alamance County Mental Health Department Task Force for a Healthier North Carolina Division of Medical Assistance Women's Birth and Wellness Center Duke University Medical Center NC Attorney General's Office New Partner Initiative - Serve Haiti Center for Maternal and Infant Health NCIPH 2008 Tanana Valley Clinic Gliding Joint Massage Therapy Indian Institute of Management Public Health Leadership 2006 VA National Center for Health Promotion & Disease Prevention North Carolina Health & Human Services 2007 Cancer Prevention & Control Branch, Division of Public Health, DHHS 2008 Quintiles Transnational Corp. UNC School of Public Health-Epidemiology Dept. US Department of Homeland Security


114

2.4.e. Assessment of Practical Skills Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths Variety and breadth of practice sites available to students

High quality of fieldwork projects and substantive contributions to host organizations

(reflected in preceptor evaluation of practica)

High quality of practicum advisors and mentors

High student satisfaction with practicum experience noted in various schoolwide and department surveys of student satisfaction, exit surveys, etc.

Role of practica as feeders for future employment

Challenges Obtaining financial support for summer practicum experiences, especially in global

settings

Finding practicum opportunities in a period of economic crisis Future Directions Continue to identify and reinforce important connections with alumni who can serve as

community preceptors

Continue to improve monitoring of the practicum experience, including tracking students’ attainment of core practice competencies, and implementing protocols for follow-up

Help students to find appropriate practicum experiences that also are financially feasible for them, especially those in global settings



2.5 Culminating Experience

CEPH Criterion All professional degree programs identified in the instructional matrix shall assure that each student demonstrates skills and integration of knowledge through a culminating experience. CEPH Required Documentation a. Identification of the culminating experience required for each degree program. If this is

common across the school’s professional degree programs, it need be described only once. If it varies by degree or program area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each program.

b. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Criterion 2.5 Instructional Programs: Culminating Experience

116

2.5.a. Culminating Experience Requirement Required Documentation: Identification of the culminating experience required for each degree program. If this is common across the school’s professional degree programs, it need be described only once. If it varies by degree or program area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each program. BSPH culminating experiences vary by department and may include practicum, honors paper, and/or capstone course. The Graduate School requires all master’s students to complete a thesis or approved substitute, as well as to pass a comprehensive examination or approved substitute “whose thoroughness in all ways conforms to the best accepted practices within the discipline.” These two requirements, in practice, comprise the culminating experience required of all School of Public Health master's students. Each department/program determines specific requirements for the master’s paper and comprehensive exam (or an approved substitution) for each of its degree programs (MPH and equivalent master’s degrees) which must be approved by the Graduate School. The practicum is also a culminating experience required of master’s and bachelor’s professional degree students. (See table 2.5.a. for culminating experience requirements, by department.) Parallel requirements are in place for doctoral students and apply to the DrPH degree. The school's DrPH programs require written comprehensive exams, an oral dissertation proposal defense, and an oral dissertation defense following successful completion of coursework. (In addition, the DrPH program in NUTR requires oral comprehensive exams.) Each department determines the structure of its own examinations (written, oral, or both). Depending on the discipline, availability and length of financial support varies. Such support is critical, however, at the doctoral level, where many dissertations require access to, or generation of, original data, as well as significant time for analysis and writing. Students who have to support themselves at the same time they are immersed in the research process invariably make slower progress.


117

Table 2.5.a. Culminating Experience – Professional Degree Programs

Department Written

Comprehen-sive Exam

Oral Comprehensive

Exam and/or Dissertation

Proposal Oral Defense

Optional Honors Paper

(BSPH) or Master’s Paper or

Dissertation

Master’s Paper, Thesis, or

Dissertation Oral

Presentation/ Defense

Capstone

Course

Practicum/Field

Experience

Biostatistics BSPH X X MPH X X X DrPH X X X X X Environmental Sciences and Engineering BSPH X X X MPH, MSPH X X X X Epidemiology MPH, MSPH X X X X Health Behavior and Health Education MPH X X X Health Policy and Management BSPH X X1 X MPH X X2 X2 X MSPH X X X X MHA X X X DrPH X X X X X3 Maternal and Child Health MPH, MSPH X X X DrPH X X X X X Nutrition BSPH X X X MPH, MSPH X X X DrPH X X X X X4 Public Health Leadership MPH X X X 1Optional until 2009-2010, then required 2Choice of master’s paper or capstone course 3Format for practicum is under development 4Program to be discontinued effective fall 2010


118

2.5.b. Assessment of Culminating Experience Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths Variety of culminating experiences designed for students to demonstrate synthesis and

application of the skills and knowledge they acquired pursuing their public health degrees

Completed culminating experience products often are used by practica organizations and/or adopted in the field

Departments that did not previously require practica have adapted well to the new requirements

Challenges Securing adequate support for all students, especially during practica, and for doctoral

students during the dissertation research and writing stage

Future Directions Strengthen mechanisms to adapt products of culminating experiences and facilitate their

dissemination to the field

Identify more paying practicum experiences

Identify additional funding sources for research projects and facilitate students’ securing this support



2.6 Required Competencies

CEPH Criterion For each degree program and area of specialization within each program identified in the instructional matrix, there shall be clearly stated competencies that guide the development of educational programs. CEPH Required Documentation a. Identification of schoolwide core public health competencies that all MPH or equivalent

professional degree students are expected to achieve through their courses of study.

b. A matrix that identifies the learning experiences by which the core public health competencies are met. If this is common across the school, a single matrix will suffice. If it varies by degree or program area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each program.

c. Identification of a set of competencies for each program of study, major or specialization, depending on the terminology used by the school, identified in the instructional matrix, including professional and academic degree curricula.

d. A description of the manner in which competencies are developed, used and made

available to students. e. A description of the manner in which the school periodically assesses the changing

needs of public health practice and uses this information to establish the competencies for its educational programs.


Criterion 2.6 Instructional Programs: Required Competencies

120

2.6.a. Expected Core Public Health Competencies Identification Required Documentation: Identification of schoolwide core public health competencies that all MPH or equivalent professional degree students are expected to achieve through their courses of study. During the fall 2006 semester, the school’s five required core courses were deemed to be the appropriate mechanisms to meet the five Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) discipline-specific competencies, and the school’s Academic Programs Committee (APC) then engaged in a consensus-building process that resulted in the school also adopting an adapted version of six of the seven ASPH cross-cutting competencies (excluding public health biology) for all of the school’s master’s programs. Degree program directors followed suit and adapted these same competencies for all of the school’s BSPH and doctoral programs. Thus, the school has developed three sets of schoolwide core public health competencies, for its BSPH programs, its MPH and equivalent professional master’s degree programs, and its DrPH program. See Appendix 2.6.a. for the specific schoolwide competencies defined for each program level. 2.6.b. Core Public Health Learning Experiences Matrix Required Documentation: A matrix that identifies the learning experiences by which the core public health competencies are met. If this is common across the school, a single matrix will suffice. If it varies by degree or program area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each program.

Subsequent to the identification of competencies above, in spring 2007 the APC surveyed all school faculty members to ascertain the extent to which their courses addressed each of the eleven competencies. Based on that survey, the ASPH core and cross-cutting competencies were mapped to these courses (Appendix 2.6.b.). The response rate to this survey was poor, however, and so the competency coverage to which our students are exposed may have been underestimated. In addition to classroom-based courses, competencies are addressed during the required practicum experience, and, beginning in the summer of 2008, students were required to provide information regarding their exposure to competencies during the practicum. 2.6.c. Major Program Competencies Required Documentation: Identification of a set of competencies for each program of study, major or specialization, depending on the terminology used by the school, identified in the instructional matrix, including professional and academic degree curricula. Appendix 2.6.c. lists additional competencies that have been identified for the various degree programs in the instructional matrix, including professional and academic degree curricula.


121

2.6.d. Implementation of Competencies Required Documentation: A description of the manner in which competencies are developed, used and made available to students. Competencies to be addressed through courses are communicated in course syllabi. Students work toward achieving competencies in a variety of others ways, including relationships with mentors, service on committees, participation in conferences, and paper or poster presentations. In addition to the ASPH cross-cutting competencies, individual departments introduce profession-specific competencies in their courses. All competencies provide a context for advising, including providing a learning objectives framework for the required practicum. 2.6.e. Competency Relevance Required Documentation: A description of the manner in which the school periodically assesses the changing needs of public health practice and uses this information to establish the competencies for its educational programs. A variety of professional activities has brought school faculty members together with public health practitioners to define the most appropriate competencies for each discipline. In 2006-2007, faculty members from the school were active participants in the process of defining ASPH competencies. Peggy Leatt, associate dean for academic affairs, cochaired the ASPH subcommittee on health policy and management competencies, and Jim Porto (HPM) chaired the committee on systems thinking competencies. Health Policy and Management also has participated in a National Center for Healthcare Leadership pilot project to develop and implement competency-based learning in that discipline. Peggy Leatt is also serving as a member of an ASPH committee to define competencies of undergraduate study in public health. A number of faculty serve on national public health and discipline-specific committees dedicated to identifying strategies and trends for training practitioners. For example, Anita Farel (MCH), is a consultant to the national MCH Training Resource Center (Health Resources and Services Administration), which guides performance measure monitoring and development among all MCH training programs, including training programs at schools of public health. Tom Ricketts (HPM and the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research) contributed to a 2008 AcademyHealth conference and working paper on effectively training the next generation of policymakers and health services researchers in health services research. School faculty members meet regularly with alumni and attend professional meetings of organizations, such as the American Public Health Association and the North Carolina Hospital Association, that provide broad environmental scans of the practice terrain. In the


122

last year, EPID faculty and staff hosted an open house for the NC Division of Public Health to discuss how they could work together more closely. NCIPH also regularly assesses North Carolina’s workforce needs through its continuing education programs. At this time, these activities have not been woven into a system of regular activities, but rather reflect an opportunistic strategy, with new information prompting change through informal mechanisms. (See Criterion 3.3 for discussion of how the NCIPH assesses current learning needs of public health practitioners.) The new capstone experience in HBHE followed an intensive period of self-evaluation, which included surveys of, and interviews with, employers. There also is anecdotal evidence that faculty regularly incorporate competency-based lessons learned from their own experiences in research and/or practice into their curricular content. Curriculum updates also derive from the experiences of other researchers and practitioners, as disseminated through professional organizations, public health conferences and meetings, technical assistance, and scholarly publications.


123

2.6.f. Assessment of Required Competencies


Strengths

ASPH core and cross-cutting competencies adopted by all departments Specialized competencies in place in some departments

Learning experiences now are more closely linked to specific competencies

Several departments have revised competencies in their curricula on the basis of

feedback from employers and public health practitioners.

Challenges Monitoring student achievement of competencies

Developing valid and reliable metrics for evaluating achievement of competencies

Improving formal protocol for using feedback from the workforce to inform competencies

Refining metrics by which to assess impact of our students on communities and other

settings Future Directions Evaluate achievement of competencies

Communicate effectively with alumni, employers, and practicum preceptors about the

competencies Commit to regular course and programmatic changes based on feedback

Communicate to North Carolina and beyond the impact of our students’ and faculty

members’ efforts

This Criterion is met


2.7 Assessment Procedures

CEPH Criterion There shall be procedures for assessing and documenting the extent to which each student has demonstrated competence in the required areas of performance. CEPH Required Documentation a. Description of the procedures used for monitoring and evaluating student progress in

achieving the expected competencies.

b. Identification of outcomes that serve as measures by which the school will evaluate student achievement in each program, and presentation of data assessing the school’s performance against those measures for each of the last three years.

c. If the outcome measures selected by the school do not include degree completion rates and job placement experience, then data for these two additional indicators must be provided, including experiential data for each of the last three years. If degree completion rates, in the normal time period for degree completion, are less than 80%, an explanation must be provided. If job placement, within 12 months following award of the degree, is less than 80% of the graduates, an explanation must be provided.

d. A table showing the destination of graduates by specialty area for each of the last three years. The table must include at least a) government (state, local, federal), b) nonprofit organization, c) hospital or health care delivery facility, d) private practice, e) university or research institute, f) proprietary organization (industry, pharmaceutical company, consulting), g) further education, h) non-health related employment, or i) not employed. See CEPH Data Template D.

e. In public health fields where there is certification of professional competence, data on the performance of the school’s graduates on these national examinations for each of the last three years.

f. Data describing results from periodic assessments of alumni and employers of graduates regarding the ability of the school’s graduates to effectively perform the competencies in a practice setting.


Criterion 2.7 Instructional Programs: Assessment Procedures

126

2.7.a. Monitoring and Evaluating Competency Achievement Required Documentation: Description of the procedures used for monitoring and evaluating student progress in achieving the expected competencies. Students demonstrate mastery of necessary theories, concepts, content, and competency-defined skills in a variety of ways. These include: completing coursework (including tests and examinations); undergoing experiences and advising through which competencies are disseminated; and fulfilling culminating experiences (undergoing evaluation of performance in practice placements, writing project reports and theses, completing capstone courses, passing comprehensive examinations, passing professional credentialing examinations). For the most part, these activities are course-based, where monitoring and evaluating students is an integral part of the learning process. In addition, courses are modified as necessary, based on end-of-course evaluations by students, which typically are reviewed by both the course instructor and department chair/program director. Finally, the university, as well as many disciplinary accrediting bodies, requires academic units to conduct regular self-studies that include assessments of student progress and course reviews; (see Criterion 1.2. for a description of some of these activities). 2.7.b. Student Achievement Outcome Measures Required Documentation: Identification of outcomes that serve as measures by which the school will evaluate student achievement in each program, and presentation of data assessing the school’s performance against those measures for each of the last three years. Two primary outcome measures that the school uses to assess students’ overall achievement of professional competencies are (1) degree completion rates, and (2) data on students’ placement after graduation, whether in employment or further educational settings. Table 2.7.b.1. provides information on degree completion rates for our graduates at all degree levels. Graduation rates are based on time-to-completion requirements established by the university, which are two years for undergraduates (to complete their major in our school), five years for master’s students, and eight years for doctoral students. For example, of the 70 graduate students who started a doctoral program in fall 1999, 52 of them graduated by May 2007 for a graduation rate of 74%. Similarly, of the 366 students who started master’s programs in fall 2003, 326 graduated by May 2008, for a graduation rate of 86%. It should be noted that in a program with a small number of students, the movement of a single student into a different program without getting the first degree—i.e., change major, or move to doctoral program from master’s—will have a significant negative effect on the rate. Finally, the graduation rates for our undergraduates are conservative indicators. During the period of this study, closer to 100 percent of our BSPH students graduated within nine semesters (rather than four General College + four SPH); the additional semester is typically required because of double major requirements, time taken for study abroad, or other indicators of achievement rather than struggle to complete the degree.


127

(Starting in the 2008-09 academic year, the university began stricter enforcement of their time to completion requirements. Our undergraduate students are admitted to the school as juniors and are expected to complete their majors in eight semesters.) Table 4.4.f. summarizes completion rates across all departments, indicating desirable outcomes (usually over 80%)—the highest rates for undergraduates and the lowest rates for doctoral graduates, the latter of which is not unexpected because of the challenges associated with completing a doctoral dissertation. Table 2.7.b.l. Graduation Rates*

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 N Rate N Rate N Rate

BIOS BSPH 2 100% 7 86% 3 67% MPH 4 100% 3 67% 5 100% MS 18 72% 7 86% 12 92% DrPH 3 33% 2 50% 3 100% PhD 1 100% 6 83% 6 83%ENVR BSPH 11 86% 5 80% 9 78% MPH 5 80% 1 0% 3 100% MS 18 67% 11 100% 11 73% MSEE 8 100% 7 100% 3 100% MSPH 12 100% 9 89% 7 86% PhD 6 67% 13 77% 9 56%EPID MPH 22 95% 16 81% 11 100% MSCR1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MSPH 6 100% 14 71% 5 100% DrPH 1 N/A1 0 N/A2 0 N/A2

PhD 23 78% 21 81% 19 89%HBHE MPH 38 100% 43 98% 40 100% DrPH 2 100% 5 40% 1 100% PhD 5 60% 5 80% 8 75%HPM BSPH** 28 89% 34 88% 31 90% MHA** 21 100% 39 100% 25 100% MPH** 6 83% 8 88% 10 100% MSPH** 12 83% 15 80% 16 94% DrPH** 3 67% 5 80% 3 100% PhD** 7 71% 10 60% 7 100% MHA† 35 94% 39 77% 31 74% MPH† 26 77% 24 83% 23 74% DrPH†2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AMCH MPH 20 100% 22 95% 21 100% MSPH 8 100% 7 100% 17 100% DrPH 5 80% 2 50% 1 100% PhD 3 100% 9 78% 4 75%NUTR BSPH 8 100% 9 100% 20 95% MPH 23 87% 20 95% 22 100% MS 2 100% 0 N/A3 0 N/A3


128

Table 2.7.b.l. Graduation Rates* (continued) 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 N Rate N Rate N Rate

NUTR (cont) DrPH 1 100% 0 N/A1 0 N/A1

PhD 10 90% 5 60% 9 78%PHLP MPH ** 38 92% 34 94% 35 91% MS ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MPH † 2 50% 47 87% 16 88% MS†4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ASCHOOL BSPH 49 92% 55 90% 63 89%WIDE Master’s 324 90% 366 89% 313 92% Doctoral 70 74% 83 72% 70 83%*Time to completion is designated by the University: Undergraduates =2 years, Masters = 5 years, Doctoral = 8 years; N = number of students eligible to graduate by the designated time to completion ** Residential programs; † Distance education programs 1Program began enrolling students in 2008-09, so no students were eligible to graduate in 2006-09 2No students began program 8 years before these years 3 No students began program 5 years before these years 4Program did not accept students 5 years before these years Job placement rates (table 2.7.b.2.) are equally high; (distance education degree programs are not included since they are designed for students already employed. Table 2.7.d. lists the destinations for graduates, 2007-2009, and does not include those continuing their education. Table 2.7.b.2. Job Placement Rates*

Degree Conferred/Specialty

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009** N1 x2 Rate3 N1 x2 Rate3 N1 x2 Rate3

Biostatistics BSPH 1 1 100% 4 4 100% 1 1 100%MPH 2 2 100% 0 0 N/A 1 1 100%MS 5 5 100% 3 3 100% 2 2 100%DrPH 2 2 100% 1 1 100% 2 2 100%PhD 3 3 100% 3 3 100% 2 2 100%Environmental Sciences and Engineering BSPH 2 2 100% 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/AMPH 0 0 N/A 1 1 100% 0 0 N/AMSPH 4 4 100% 5 5 100% 5 5 100%MS 6 6 100% 3 3 100% 3 3 100%MSEE 1 1 100% 2 2 100% 4 4 100%PhD 5 5 100% 4 4 100% 7 7 100%Epidemiology MPH 15 15 100% 8 8 100% 5 5 100%MSPH 1 1 100% 2 2 100% 3 3 100%MSCR 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 1 1 100%DrPH4 0 0 N/A 1 1 100% 0 0 N/APhD 18 18 100% 18 18 100% 18 18 100%Health Behavior and Health Education MPH 20 19 95% 34 34 100% 17 10 59%MSPH 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/APhD 7 7 100% 5 5 100% 2 1 50%


129

Table 2.7.b.2. Job Placement Rates*, continued Degree

Conferred/Specialty 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009**

N1 x2 Rate3 N1 x2 Rate3 N1 x2 Rate3 Health Policy and Management BSPH 13 13 100% 20 20 100% 11 6 55%MPH 6 6 100% 3 3 91% 5 5 100%MSPH 7 7 100% 9 9 100% 12 8 67%MHA 34 34 100% 27 2 100% 20 16 80%PhD 3 3 100% 0 0 N/A 6 6 100%Maternal and Child Health MPH 11 10 91% 9 9 100% 13 11 85%MSPH 9 9 100% 5 5 100% 5 5 100%DrPH 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/APhD 3 3 100% 4 4 100% 3 2 67%Nutrition BSPH 2 2 100% 4 4 100% 2 1 50MPH 13 13 100% 13 12 92% 7 7 100%MS 1 1 100% 0 0 N/A 2 2 100%DrPH 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/APhD 6 6 100% 5 5 100% 5 3 60%Public Health Leadership Program, Residential MPH 11 11 100% 6 6 100% 15 14 93%MS 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/APublic Health Leadership Program, Distance MPH 8 8 100% 11 11 100% 17 16 94%MS 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/ASPH Total 205 204 99% 229 227 99% 235 208 89%*Sources: Qualtrics survey data (OSA), Student Services Manager reports, UNC online directory information, ADVISE alumni database, eRecruiting survey data; Date updated: June 30, 2009 (6 weeks postgraduation); Job placement rates focus only on graduates who indicated on surveys that they wanted a job or indicated that they had a job, when asked directly; Systematic collection of these data began in 2008-09; ** Data collected beginning in December 2008. N/A: Not applicable 1=total number of graduates reporting employment status via the survey or direct inquiry; 2= number of students reporting employment; 3 = x/N; 4 Program discontinued prior to self-study years 2.7.c. Additional Outcome Measures Required Documentation: If the outcome measures selected by the school do not include degree completion rates and job placement experience, then data for these two additional indicators must be provided, including experiential data for each of the last three years. If degree completion rates, in the normal time period for degree completion, are less than 80%, an explanation must be provided. If job placement, within 12 months following award of the degree, is less than 80% of the graduates, an explanation must be provided. Criterion 2.7.b. provides data for degree completion rates and job placement experience.


130

2.7.d. Graduate Destinations Required Documentation: A table showing the destination of graduates by specialty area for each of the last three years. The table must include at least a) government (state, local, federal), b) nonprofit organization, c) hospital or health care delivery facility, d) private practice, e) university or research institute, f) proprietary organization (industry, pharmaceutical company, consulting), g) further education, h) non-health related employment, or i) not employed. See CEPH Data Template D. Table 2.7.d. lists the destinations, by department, for all graduates over the last three years (2006-2009). There are somewhat different patterns among the departments, with BIOS and ESE alumni clustering in research facilities, proprietary organizations (industry, pharma, consulting), and further education; and the other departments with graduates placed across the board but with different emphases. Private practice and non-health related placements are the least frequent destinations

Table 2.7.d. Destination of Graduates by Program Area, 2006-2009 2006-2007

Non-Profit

Health Care

D’lvery Facility

Private Practice Proprietary

Further Educat’n

Non-Health

Related Not

Employed N %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept

BIOS -- -- -- -- 37 26 32 5 -- 19ESE 19 -- -- -- 30 19 33 -- -- 27EPID 22 5 7 -- 44 5 17 -- -- 41HBHE 17 37 -- -- 30 -- 10 3 3 30HPM 7 7 28 -- 17 18 22 1 -- 112MCH 12 24 9 -- 18 3 30 -- 3 33NUTR 13 6 16 3 25 6 31 -- -- 32PHLP 7 7 23 -- 23 3 37 -- -- 302007-2008

%/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept BIOS -- 13 7 -- 27 27 27 -- -- 15ESE 4 9 4 -- 35 13 35 -- -- 23EPID 21 -- 8 -- 38 8 26 -- -- 39HBHE 13 24 4 -- 33 11 13 2 -- 46HPM 8 9 23 1 10 25 20 2 2 96MCH 10 10 5 5 43 14 14 -- -- 21NUTR 5 8 11 5 16 8 41 3 3 37PHLP 15 5 8 -- 14 -- 58 -- -- 40


131

Total contacts with 2006-2007graduates/total graduates from 2006-07 = 324/473 (68%); 317/459 (69%) in 2007-08, and 298/484 (62%) in 2008-09 so far. 2.7.e. Performance on National Professional Examinations Required Documentation: In public health fields where there is certification of professional competence, data on the performance of the school’s graduates on these national examinations for each of the last three years. Students who graduate from NUTR and HPM have opportunities for professional credentialing. NUTR graduates may take the Registered Dietician (RD) Examination, and have had a 99% first-time pass rate on the exam for each of the past three years. HPM alumni can become board certified in healthcare management as an ACHE (American College of Healthcare Executives) Fellow (FACHE). However, because this involves a series of postgraduate steps and five years of experience, the department has no means of acquiring information on successful certification unless informed by the graduate. The National Board of Public Health Examiners (NBPHE) offered its Certification Exam for the first time in August 2008, and 23 UNC-Chapel Hill alumni sat for the exam—19 master’s students and 4 EPID doctoral students; see table 2.7.e.1. for participation by department, and table 2.7.e.2. for aggregate results. Table 2.7.e.1, National Board of Public Health Examiners Certification Exam, 2008: UNC-Chapel Hill SPH Participation Department Biostatistics 1Environmental Sciences and Engineering 2Epidemiology 4Health Behavior and Health Education 4Health Policy and Management 3Maternal and Child Health 3Nutrition 1Public Health Leadership Program 5Total 23

Table 2.7.d. Destination of Graduates by Program Area, 2006-2009 (continued) 2008-2009

%/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept BIOS 8 -- -- -- 34 25 33 -- -- 12ESE 15 12 -- -- 42 8 23 -- -- 26EPID 15 6 9 -- 46 6 18 -- -- 33HBHE 4 21 4 -- 33 -- 17 -- 21 24HPM 6 7 29 -- 17 12 15 1 13 98MCH 12 19 4 4 27 4 15 -- 15 26NUTR -- 8 8 -- 33 5 33 -- 13 24PHLP 6 4 16 -- 29 11 28 2 4 55


132

Table 2.7.e.2, National Board of Public Health Examiners Certification Exam, 2008: UNC-Chapel Hill SPH Results Total 71%Content Area Biostatistics 63%Environmental Health Science 77%Epidemiology 65%Health Policy and Management 74%Social and Behavioral Sciences 73%Cross-Cutting Competencies 78% 2.7.f. Assessment of Graduates’ Competencies Required Documentation: Data describing results from periodic assessments of alumni and employers of graduates regarding the ability of the school’s graduates to effectively perform the competencies in a practice setting. In a 2007-2008 survey, in the school’s attempt to engage employers in assessing graduates’ competencies, 123 employers of recent graduates of the school rated the graduates whom they supervised, worked with directly, and/or regularly observed on the effectiveness of their training in discipline-specific and interdisciplinary and cross-cutting competencies. Overall, employers rated graduates’ training highly, regardless of the graduate’s department of study, although the initial results suggest that most employers are not familiar with the competencies the school expects graduates to achieve. For the disciplinary-specific competency areas, employers rated graduates as effectively trained in all core disciplines, with the average rating on a five-point scale ranging from 4.17 to 4.53 (see shaded rows of table 2.7.f.). Employers’ ratings were slightly lower for interdisciplinary and cross-cutting competencies such as Financial Literacy (3.84) and Public Health Biology (3.88), but were quite high for Professionalism (4.61). Financial literacy was likely too narrowly defined, in an attempt to keep the survey simple, and public health biology is not a required course. The complete survey, along with a summary report, is available as Appendix 2.7.f.


133

Table 2.7.f. Employers’ Ratings of Graduates’ Disciplines*

Competency

5: Very effectively

trained 4

3: On the

whole, are

average 2

1: Not very

effectively trained

N/A

Average

(N/A excluded)

Biostatistics 40 22 8 1 1 37 4.38Environmental Health Sci 7 14 3 0 0 81 4.17Epidemiology 46 25 4 1 0 35 4.53Health Management 42 12 8 1 0 43 4.51Health Policy 42 18 6 2 0 39 4.47Social & Behavioral Sci 47 21 4 1 1 37 4.51Informatics: Management 81 26 3 4 1 6 4.58Informatics: Presentation 70 32 8 1 1 7 4.51Informatics: Design 51 42 13 2 2 10 4.25Diversity and Culture 60 35 8 1 1 15 4.45Leadership 40 45 15 0 2 16 4.19Public Health Biology 14 15 11 1 2 77 3.88Professionalism 80 30 1 3 1 6 4.61Program Planning 51 32 11 0 2 23 4.35Financial Literacy 24 24 22 7 0 43 3.84Systems Thinking 43 35 16 2 0 24 4.24* For each competency, employers were asked to select the number that best indicates their perception of the effectiveness of the training of the UNC-Chapel Hill graduate(s) whom they supervised, worked with directly, and/or regularly observed. The numerical values in this table indicate the number of employers who selected each response option on a 1-5 scale.


134

2.7.g. Assessment of Competence Assessment Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths A high percentage of our graduates successfully enter local health departments,

government, and other not-for-profit employment upon graduation

Methodology for documenting competencies achieved during practica has been established this year

Department reviews, with subsequent quality improvements, are an established process

at UNC-Chapel Hill and contribute to continuous quality improvement

Participation of alumni in initial offering of Board of Public Health Examiners certification examination

Challenges

Identifying valid indicators for each of the multitude of competencies to be achieved

Assuring the link between competencies and learning experiences, and making these obvious to students

Conveying to key constituencies the extent to which the educational process has prepared competent students

Building our students’ knowledge and skills in areas in which deficiencies are identified Future Directions Monitor students’ participation in the BPHE certification exam

Monitor the achievement of competencies from baseline to graduation

Monitor graduates’ employment experiences in light of the global economic recession

and provide appropriate intervention to aid students and recent graduates Further incorporate practitioners into discussions about how to assess and document

student achievement of competencies Increase understanding about and visibility of the competency-learning experience-

performance process.



2.8 Other Professional Degrees

CEPH Criterion If the school offers curricula for professional degrees other than the MPH or equivalent public health degrees, students pursuing them must be grounded in basic public health knowledge. CEPH Required Documentation a. Identification of professional degree curricula offered by the school, other than those

preparing primarily for public health careers, and a description of the requirements for each.

b. Identification of the manner in which these curricula assure grounding in public health core knowledge. If this means is common across these other professional degree programs, it need be described only once. If it varies by program, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each program.


Criterion 2.8 Instructional Programs: Other Professional Degrees

136

2.8.a. Professional Degree Curricula Required Documentation: Identification of professional degree curricula offered by the school, other than those preparing primarily for public health careers, and a description of the requirements for each. The school offers no other professional degrees. 2.8.b. Public Health Core Knowledge Required Documentation: Identification of the manner in which these curricula assure grounding in public health core knowledge. If this means is common across these other professional degree programs, it need be described only once. If it varies by program, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each program. The school offers no other professional degrees. 2.8.c. Assessment of Other Professional Degrees

Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. The school offers no other professional degrees.


2.9 Academic Degrees

CEPH Criterion If the school also offers curricula for academic degrees, students pursuing them shall obtain a broad introduction to public health, as well as an understanding about how their discipline-based specialization contributes to achieving the goals of public health. CEPH Required Documentation a. Identification of all academic degree programs, by degree and area of specialization.

The instructional matrix may be referenced for this purpose.

b. Identification of the means by which the school assures that students in research curricula acquire a public health orientation. If this means is common across the school, it need be described only once. If it varies by degree or program area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each program.

c. Identification of the culminating experience required for each degree program. If this is common across the school’s academic degree programs, it need be described only once. If it varies by degree or program area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each program.

d. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Criterion 2.9 Instructional Programs: Academic Degrees

138

2.9.a. Academic Degree Programs Required Documentation: Identification of all academic degree programs, by degree and area of specialization. The instructional matrix may be referenced for this purpose. Table 2.1.a. (Instructional Matrix) identifies all academic degree programs by degree and area of specialization. 2.9.b. Assuring a Public Health Orientation

Required Documentation: Identification of the means by which the school assures that students in research curricula acquire a public health orientation. If this means is common across the school, it need be described only once. If it varies by degree or program area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each program.

The School of Public Health has developed a set of core competencies that are intended to assure that students enrolled in academic degree programs graduate with a broad public health perspective (see Appendix 2.6.c. for master’s and doctoral program competencies). Culminating experiences further strengthen these students’ public health orientation. Academic degree programs also offer students multiple opportunities to engage in cross-disciplinary research activities. The following sections describe courses in each department that contribute to a broad public health perspective for students whose primary focus is research. Biostatistics The MS and PhD programs in BIOS provide research-oriented training in the theory and methodology of biostatistics and its application to the solution of problems in the health sciences. BIOS takes four steps to ensure that these students receive adequate exposure to public health, requiring: at least 9 credit hours of coursework in a supporting program area that includes EPID 600 (Principles of Epidemiology) or EPID 710 (Fundamentals of Epidemiology); a field observation course (BIOS 691) to observe and evaluate major nonacademic biostatistical programs at various institutions in the Research Triangle area; a public health practicum (BIOS 842) that prepares students to consult with clients working in public health, with a focus on developing and practicing skills in communication, session management, problem formulation, data analysis, report writing, and oral presentations; and training in research ethics. Environmental Sciences and Engineering All ESE graduate students, including MS, MSEE, and PhD degree candidates, are required to take two courses: ENVR 400, In-House Seminar, and ENVR 401, Unifying Concepts. Both courses orient students to concepts in public health. In addition, most students in the MS, MSEE, and PhD programs take courses in other departments in the school, particularly


139

from BIOS and EPID. Most MS theses, MSEE technical reports, and PhD dissertations also include discussions about the relevance of the research to public health. ENVR 400 provides weekly seminars (approximately 10 per semester) by PhD students, faculty, and post-docs in ESE as well as faculty from other units who collaborate with ESE faculty and students. Master’s students are required to attend 15 seminars and PhD students are required to attend 30 seminars, and they must provide written feedback on half of the required seminars. During academic year 2008-2009, seminar topics included protection of water resources, chemical contaminants in the environment, spatial patterns of microbial pathogens, occupational exposure assessment, global climate change and public health, cardiovascular disease from exposure to zinc in air, genetic susceptibility to diseases, biomarkers of prenatal exposure to arsenic, and costs and benefits of vaccination. ENVR 401 is offered as a series of three-week modules. In addition to a compulsory introductory module, students must complete four modules from a list of 12–14 modules. The modules in ENVR 401 for the 2008-2009 academic year included an introduction to toxicology, toxicogenomics, air pollution, environmental microbiology, water resources management, systems analysis, climate change mitigation, and cost-benefit analysis. Students work in groups of three to six, intentionally mixed with students from different disciplinary backgrounds. Epidemiology EPID requires doctoral students to hold the MPH or related professional degree before entering the program. Before a PhD student advances in the department, a faculty committee conducts an Intra-Departmental Review (IDR) with the student, including “Dimensions in the Training of an Epidemiologist." The student is expected to have an appreciation of the origins and goals of epidemiology as the basic science of public health, and of its methods, capabilities, limitations, and contrasts with related fields. Students are to understand basic etiologic and prevention principles which underlie problems in public health. The committee may recommend further course work or other action to ensure the student has the expected training in these areas. All MSCR students are required to complete a set of core courses that directly contribute to broad public health training and research. This core comprises a BIOS course and five EPID courses; two of the latter include content regarding health behavior, and health policy. Health Behavior and Health Education HBHE ensures the public health preparedness of its doctoral students through two means. First, if a doctoral student does not have an MPH, the student is required to take the school’s core courses. Second, all first-year doctoral students take a new yearlong modular course, HBHE 815-816 (Empirical, Conceptual, and Theoretical Foundations of Public Health and Health Behavior/Health Education), first offered in fall 2008. The first module is


140

specifically focused on principles of public health and how HBHE fits within the broader field of public health. Health Policy and Management In addition to a master’s degree, or equivalent experience, HPM PhD students must have a strong background in statistics, linear (matrix) algebra, calculus, and computer programming or they are required to take the department’s approved substitute for the school’s core biostatistics course, HPM 470 (Statistical Methods for Health Policy and Administration), during their first semester. The other two prerequisite courses are Evolution, Organization and Financing of the U.S. Health System (HPM 564), and Principles of Epidemiology (EPID 600 or equivalent). Maternal and Child Health To assure a firm public health foundation, MCH PhD students must have an MPH in Maternal and Child Health. Qualified applicants without an MPH in Maternal and Child Health may enroll in the PhD program, but the department requires them to complete its year-long master’s core course, Foundations of Maternal and Child Health (MHCH 701-702), or have a record of equivalent courses or knowledge. In addition, all first-year PhD students must take a yearlong doctoral seminar in Foundations of Maternal and Child Health (MHCH 801-802). Nutrition Nutrition requires that all PhD students enroll in NUTR 875, a policy seminar that provides information on current public health problems as well as the opportunity to learn about strategies to impact public health outcomes. PhD students are also required to take NUTR 600 and NUTR 620, which address the biochemical and genetic bases of major and globally significant public health-related diseases, as well as the four-semester NUTR 885 (Doctoral Seminar), which covers public health topics of importance, including the multiple roles of Vitamin D in chronic disease prevention and the risks and benefits of micronutrient supplementation. Public Health Leadership PHL students enrolled in the MS programs for Public Health Nursing, and Occupational Health Nursing, are required to take courses in epidemiology, biostatistics, and environmental sciences and engineering as part of their program.


141

2.9.c. Culminating Experience Requirements Required Documentation: Identification of the culminating experience required for each degree program. If this is common across the school’s academic degree programs, it need be described only once. If it varies by degree or program area, sufficient information must be provided to assess compliance by each program. As with the school’s professional master’s degree programs, academic master’s degree students must complete a master’s paper and a comprehensive examination to obtain the degree. Each department determines the specific requirements for the master’s paper and comprehensive exam (see table 2.5.a.). All of the school's PhD programs require written comprehensive exams, an oral dissertation proposal defense, a dissertation and an oral dissertation defense following the successful completion of coursework. (In addition, the PhD programs in NUTR require oral comprehensive exams.) Each department determines the structure of its own examinations (written, oral, or both).


142

2.9.d. Assessment of Academic Degrees


Strengths PhD is offered in all seven departments

MS degree is offered in three departments

Adoption of specific ASPH cross-cutting competencies by the school’s doctoral

programs

Rigorous culminating experience requirements, monitored by department program directors and the Graduate School

Challenges Obtaining agreement upon clear definitions of competencies in academic programs

and monitoring their achievement Assuring public health orientation in all academic degree programs

Future Directions Work with departments and degree programs to develop innovative means to define

and implement competencies and public health issues in their degree programs Consider more interdisciplinary and cross-SPH training experiences to keep pace

with the way people currently study and work conduct research This Criterion is met.


2.10 Doctoral Degrees CEPH Criterion The school shall offer at least three doctoral degree programs that are relevant to any of the five areas of basic public health knowledge. CEPH Required Documentation

a. Identification of all doctoral programs offered by the school, by degree and area of specialization. The instructional matrix may be referenced for this purpose. If the school is a new applicant and has graduates from only one doctoral program, a description of plans and a timetable for graduating students from the other two doctoral programs must be presented, with university documentation supporting the school’s projections.

b. Data on the number of active students in each doctoral degree program as well as applications, acceptances, enrollments and graduates for the last three years.

c. Assessment of the extent to which the criterion is met.

Criterion 2.10 Instructional Programs: Doctoral Degrees

144

2.10.a. Doctoral Degree Programs Required Documentation: Identification of all doctoral programs offered by the school, by degree and area of specialization. The instructional matrix may be referenced for this purpose. If the school is a new applicant and has graduates from only one doctoral program, a description of plans and a timetable for graduating students from the other two doctoral programs must be presented, with university documentation supporting the school’s projections. See table 2.1.a. (Instructional Matrix) for identification of the doctoral programs offered by the school, by area of specialization—PhD programs in seven departments and DrPH programs in four. The DrPH in Health Policy and Management is offered in Executive Program (distance learning) format. 2.10.b. Doctoral Students Required Documentation: Data on the number of active students in each doctoral degree program as well as applications, acceptances, enrollments and graduates for the last three years. See Appendix 2.10.b. for data on the number of active students in each doctoral degree program, as well as applications, acceptances, enrollments, and graduates for the last three years. Application patterns varied over the past three years: For the PhD programs, ESE, EPID, HBHE, and MCH applications all peaked in the second of the three years and decreased by different amounts for fall 2008 admission; BIOS, HPM, and NUTR applications increased for the last year of this same period. Change in new enrollments ranged from 27 fewer in EPID to an increase of 14 in BIOS. Despite EPID’s decrease, its total enrollment of 145 active PhD students is well above all of the other departments.

DrPH applications increased in BIOS and HPM (150 applications to the second cohort of the Executive Leadership DrPH), but decreased in MCH and NUTR. NUTR has not admitted any DrPH students for the past three years, and will discontinue the program effective fall 2009.

Criterion 2.10 Instructional Programs: Doctoral Degrees

145

2.10.c. Assessment of Doctoral Degrees

Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths

Extensive doctoral program offerings in all departments Well-recognized doctoral degree programs that attract strong students

One of the country’s first distance doctoral programs (Executive Doctoral Program in

Health Leadership/DrPH in HPM), with increasing demand Accomplished doctoral program alumni, many with significant national reputations

Challenges

Determining how to increase competitive funding to recruit doctoral students, including international students and, especially, diverse students

Addressing the needs of millennial students, who learn differently and have different

expectations from previous generations of students

Future Directions

Focus fundraising efforts to obtain financial resources for doctoral students from a variety of sources; (student scholarships is our top fundraising priority for this year)

Regularly monitor our various doctoral degree programs to determine whether any

should be phased out


Criterion 2

Instructional Programs 2.11 Joint Degrees

CEPH Criterion If the school offers joint degree programs, the required curriculum for the professional public health degree shall be equivalent to that required for a separate public health degree. CEPH Required Documentation a. Identification of joint degree programs offered by the school and a description of the

requirements for each.

b. Assessment of the extent to which the criterion is met.

Criterion 2.11 Instructional Programs: Joint Degrees

148

2.11.a. Dual Degree Programs Required Documentation: Identification of joint degree programs offered by the school and a description of the requirements for each. The School of Public Health has no joint degrees (defined by the Graduate School as a single degree developed jointly by two departments). However, the school offers dual degrees (defined by the Graduate School as the opportunity to earn degrees simultaneously from two departments in less time than if the degrees were pursued independently). There are eleven dual degree programs in the School of Public Health (see table 2.1.a., Instructional Matrix). In addition, there appears to be growing interest among HBHE students in exploring a joint degree with Social Work.

Criterion 2.11 Instructional Programs: Joint Degrees

149

2.11.b. Assessment of Joint Degrees


Strengths

Multiple opportunities to earn degrees simultaneously in two different disciplines

Opportunity to combine clinical and nonclinical programs of study

More versatile graduates in terms of future employment/careers

Interdisciplinary opportunities support university philosophy of education

Challenges

Maintaining a public health focus for students who are being trained in two disciplines

Coordinating course schedules and program requirements for two different degrees

Providing opportunities that do not prohibitively extend students’ time in training

Future Directions

Assure good advisement and monitoring for dual degree students

Examine new potential joint degree programs in response to students’ interest



2.12 Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs

CEPH Criterion If the school offers degree programs using formats or methods other than students attending regular on-site course sessions spread over a standard term, these programs must a) be consistent with the mission of the school and within the school’s established areas of expertise; b) be guided by clearly articulated student learning outcomes that are rigorously evaluated; c) be subject to the same quality control processes that other degree programs in the school and university are; and d) provide planned and evaluated learning experiences that take into consideration and are responsive to the characteristics and needs of adult learners. If the school offers distance education or executive degree programs, it must provide needed support for these programs, including administrative, travel, communication, and student services. The school must have an ongoing program to evaluate the academic effectiveness of the format, to assess teaching and learning methodologies and to systematically use this information to stimulate program improvements. CEPH Required Documentation a. Identification of all degree programs that are offered in a format other than regular, on-

site course sessions spread over a standard term, including those offered in full or in part through distance education in which the instructor and student are separated in time or place or both. The instructional matrix may be referenced for this purpose.

b. Description of the distance education or executive degree programs, including an explanation of the model or methods used, the school’s rationale for offering these programs, the manner in which it provides necessary administrative and student support services, the manner in which it monitors the academic rigor of the programs and their equivalence (or comparability) to other degree programs offered by the school, and the manner in which it evaluates the educational outcomes, as well as the format and methodologies.


Criterion 2.12 Instructional Programs: Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs

152

2.12.a. Distance and Executive Degree Programs Required Documentation: Identification of all degree programs that are offered in a format other than regular, on-site course sessions spread over a standard term, including those offered in full or in part through distance education in which the instructor and student are separated in time or place or both. The instructional matrix may be referenced for this purpose. The school’s distance and executive degree programs are described immediately below (2.12.b.) and are included on table 2.1.a (Instructional Matrix). They are the Executive DrPH in Health Leadership, and the Executive Master’s Programs, offered by HPM, and the PHL Master’s Programs. 2.12.b. Distance and Executive Degree Program Descriptions Required Documentation: Description of the distance education or executive degree programs, including an explanation of the model or methods used, the school’s rationale for offering these programs, the manner in which it provides necessary administrative and student support services, the manner in which it monitors the academic rigor of the programs and their equivalence (or comparability) to other degree programs offered by the school, and the manner in which it evaluates the educational outcomes, as well as the format and methodologies. The school improves the public’s health by teaching both the next generation of public health leaders and current practitioners. To this end, the school offers distance education (DE) opportunities for working public health professionals throughout North Carolina, the US, and the world, especially important for working adults who wish to obtain an advanced degree. Distance-learning also enables the school to provide high-quality course work to public health professionals in geographic areas (including international) where educational opportunities may be limited and work demands high. The school is a recognized leader in DE on campus and throughout the world, with several online master’s degrees and the only online Executive DrPH in Health Leadership in the United States. Distance learners have access to up-to-date technical resources and support, as well as curricula that are convenient and flexible, yet meaningful. The popularity of the school's distance learning courses is evident in the fact that many of the school's residential students take one or more courses online during their studies Executive DrPH in Health Leadership The DrPH program in health leadership prepares midcareer professionals for top positions in organizations working to improve the public’s health. The three-year, cohort-based distance program, offered by Health Policy and Management, confers a DrPH in Health Leadership. Students may be based in the US or abroad, provided they have reliable access to high-speed Internet services. (See http://tinyurl.com/hpmdrph.)


153

Model and Methods

Students receive instruction on campus for three to five days in late August, between the fall and spring semesters (early January), and between the spring and summer semesters (May). Otherwise, all learning takes place in students’ homes and offices. During the first August visit, students are oriented to the program, the department, and the university. In addition, they participate in group discussions with top health care and public health leaders, are introduced to the remainder of the first-semester curriculum, and receive software training. Thereafter, students connect to faculty and peers mainly via computer. Every course in the first two years is required of every student. The focus in the third year is on writing the dissertation, although students may also take two electives.

The DrPH program makes substantial use of innovative technologies (Internet Video, BreezeLive, and Blackboard) that allow students, faculty, and guest speakers to interact productively, and that support live video, audio, and data sharing. Each week, students receive study materials (such as recorded videos, narrative case studies, datasets, and readings) via the Web, and must complete required tasks before their regularly scheduled weekly late afternoon or evening class session (convened live via Internet Video). The three- to four-hour synchronous learning sessions, divided into curriculum components, are led by the faculty member or guest speaker responsible for a given component.

Program Rationale

The goal of the Executive DrPH in Health Leadership is to produce graduates with the motivation, knowledge, skills, and ability to become effective leaders. The program addresses the widely acknowledged need to develop stronger leaders committed to improving the health of the public. This need was brought into sharp focus by the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) landmark 1988 report, The Future of Public Health, which concluded that “public health will serve society effectively only if a more efficient, scientifically sound system of practitioner and leadership development is established.” Since release of the IOM report, other entities (including the Bureau of Health Professions, the Joint Council of Governmental Public Health Agencies, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) have also called for improved training of top health leaders. In November 2002, the Institute of Medicine renewed and strengthened its call for improved training of future health leaders in two major reports. One of these reports, The Future of the Public’s Health in the 21st Century, recommended that “leadership training, support, and development should be a high priority.” The other report, Who Will Keep the Public Healthy, focused on “Educating Public Health Professionals for the 21st Century.” The IOM notes that the changes that have occurred in the public health landscape since the original 1988 report require that educational programs for top health leaders and other professionals be modified and improved. The school’s DrPH leadership curriculum is a response to the IOM-identified need to design DrPH degrees specifically for advanced training in health leadership.


154

Administrative and Student Support Services

The director of the Executive DrPH in Health Leadership, Suzanne Havala Hobbs, DrPH, MS, RD, FADA, is responsible for all of the program’s administrative affairs, including administration of academic conduct, standards, and requirements. In addition, the director recommends admissions and financial support, matches advisors with students, approves dissertation committee chairs and members, advises the committees on interpretation of policies and requirements, rules on petitions in accordance with School of Public Health and Graduate School guidelines, and fulfills any other administrative duties or responsibilities delegated by the HPM chair. A DrPH Advisory Committee advises the director with regard to all program-related issues (e.g., admissions, curriculum).

The DrPH program director and HPM student services staff are available to work with students on general program matters and course registration issues. In addition, as soon as possible after matriculation, students are matched with a faculty advisor based in large part on mutual scholarly interests. Advisors guide students in interpreting course and program requirements and help identify dissertation committee members. In most cases, the faculty advisor also provides dissertation guidance, as chair of the student’s dissertation committee.

Academic Rigor and Equivalence Monitoring

Because the executive DrPH program is administered through the Graduate School, it is subject to the same level of scrutiny and oversight as the residential doctoral programs at the university. All executive DrPH courses are approved through the departments’ and school’s established processes, and are evaluated with the same tools as residential classes.

Evaluation of Educational Outcomes, Format, and Methodologies

Evaluation of educational outcomes, format, and methodologies includes both short-range and longer-range approaches. In the short-range category, the program director and former program director (Ned Brooks, DrPH) conduct informal, in-person debriefings at the conclusion of each on-campus session, with each cohort. Other short-term measures include reviewing statistics on average GRE scores (compiled on admission), electronic course evaluations (completed by students at the end of each semester), and an annual program report prepared for the Provost’s Office. The report addresses topics such as the cohort’s demographic characteristics, program assessment methods, assessment findings, changes made in the program based upon assessment findings, program successes, and barriers to continued success. Midway through the first year of the executive DrPH program (January/2005), the school conducted a student evaluation of the coursework and program. All nine students in the first cohort participated in a focus group conducted by an HPM faculty member with 25 years of experience in executive education. The focus group elicited general feedback about


155

experiences in the program, as well as asking about ways in which the program had affected students’ lives. The evaluation also included specific questions about program administration, use of technology, the curriculum, and fall courses. A similar, evaluation will be repeated during the fifth program year (2010). The school also uses two longer-range approaches to evaluate its executive DrPH program. First, the school maintains a database that will be regularly updated to track several indicators of success in meeting the objective of preparing top-level leaders committed to improving the health of the public. The database includes contact information, dissertation topic, years of matriculation and graduation, current position titles, and employers. Of particular interest, the database will document graduates’ career development from position upon graduation to five and ten years postgraduation, and beyond. Second, the school will survey graduates and their employers at 2, 5, and 10 years postgraduation to determine the extent to which graduates possess the competencies required for doctoral-level leadership and their current positions. Executive Master’s Programs, Health Policy and Management The “executive,” or distance learning, format for master’s degree study was first offered by HPM in 1969, and the executive healthcare master’s is one of the oldest programs of its kind in the country. Designed for working professionals worldwide, the Executive MPH and Executive MHA (EMP) programs include students from a variety of organizational settings, including integrated delivery systems, hospitals, HMOs, pharmaceutical firms, insurers, group practices, consulting firms, state and local health departments, and other government agencies (e.g., CDC, Public Health Service, Indian Health Service, Department of Defense). (See http://tinyurl.com/hpmemp.) Enrollment is limited to 80 new students per year, admitted in two admission cycles of 40 students each, for the fall and spring semesters. The program is structured into three sessions per year, and requires that students attend two seven-day sessions and one four-day session on the Chapel Hill campus per year. During the remainder of the year, students complete work via the Internet by accessing individual course web sites equipped with specialized client-server software. Students generally take two courses per session, completing the MPH degree in 2-1/2 years and the MHA in 3-1/2 years.

The Executive MPH is a 48-credit hour (16-course) curriculum for those who aspire to executive public health positions, offering concentrated study in either dental public health or public sector management to working professionals worldwide. The two concentrations are very similar, with the dental public health concentration providing electives in the theory and practice of dental public health. All MPH students learn leadership and decision-making skills that can be applied to a range of highly technical and socially complex issues.

The Executive MHA is a 60-credit hour (20-course) curriculum that provides thorough preparation in the management disciplines—accounting, finance, marketing, operations


156

decision analysis, and continuous quality improvement, a comprehensive understanding of the healthcare sector, and a concentration in health services management for those who aspire to executive positions in hospitals or related health services. The Executive MHA is equivalent in rigor, expectations, curriculum, and learning experiences to the residential MHA.

Model and Methods

Typically, each of the three academic terms runs from 12 to 14 weeks, with students completing faculty guided learning at home during the nonresidential instructional phase. During the two seven-day sessions on campus, students complete instruction on the two courses started in the previous term, taking their final exam and/or presenting group projects. They also take three workshops on material not covered in courses. Finally, they start two new courses for the next term. Faculty use this time to assign students to groups, to outline requirements for the course, to give an overview of content to be covered and to meet with students on individual projects. Students leave campus with a full understanding of expectations and scope of work required. The summer residential session does not include workshops. Off Campus Time. Students complete assignments weekly and meet online with their classmates and the faculty weekly or bi-weekly. The department uses a combination of course software and conferencing software to deliver material. Content is provided in a variety of formats including Word documents, pdf files, video files, voiced-over PowerPoint slides, Excel worksheets and Web-based references. Content is also delivered over a course management system that includes discussion forums, student interactive chat rooms, and live sessions. Faculty members also use a wide range of web-based tools such as Blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, YouTube, and other tools to deliver content. Three-day residential workshops. The practicum experience for EMP students consists of a program-long structured journal in which students reflect on the content that they have learned in each of their courses and how this content can be applied in their professional environment. As part of the structured journal/practicum requirement, students are also required to complete Effective Executive Workshops while they are on campus: 15 workshops for the MHA and 12 workshops for the MPH. These workshops include topics such as creative thinking, systems thinking, writing effectively, political savvy, critical thinking, project management, conflict resolution, time management, negotiations, and memory management, to name a few. Two-day residential course initiation seminars. Students start two new courses before leaving campus.


157

Program Rationale In 1969, the North Carolina Division of Public Health Services asked the department to provide master’s-level educational instruction to state and local public health administrators. Intended as a one-time offering, the program proved so successful and was in such demand that the program was offered again in the following year. The need for professional training for public health administrators was extensive, so the program expanded rapidly throughout the state, with cohorts being offered in the eastern and western parts of the state. The goal of the program was to prepare leaders, through a comprehensive curriculum in management and leadership, to run public health and healthcare delivery systems. The program received national attention and in 1980 the W.K. Kellogg Foundation awarded the department funds to extend the program throughout the southeast. In 1992, the program was broadened to cover a national and international audience. Currently the program has almost 1400 graduates from almost every state as well as many other countries—Peru, Mexico, Egypt, Germany, Portugal, China, Canada, England, Chile.


As EMP program director for over twenty years, James Porto, PhD, MPA, has had overall responsibility for all of the program’s administrative affairs, including academic conduct, standards, and requirements. The EMP also includes a director of community preparedness and disaster management, a part-time marketing and information services coordinator, and a program manager located in the department’s Student Services Office. Administrative activities provided by these staff include handling applications, admissions, advising, scheduling, coordinating residential time, communicating to faculty and students, and preparing and providing information to students such as policy manuals, cohort facebooks, Graduate School forms, and announcements. Staff also ensure all requirements are met and facilitate graduation. Key administrative activities coordinated by the marketing director include responding to all inquiries, maintaining current web content, publishing announcements, pre-qualifying applicants, and providing information about EMP though a variety of channels, such as Google searches, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, and surveying students and graduates about improvements to the program. The EMP also coordinates delivery of administrative activities through a dedicated software Intranet, FirstClass®, that includes email capability, and conferencing and data storage capability accessible anywhere in the world though the Internet.


The Executive MPH was originally (1969) modeled on the residential MSPH (rather than the MPH), as the MSPH was then the primary two-year residential degree offered by the department. The MHA and the Executive MHA were added in 1992. Many of the faculty members who teach in the residential program also teach in the EMP, which ensures equivalence in content between both MHA formats, even though delivery methods are different. Most adjunct faculty who teach in the EMP have taught for more than five years,


158

some as many as 15. Faculty members in the executive and residential programs correspond closely; syllabi are routinely shared and course content discussed. Also adjunct faculty members are invited to professional development seminars sponsored by the department. In 2009, the department adopted a competency-based and team-based initiative to improve content delivery; and adjunct faculty members who teach in the EMP have been very active in these efforts. The EMP director, along with the Master’s Advisory Committee, continually reviews content, solicits input from students, and meets with faculty to discuss ways to improve content delivery. Anecdotally, faculty members who teach in both programs find that mean performance between the executive and residential programs is essentially the same on midterm and final exams. Most faculty, however, find that Executive students provide a richer discussion around education content because all of them are currently working and bring professional, relevant insights into the classroom.

Evaluation of Educational Outcomes, Format, and Methodologies

Many evaluation methods are utilized by the EMP at all levels. Courses are evaluated informally at mid-term, and formally through an online survey at the end of the course. Formal evaluations are reviewed by the HPM chair and the EMP director, as well as the course instructor. To receive input and suggestions the director meets with students in an “all students” session every time they are on campus. Some of the suggestions from these sessions have led to major changes and improvements. The adoption of the Executive MHA, the conversion to a predominantly online program, and shortening the cycle for starting new cohorts were changes suggested by students. The director also meets with students on specific problems arising around courses or course requirements. The department also evaluates the program through surveys conducted to recent graduates. Material from these surveys is reviewed and changes identified to improve programs are adopted. In 2002 a formal survey lasting over six months was conducted of recent EMP graduates. This survey provided insights that led to improvements, especially around administrative procedures and technology. Currently the program and the department are developing the ability to rapidly survey students and graduates with evaluation technologies such as SurveyMonkey and other online tools. Public Health Leadership Master’s Programs A distinguishing feature of the Public Health Leadership Program (PHLP) is that two of the program’s three MPH degree concentrations (Leadership and Occupational Health Nursing [OHN]) are distance learning programs (http://tinyurl.com/phlpmph and http://tinyurl.com/mphohn), although a substantial portion of instruction in the Occupational Health Nursing MPH concentration—not exceeding 25%—is on-campus. In comparison, the Leadership MPH program presents virtually all class material via the Internet, using narrated


159

slide presentations, and requiring less than one week per semester on campus. Taking advantage of the unique opportunity to earn an MPH degree in an online format, the majority of PHLP students are enrolled as distance education students. This program replicates the classroom experience by using Web-based courses that include lectures, discussion forums, group and individual assignments, papers, and exams. DE students in the Leadership MPH concentration have a choice of four focus areas: field epidemiology, public health nursing, public health practice, and program development. Field epidemiology students develop advanced skills in applied epidemiology and learn to incorporate applied epidemiology into their professional endeavors. Public health nursing is designed for public health nurses who want to fulfill the degree requirements for National League of Nursing (NLN) accreditation, explore the nursing role, or teach in a nursing setting. Public health practice is recommended for students in professional positions who want to expand their public health practice knowledge and skills. Program development students hone their public health program development and evaluation skills; students also may choose either public health policy or public health marketing courses to complete their degree.

Model and Methods

The key to the development of high-quality distance education in PHLP has been to provide distance students with the same experience or better than that received by traditional residential students. In its formative stages, PHLP drew on previous experience of other programs in the school that had successfully used distance formats, including EPID and HPM’s EMP. Input from experienced developers of online academic programs in other universities was also critical. Five major concepts have guided PHLP’s development and implementation of DE programs over the past ten years: access, impact; cost efficiency, technology, and quality. The primary reason for developing a DE format has been the need to provide the public health workforce with the best possible access to a high quality education. The DE programs also seek to have maximum impact on practitioners by minimizing time away from work and family, offering flexible learning options, and focusing on the needs of adult learners. To improve cost efficiency, all DE components of PHLP share the goal of becoming self-sustaining through a combination of grants, tuition, and teamwork. Technology is the fourth essential feature of PHLP’s DE efforts. The school’s technological infrastructure (including its Instructional and Information Systems group [IIS]) ensures that the DE program marries appropriate technology with strong long distance linkages among students, faculty, and advisors. Finally, PHLP has implemented a form of continuous quality improvement (CQI, adapted for educational purposes) to make certain that both distance and residential students receive a high quality educational experience that adheres to pedagogical standards.


160

Program Rationale

A significant number of public health and health care, or clinical research, practitioners either lack a master’s degree in public health or would benefit from further skills and training in public health practice. The DE degrees (and certificates) target full-time, midcareer public health practitioners whose professional and family obligations prevent them from enrolling as full-time residential students in Chapel Hill. The PHLP’s DE offerings also address the pressing need for leadership training, which is greatest among the very group of practitioners who are least able to leave their jobs to become full-time students.


The DE program uses a “high tech/high touch” approach to guide administrative and student support services. This approach fosters strong, regular interactions among students, faculty, advisors, and mentors through team-based learning and the use of a range of technologies, including online/Internet technology, individual telephone calls, conference calls, and face-to-face meetings when needed and convenient. Two important features of this strategy are a commitment not only to simulate but also to improve on the traditional on-campus experience, and the inclusion of “just enough” face-to-face experiences (as defined by faculty, students, and program needs) to supplement technology. IIS and the broader platform of campuswide resources support the DE programs’ individualized approach to technology. The IIS group includes support staff, such as instructional designers who work with faculty to strengthen course design and delivery. Campus support includes hardware, software, and services such as 24-hour help lines that are available to all students.


PHLP focuses on maintaining the highest level of quality in teaching and practice. Quality is the criterion around which PHLP programs grow and develop, and PHLP conforms to the same rigorous ongoing review standards as other academic units in the school. The program follows procedures that are required by the Graduate School, the university registrar, and the university provost. The public health nursing focus area (a subset of the Leadership MPH) and the Occupational Health Nursing MPH concentration meet the specialized standards of the NLN and are accredited by NLN. PHLP’s use of CQI (characterized by systematic evaluation with ongoing data collection and analysis) helps PHLP identify and correct problems, and develop online courses and programs that meet the continuously changing needs of DE students.

Evaluation of Educational Outcomes, Format, and Methodologies Several published articles have evaluated the PHLP DE programs, and have found a wide range of positive program effects, including program satisfaction, career advancement,


161

professional affiliation and service, and self-reported leadership competency development. (See Davis, M. V., Sollecito, W. A., Shay, S., Williamson, W., “Examining the Impact of a Distance Education MPH Program: A One-Year Follow-Up Survey of Graduates,” Journal Public Health Management and Practice, 2004; 10 (6): 556-563; Jimbo, M., “MPH Through the Internet,” Family Medicine, 2002; 34 (10) 724-725; Horney, J., Alexander, L., Sollecito, W.A., “Using Distance Learning to Train Public Health Practitioners in Bioterrorism Preparedness,” Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 2005; November(Suppl): S147-S149; and Umble, K. E., Shay, S., Sollecito, W. A., “An Interdisciplinary MPH via Distance Learning: Meeting the Educational Needs of Practitioners,” Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 2003; 9 (2):123-135.) These findings not only confirm the fundamental equivalence of PHLP distance education and residential courses, but also highlight the school’s role as a recognized leader in DE across the nation. In addition to using CQI, PHLP conducts an annual alumni survey to assess its performance. The survey results have reiterated the findings of the published articles described above, indicating that DE students are satisfied with their education and the program format and methodologies. In the most recent survey, 100% of DE program graduates reported that they would recommend the program to other students, and 96% stated that the program had met their career development expectations.


162

2.12.c. Assessment of Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths High quality and accessible distance education degree programs that attract students

Distance learning programs well established (some for 40 years)

Most programs have been evaluated; some of the evaluations have resulted in peer-

reviewed journal articles Online and residential course equivalence in terms of rigor and participation

qualifications, as documented through evaluations

SPH has been an innovator in developing distance learning programs Challenges Optimizing balance between on-campus time and convenience of distance courses

Fostering strong person-to-person connections and interactions

Assessing future needs, given the current economic climate

Future Directions Assure that we revise programs as appropriate to maintain currency

Periodically reassess our technology, especially platforms and equipment for optimal

learning experience

Assess the viability of new pilot efforts to expand programs globally

Complete a current assessment of certificate and related programs to determine how they may need to change in the future and to assure that the business models are sustainable


Criterion 3.0 Creation, Application and

Advancement of Knowledge

Student Poster SessionLinda Kastleman, 2007

In the Field2009

In the Field

Lab Research

Criterion 3 Creation, Application and

Advancement of Knowledge 3.1 Research

CEPH Criterion The school shall pursue an active research program, consistent with its mission, through which its faculty and students contribute to the knowledge base of the public health disciplines, including research directed at improving the practice of public health. CEPH Required Documentation a. A description of the school’s research activities, including policies, procedures, and

practices that support research and scholarly activities. b. A description of current community-based research activities and/or those undertaken in

collaboration with health agencies and community-based organizations. Formal research agreements with such agencies should be identified.

c. A list of current research activity of all primary and secondary faculty identified in

Criterion 4.1.a. and 4.1.b., including amount and source of funds, for each of the last three years. This data must be presented in table format and include at least the following information organized by department, specialty area or other organizational unit as appropriate to the school: a) principal investigator, b) project name, c) period of funding, d) source of funding, e) amount of total award, f) amount of current year’s award, g) whether research is community based, and h) whether research provides for student involvement. Only research funding should be reported here; extramural funding for service or training grants should be reported elsewhere.

d. Identification of measures by which the school may evaluate the success of its research

activities, along with data regarding the school’s performance against those measures for each of the last three years. For example, schools may track dollar amounts of research funding, significance of findings (e.g., citation references), extent of research translation (e.g., adoption by policy or statute), dissemination (e.g., publications in peer-reviewed publications, presentations at professional meetings), and other indicators.

e. A description of student involvement in research. f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research

164

3.1.a. Research Activities Required Documentation: A description of the school’s research activities, including policies, procedures, and practices that support research and scholarly activities. School of Public Health (SPH) faculty, staff, and students engage in research that encompasses a wide array of topics, including five broad areas of research excellence: cancer, environment and water quality, global health (with a strong focus on infectious diseases), health disparities, and obesity (see strategic initiative statements in the Resource File). The research conducted in these and other areas provides an empirical foundation from which to build and enhance the public health knowledge base and shape public health practices and policies. Four overarching objectives guide the school’s research activities:

Maintain the school’s strong productivity in research grants and contracts; Strengthen research productivity and research training experiences among emerging

faculty and student scholars; Facilitate innovative, interdisciplinary research that contributes to public health

improvements in North Carolina and worldwide; and Disseminate research findings to the research and practice communities to enhance

scientific knowledge and translate research to practice Objective #1: Research Grant and Contract Productivity

The majority of school faculty members have active research agendas, making for a highly productive research environment. During fiscal year 2008-09, 82% of faculty whose primary appointments were in the School of Public Health were named as investigators on active research grants or contracts. Sixty percent of core faculty served as principal investigators (PIs), and 69% served as co-investigators on at least one grant or contract. During the past five years, faculty PIs have been awarded over $589 million in grants and contracts. The school’s research dollars increased steadily from FY 2004-05 ($103.3 million) through FY 2006-07 ($117.4 million), decreased somewhat during FY 2007-08 ($103.8 million) but then peaked during FY 2008-09 when faculty PIs were awarded the highest amount of research dollars to date ($150.2 million) (see figure 3.1.a.1.). The number of grants and contracts awarded to school PIs has stayed fairly consistent over time (387 in FY 2004-05, 384 in FY 2005-06, 370 in FY 2006-07, 380 in FY 2007-08, and 400 in FY 2008-09). For 2008-09, the number of grants and contracts awarded translated to 2.67 per SPH faculty PI, averaging $1,001,646 per grant or contract per PI. As shown in Appendices 3.1.c.1 and 3.1.c.2. (Template E), faculty research funding comes from a variety of sources. In both FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09, the federal government provided 42% of research funding. The National Institutes of Health, in particular, awarded 102 grants to school faculty in FY 2007-08 (totaling $38.8 million, $28 million of which was managed within the school), ranking the school first in the number of awards to public schools of public health and third for all schools of public health. The school ranked fourth in


165

total dollars awarded to public schools of public health and eighth in total dollars to all schools of public health (http://report.nih.gov/; rankings available currently through FY 2007-08). Several other federal agencies funded faculty research in FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 (including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Science Foundation, and the Departments of Justice and Education). Faculty also received funding from state agencies, foundations, industry, and others (see figure 3.1.a.2.).

Figure 3.1.a 1.Total Dollars of Grants and Contracts by Principal Investigators in the Gillings School of Global Public Health

Figure 3.1.a.2. Sources of Funding for Grants & Contracts Awarded to Principal Investigators in the Gillings School of Global Public Health for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 During FY 2008-09, school PIs conducted research throughout many of the 100 North Carolina counties, in other states, and in more than 50 countries around the world (see various project locations at http://www.sph.unc.edu/research_and_practice). Faculty also carried out funded research in all five areas of excellence. School research projects with the

$103.3 $114.5 $117.4

$103.8

$150.2

$0.0

$40.0

$80.0

$120.0

$160.0

FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09

Dol

lars

in M

illio

ns

42.10%

8.40%12.40%

7.40%

6.30%

23.40%Federal Government

Foundations

Industry

NC State Government

Other State Government

Other Non‐Profit Organizations


166

potential to have an important public health impact in each of the five areas of excellence include the projects briefly detailed on table 3.1.a.1. While the school excels in the area of research productivity, we remain committed to maintaining or increasing the funding success of SPH researchers. A team has been assembled to conduct portfolio analyses related to the school’s areas of funding, especially in the research areas of excellence, as well as to measure various historical variables related to “application success rate” of school faculty-led research (i.e., percentage of applications that are funded). The team plans to use the combined basic historical information to create a logic structure for the school’s leadership that will be useful for forecasting/planning and communication.

Objective #2: Research Productivity and Training among Emerging Faculty and Student Scholars

The school plays a critical role in building the next generation of public health researchers and is fortunate to have a cadre of assistant professors who are extremely active in a wide variety of research activities. During FY 2008-09, 88.5% of those on the tenure track were named as an investigator on at least one grant or contract; 62% of them were PIs, and 62% served as co-investigators. Table 3.1.a.2. displays current research by assistant professors and includes projects in the school’s areas of excellence (some noted immediately above, and others identified below), as well as in other critical areas. (Criterion 3.1.e. focuses on student scholars.)

Objective #3: Facilitating Innovative and Interdisciplinary Research

Gillings Innovation Labs

Dennis and Joan Gillings’ $50 million gift to the school in 2005 has provided the school with critical resources to anticipate future public health challenges and accelerate delivery of real world, sustainable solutions. Funds from the gift are being applied to a variety of programs, including competitively selected Gillings Innovation Labs (GILs). GILs support school faculty who engage in high-impact research, demonstration projects, and teaching innovations that focus on solving significant public health problems. The school is committed to building a portfolio of GILs that crosses disciplines and approaches both in North Carolina and around the world. The GILs engage interdisciplinary teams, train future public health leaders, and encourage connections among academic investigators, communities, governments, and public and private institutions. The first GILs were awarded early in 2007, with several subsequent funding cycles since then; 14 GILs have been awarded to date (see table 3.1.a.3).


167

Table 3.1.a.1. Examples of Research in the Five Areas of Excellence

Study Title PI/Department Funder Description Cancer Deciding on HPV Immunization in North Carolina

Noel Brewer, HBHE CDC Study the psychology of medical decision making.

Clarifying the Relationship between Nutrition and Breast Cancer.

Marilie Gammon, EPID Lance Armstrong Foundation

Identify nutritional factors that influence a person's risk of developing cancer or the risk of surviving once diagnosed with cancer.

Biostatistical Innovations Improving Clinical Trials for Cancer Patients

Anastasia Ivanova, BIOS

NCI, NIH Specializes in developing adaptive statistical designs for clinical trials, including oncology trials.

Reducing Colorectal Cancer Related Deaths in North Carolina

Cathy Melvin, MCH NCI, NIH Implement two evidence-based approaches that focus on improving rates of colorectal cancer screening among underinsured and uninsured individuals.

Environmental Exposure and Effect of Hazardous Chemicals

Ivan Rusyn, ESE NIEHS Explores the toxicogenetic approach to studies of trichloroethylene-induced liver and kidney toxicity and carcinogenesis.

Genomics of Normal Breast Tissue and Breast Cancer Microenvironment: Relevance for Breast Cancer Prevention

Melissa Troester, EPID NCI, NIH Identifies important biological relationships in the etiology of breast cancer in order to identify biomarkers with improved discriminatory accuracy in predicting breast cancer risk.

Environment/Water Quality Innovative Tool to Measure Indoor Air Pollution

David Leith, ESE NIOSH, NIH Develop a better and less expensive method to measure the level of airborne particles.

Improving Disinfection Methods for Drinking Water

Philip Singer, ESE, Drinking Water Research Center

EPA; WRRI, NCSU

Improve quality of drinking water.

Better Detection of Unsafe Water Quality for United States Beaches

Jill Stewart, ESE

NIEHS Develops novel techniques to detect and track pathogens in water in order to evaluate the impact of urbanization occurring at US beaches on human health.

Technologies to Improve the Quality of Drinking Water

Howard Weinberg ESE & Jeff Wagner ESE PhD alum

Water Resources Research Institute (WRRI), NCSU

Develop analytic tools and techniques for evaluating the chemical quality of drinking water.

Biostatistics in Environmental Health Research

Haibo Zhou, BIOS NIEHS Develops unique biostatistical methods to evaluate both long-term and transient effects of environmental toxins on human fertility.


168

Table 3.1.a.1 Examples of Research in the Five Areas of Excellence, continued

Study Title PI/Department Funder Description Global Health Improving Health in Developing Countries

Sian Curtis, MCH and Gustavo Angeles, MCH

USAID The largest research award ever received by UNC, a 5-year, $181 million cooperative agreement for the MEASURE Evaluation Project.

Advancing the Science of HIV Testing in North Carolina and Beyond

Michael Hudgens BIOS NIAID, NIH Develop methods to increase the efficiency of detecting individuals recently infected with HIV.

Empowering Malawians to Fight Infectious Disease Using Best Public Health Practices

Steve Meshnick, EPID Fogarty International Center

Study tropical and infectious diseases in developing countries, including Malawi.

International Dietary Assessment from the Arctic to the Amazon Description:

Sangita Sharma, NUTR

American Diabetes Assoc., USDA, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Develops methods that assess diet on a global level, improve dietary intake, create interventions to reduce the prevalence of chronic disease, identifies ethnic differences in diet and disease associations, and works to highlight varying dietary recommendations by ethnic groups.

Improving the Reproductive Health of the Urban Poor in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia

Ilene Speizer, MCH

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Identifies which urban reproductive health approaches and interventions are most effective and likely to have the biggest impact for the urban poor and shapes future family planning and reproductive health programs for ministries of health, municipal governments, donors and foundations serving the poor in Sub-Saharan African and South Asia.

The Impact of AIDS Treatment on the Economic Outcomes in Rural Kenya

Harsha Thirumurthy HPM World Bank Examine how the provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for adults with HIV/AIDS affects socioeconomic outcomes of treated patients and their family members in rural Kenya.

Health Disparities North Carolina Tribal Health Assessment

Carolyn Crump, HBHE and Robert Letourneau, HBHE

NC Office of Minority Health & Health Disparities, NCDHHS

Assesses the extent to which North Carolina tribes and tribal organizations have been addressing, or would like to address, their health needs and priorities.

Health Disparities in Mental Health Care

Michael Foster, MCH Macro International

Studies health disparities, including racial differences in health care and mental health.

Eliminating Disparities in Interconceptional Care

Vijaya Hogan, MCH

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Defines effective strategies for eliminating health inequities and studies the impact of social factors on maternal and infant health outcomes with the goal of establishing an evidence base of strategies that effectively address the underlying the black/white gap in preterm birth.


169

Table 3.1.a.1 Examples of Research in the Five Areas of Excellence, continued

Study Title PI/Department Funder Description Health Disparities, continued Access to Health Care for Children

R. Gary Rozier, HPM NIDCR, AHRQ Studies children’s access to care, particularly dental health care, including the innovative management of dental decay for young children enrolled in Medicaid.

Health Disparities Related to Cancer

Jessie Satia, NUTR, EPID

NCI; American Cancer Society; US Army Medical Research

Studies disparities in cancer among African-American men.

Factors Affecting Health Services Access for Children in Child Welfare

Rebecca Wells, HPM

NIMH, NIDA

Analyzes data from a national survey of families engaged with the child welfare system to see how agency strategies affect children’s health services access for mental health, substance abuse treatment and other services.

Obesity Managing Overweight/Obesity for Veterans Everywhere (MOVE!)

Marlyn Allicock, NUTR NCI, NIH Addresses adverse health outcomes of excess weight and sedentary life style in veterans using tailored print health information, one-one-one visits with clinicians, group support therapy, individual peer to peer support and is currently developing a DVD-based peer counselor program.

Nutrition and Infectious Disease Melinda Beck, NUTR NIAID, NHLB, NIH Examines both animals and humans to determine how obesity affects the immune response, focusing specifically on the immune response to the influenza virus.

Providing Employees the Opportunity to Obtain a Healthy Weight

Laura Linnan, HBHE CDC; NHLBI Works collaboratively with community partners to promote healthy lifestyles and combat obesity.

The Importance of Gestational Weight Gain for Maternal and Child Health Outcomes

Anna Maria Seiga-Riz,, NUTR/EPID

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Studies the associations of weight gain during pregnancy on adverse outcomes including pre-term birth, low birth weight, cesarean delivery and initiation of breastfeeding.

Online Weight Loss Programs Deborah Tate HBHE, Elizabeth Lyons PhD student

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Studies energy expenditure in a variety of video games, and video game characteristics that relate to physical activity.

Nutrition and Physical Activity Self-Assessment for Child Care

Dianne Ward, NUTR CDC; NIEHS, NIH Creates the Nutrition and Physical Activity Self-Assessment for Child Care (NAP SACC) training program, which focuses on providing a healthy weight environment for children by improving the nutritional quality of food offered to them, as well as the physical activities available to them.


170

Table 3.1.a.2. Examples of Research by Assistant Professors

Study Title PI/Department Funder Description Social Network Influences on Sexual Behavior and HIV in the Dominican Republic

Claire Barrington, HBHE

USAID Improves understanding of social network influences on health and health behaviors, in particular sexual behaviors related to HIV in two populations that are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS: the male clients of female sex workers in the Dominican Republic and Latino migrants in North Carolina.

Ensuring HPV Vaccine Coverage among Rural and African American Female Adolescents

Noel Brewer HBHE, Jennifer Smith, EPID

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Develops understanding of decisions to vaccinate against HPV. Project findings are supporting the planning of a 13-county social marketing campaign to increase HPV vaccination among adolescent girls.

Promoting Partnerships to Prevent Workplace Violence

Carri Casteel EPID, UNC Injury Prevention Research Center

CDC; NIOSH Develops a violence prevention program that engages small businesses with law enforcement to prevent workplace violence and robbery, in partnership with colleagues from the University of Iowa and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Monitoring Social Change: Health, Reproduction, Aging

Shufa Du, NUTR

National Institute for Child Health and Human Development

Examines the effects of the health, nutrition, and family planning policies and programs implemented by national and local governments to see how the social and economic transformation of Chinese society affects the health and nutritional status of its population.

Genomics and Systems Biology Approaches: Understanding the Biological Impacts of Environmental Exposures and Predicting Inter-Individual Susceptibilities

Rebecca Fry, ESE

Chulabhorn Research Institute, Thailand

Works to understand how prenatal exposure to the toxic metalloid arsenic impacts newborns and may result in human disease in addition. Identifies genes that can be used as predictors of how cells respond to a commonly used type of chemotherapeutic and details a strategy that can be used to identify other genetic predictors of response to environmentally relevant toxic agents.

Psychosocial Determinants of African-American Men's Health

Wizdom Powell Hammond, HBHE

National Cancer Institute with the Carolina Community Network (CCN)

Investigates the psychosocial contribution of traditional male role norms to prostate cancer screening behavior and survivorship among African-American men in North Carolina.


171

Table 3.1.a.2. Examples of Research by Assistant Professors, continued

Study Title PI/Department Funder Description Tailoring Public Health Solutions through Systems Modeling

Kristen Hassmiller Lich, HPM

University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network

Extends current models of population-level tuberculosis progression, focusing on smoking, HIV, and diabetes as key and interacting risk factors. Once developed and validated, the team plans to use the models in First Nations populations in Canada to help communities and policy makers enhance their tuberculosis control activities.

Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement & Leadership Through Alliances (NC DELTA)

Beth Moracco, HBHE

Centers for Disease Control

Assists the North Carolina Intimate Partner Violence Prevention State Steering Committee in the completion of an Intimate Partner Violence Report and Prevention Plan by developing empowerment evaluation tools, assessing current efforts, providing training and technical assistance and conducting evidence-based planning.

Biostatistical Investigation of Gene Expression

Wei Sun, BIOS UNC-CH University Cancer Research Fund

Applies advanced statistical methods to the genetic basis of complex traits

Table 3.1.a.3. Gillings Innovation Labs

Awarded Lab Investigator(s) FY 2007 The Center for Innovative Clinical Trials Joseph Ibraham BIOS

The Carolina Global Water Partnership: Stronger Solutions to Public Health Problems Mark Sobsey, ESE

FY 2008 Mental Health System Improvement Joseph Morrissey HPM Innovative Disease Surveillance Methods to Link, Analyze and Manage Large Electronic Data Repositories David Richardson EPID

Methods to Explain Origins of Air Pollution Health Effects and Plan Effective Remediation William Vizuete ESE

Portable Field Tests for Fecal Contamination of Water Mark Sobsey ESE Single-Dose Vaccine for Multiple Respiratory Viruses in Infants and Children Ralph Baric EPID

FY 2009 1st round

A Study of the Public Health Impact of Moving toward a Local, Sustainable Food System Alice Ammerman NUTR

A Laboratory for Molecular Surveillance of Tropical Disease to do Population-Based Measurement Steven Meshnick EPID

Mapping; An Analytical Laboratory for Development of Biomarkers of Environmental Exposures to Arsenic Miroslav Styblo EPID

2nd round An Integrated System for Energy Production and Nitrogen Removal from Swine Waste Michael Aitken ESE

Population-Based Evaluation of Drug Benefits and Harms in Older U.S. Adults Til Stürmer, EPID

Statistical Genomics Fred Wright & Danyu Lin BIOS

Teaching and Training in Public Health for the 21st Century William Zelman, HPM


172

Interdisciplinary Research

The school’s impressive research record has resulted, in part, from a longstanding commitment to work collaboratively with researchers in a broad array of disciplinary areas. Faculty, staff, and students are acutely aware that finding solutions to critical public health problems requires broad interdisciplinary partnerships and public engagement. In FY 2008-09, approximately half of research grants and/or contracts awarded to faculty PIs were community-based. A majority of faculty members work collaboratively in interdisciplinary teams, with much of this work taking place in the university’s various centers, institutes, programs, and specialized facilities. During FY 2008-09, approximately 35.5% of SPH PI faculty grants and contracts were administered through affiliated centers, institutes, or offices. These include some centers housed within the school: Biometrics Consulting Laboratory, Center for Environmental Health and Susceptibility, Center for Infant and Young Child Feeding and Care, Collaborative Studies Coordinating Center, Drinking Water Research Center, and the UNC-GSK Center for Excellence in Pharmacoepidemiology and Public Health. NCOSHERC, a PHL/OHN-administered program, includes collaboration with EPID and ESE, as well as with Duke’s Department of Occupational Medicine and North Carolina State University’s Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering. School faculty members also lead 13 specialized facilities, including the Ambient Air Research Facility, the Biomarkers Facility Core, the Laboratory of Molecular Carcinogenesis and Mutagenesis, and the Nutrient Assessment Facility Core. A complete list of centers, institutes, and specialized facilities can be found at http://www.sph.unc.edu/centers_and_institutes/. In 2007, UNC’s Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center obtained a funding commitment from the NC legislature of about $50 million/year in perpetuity for a variety of activities—the University Cancer Research Fund (UCRF), http://ucrf.unc.edu/. (See also Criterion 4.2.b.) So far, four researchers in the School of Public Health (in BIOS, HBHE, HPM, and NUTR/EPID) have received UCRF awards, totaling $672,000. In 2008, the school celebrated the opening of the UNC Nutrition Research Institute (NRI) in Kannapolis, NC, a research center led by Steven Zeisel, MD, Kenan Distinguished Professor of Nutrition and Pediatrics (UNC School of Medicine). The institute uses cutting-edge genomic and metabolomic biotechnology to develop innovative approaches to understanding the role of diet and activity in normal brain development, in the prevention of cancer, and in the prevention and treatment of obesity and eating disorders. NRI became an independent institute July 2009, but continues to have strong ties to the school.


173

Other centers that collaborate with the school include: Carolina Population Center Highway Safety Research Center Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services

Research Injury Prevention Research Center

Center for AIDS Research Institute on Aging

Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention

NSF Science and Technology Center (comprising Brown, Caltech, Cornell, UNC, and Utah)

Center for Health Statistics Research UNC Institute for the Environment Frank Porter Graham Child Development

Institute

Objective #4: Public Engagement and Dissemination of Research

In addition to their success in obtaining research funding from a variety of sources, SPH faculty have been extremely prolific in disseminating their research findings, publishing hundreds of manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals each year. Many of these are in top-tiered journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, American Journal of Public Health, Journal of the American Medical Association, and journals in the Nature series. SPH faculty members publish approximately ten or more articles a year in each of these journals. This research is cited frequently (Institute for Scientific Information database) and is often highlighted in newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and testimony before the US Congress, as well as in presentations to the North Carolina State Legislature, the North Carolina State Health Department, and local health departments. We also have many faculty members who specialize in dissemination research. Cathy Melvin (MCH), for example, specializes in dissemination and implementation research with an emphasis on understanding how health care systems, providers, and consumers accept and use evidence-based interventions. Her research covers a wide range of content: treating tobacco use among pregnant women, cancer prevention and control, maternal and child health, and counter-marketing to encourage evidence-based prescribing. The Disseminating the Evidence-Based Drug Review: Anti-Epileptic Drugs for Mood Disorders Project (AED Project) is funded by a consortium of state attorneys general to accomplish two aims: 1) creating unbiased evidence to guide clinician prescribing and 2) using proven dissemination strategies to develop and implement a national counter-marketing campaign. Her findings have led to six journal articles, a web site and webinar launched in April 2008. Forty-eight media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal and Pharmalot.com, picked up the news release about the supplement and webinar, reaching an estimated audience of at least six million. See project materials at: http://www.prescribingforbetteroutcomes.org. Findings will be applied to other research, including use of pharmacogenomics to guide tamoxifen therapy for postsurgery breast cancer patients. To further reach the public regarding the impact of the school’s research, the school is collaborating on the implementation of new software that will provide a campuswide and, ultimately, a UNC systemwide, environment for access to key information about the


174

knowledge and experience of faculty, staff, and students. Examples include dynamic map technologies to illustrate the geographical location of research being conducted, an expertise database based on a comprehensive taxonomy system available to the public, and a profile management tool that helps faculty and staff more efficiently manage information for grant preparation, as well as to record and report service. Those involved in school leadership plan to develop metrics to support this objective; see Criterion 3.1.d., Outcome Measures. Policies, Procedures, and Practices that Support Research and Scholarly Activities Both the university and the school have a number of policies, procedures, and practices to enhance research and scholarly activities.

Policies

The School of Public Health adheres to all university policies (see complete list at http://research.unc.edu/services/policies.php). The broad policy categories are: • Research Ethics and Compliance

Policies related to animal research, clinical trials, conflicts of interest, health and lab safety, human subjects protection, use of university resources in support of entrepreneurial activities, responsible conduct of research, ethics policy, policy on external professional activities of faculty and other professional staff, policy on federal earmarks, policy on use of human embryonic stem cells for research, and equity acquisition in technology licensing arrangements

• Federal Regulations and Guidelines UNC’s adherence to federal regulations and guidelines including HIPAA, federal acquisition regulations, cost accounting standards, all parts of the Code of Federal Regulations pertaining to the conduct of research, the Belmont Report, Guidance for Industry Good Clinical Practice and Information for Clinical Investigators

• Clinical Trials Policies See http://research.unc.edu/oct/

• Human Subjects Policies The Office of Human Research Ethics (OHRE) is responsible for ethical and regulatory oversight of research that involves human subjects. OHRE supports and oversees the work of the Institutional Review Boards. See http://research.unc.edu/ohre/.

• Sponsored Research Policies The Office of Sponsored Research is responsible for institutional oversight, administration and financial management of federal and nonfederal contracts, grants and cooperative agreements. See http://research.unc.edu/osr/.

• Technology Transfer Policies The Office of Technology Development licenses innovations developed by faculty, students, and staff. Services include evaluating, patenting, licensing, and assisting


175

faculty in obtaining research support from corporate sponsors. See http://research.unc.edu/otd/.

Overhead. In addition to these broad policy categories, the university has several other specific policies that are particularly relevant to the school’s research activities. A policy on overhead return, for example, encourages the submission of research grants and contracts, because departments receive 15.6% of the overhead generated and may use the funds in any appropriate manner. Some departments return a portion of the overhead funds to investigators to use for seed money or for some other purpose that furthers their research objectives. The dean’s office receives 3.9% of total school-generated overhead, which it uses to fund schoolwide research services, information services, and other core functions, as well as for start-up funds to help new faculty members build their research programs. In addition to the overhead monies generated by grants and contracts to school faculty, the university typically allocates a small amount of overhead money to the school. The school generally uses university overhead to purchase scientific equipment, renovate research facilities, and fund research activities such as travel, supplies, and desktop computing. Public Access. To help faculty adhere to the NIH Public Access Policy established in 2008, which stipulates that articles arising from NIH funds must be submitted to PubMed Central upon acceptance for publication, the Health Sciences Library offers a practical toolkit (see http://tinyurl.com/hsltoolkit).

Procedures and Practices SPH Office of Research The mission of the school’s Office of Research, directed by the associate dean for research, is to enhance the research enterprise. To this end, the office provides infrastructure (developing and providing services, databases, and facilities to assist with research); strategic research enhancement (services to assist in developing new research teams and collaborations, new areas of research, and new areas of funding); and strategic advice and representation (serving as an interface among faculty, staff, and the dean regarding research policy issues). The office also works with other units on and off campus. To document and promote the school’s research impact, the Office of Research maintains a routinely updated database. That database currently includes over 100 impact summaries, each of which provides, for a specific research project, the research/project description, results, and impact, in addition to publications, and copies of press coverage (see Appendix 3.1.a for project impact summaries). The associate dean for research also chairs the school’s Research Council, made up of faculty representatives from each department. The council addresses issues deemed important to advancing the school’s overall research program. Council members represent the research interests of their home departments and report back to their department chair and colleagues.


176

The school’s research office has an extensive electronic Community of Science Workbench, and subscribes to a number of funding listservs that, in combination with information from other sources, identify dozens of funding opportunities for faculty. After an initial screening process, the school makes funding announcements through its weekly electronic newsletter and at the website of the Office of Research (http://www.sph.unc.edu/research).

Grants and Contracts Management The university’s Office of Research Information Systems collaborated with the campus Office of Sponsored Research, the School of Medicine Sponsored Programs Office, the Office of Clinical Trials, and the broader campus research community to develop the Research Administration Management System and eSubmission (RAMSeS), which went into production on July 1, 2006; at that point, legacy data were entered back to 2001. RAMSeS is a comprehensive Electronic Research Administration (eRA) system designed to meet the needs of the university’s growing research enterprise. RAMSeS’s cutting-edge technology enables research administrators to manage research more efficiently and effectively, and is fully integrated with university compliance and protection offices such as the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, institutional review boards, and conflict of interest committees. Further development of RAMSeS is under way to improve institutional research reporting and trend analysis of research funding. Although the university supports specialized software to manage grant and contract accounts, it is the responsibility of investigators and their department business managers to oversee the fiscal responsibilities required for each grant. The school provides additional fiscal support through its Business and Finance office.

Faculty Recruitment The school has had access to start-up funds that provide enhanced financial support to newly-hired faculty members. These funds help ensure a smooth transition to the school and enable new faculty to establish their research programs more effectively and begin successfully competing for external funding. The availability of start-up funds may also make it easier for departments to recruit faculty members who can fill specific interdisciplinary research needs identified by research centers or the dean. See Criterion 4.2.b.

Bridge Funding In February 2007, the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, with the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Economic Development, created a central funding pool for temporary support of lapsed grants. With more than 70% of the university’s research funding derived from federal sources, a program to provide bridge funding for investigators whose grants are not renewed but will be resubmitted is critical to maintaining the expertise of research teams already in place for these studies. The Office of Research oversees bridge funding procedures for the school. Support is available to applicants who hold faculty appointments, have a history of competitive funding, present strong evidence that resubmission is likely to be successful, and provide


177

endorsements from their department chair and the dean’s office. Bridge support lasts only until the next peer review evaluation of the grant in question. If approved, the home department of the principal investigator, the dean’s office, and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research equally share the requested budget. During FY 2007-08, the school put forward four requests for bridge funding for four faculty members. All of these requests were granted, and the investigators’ grant submissions were ultimately successful.

Faculty Support

The school’s Office of Research provides a number of services organized to support tenured faculty members, especially those whose research careers are not yet well established. The school coordinates and has funded three types of support services: biostatistics consultation (which makes a Biostatistics expert available to faculty members developing grant proposals); scientific editing (the school has contracted with a scientific editor to provide editing during grant preparation); and grant writing workshops. For the latter, knowledgeable researchers offer seminars on a range of topics (including finding funding, developing specific study aims, electronic grant submissions, preparing a budget, and talking to the media).

Library Services The university and the school offer several services that enhance faculty members’ ability to take full advantage of library resources. For example, the UNC GrantSource Library offers hands-on, customized workshops for faculty in the health affairs schools approximately four times a year, identifying funding sources for research, programs, and other scholarly endeavors. Upon request, library staff members also conduct one-on-one consultations with new faculty, assisting them to develop a Community of Science workbench and an alert system customized to their needs. Finally, a dedicated librarian from the Health Sciences Library—one of the 22 libraries that support the university—is trained and available to assist faculty specifically with public health issues.

Lunch with the Dean Lunch with the dean is a unique monthly forum that provides four faculty members each month an opportunity to present a brief overview of their research to the dean and other key members of the school’s leadership who can then increase the visibility of their work and its impact. The faculty members’ slide presentations are posted on the school’s website ((http://www.sph.unc.edu/research, under Faculty Research). At the same time, the four faculty members (of different ranks and from different departments) have the opportunity to network and learn about each other’s work, which often leads to new connections and collaborations among them.


178

3.1.b. Community-Based Research Activities Required Documentation: A description of current community-based research activities and/or those undertaken in collaboration with health agencies and community-based organizations. Formal research agreements with such agencies should be identified. Former UNC Chancellor James Moeser said: “Community engagement must be an integral part of the university’s life, not something we practice if we have extra time or if the mood strikes us or if your schedule permits or if it happens to be convenient. We must consider it an obligation and a responsibility, something we owe to society.” In the School of Public Health, this engagement occurs through partnerships with community-based organizations and groups and through inclusion of community members in research planning and implementation. Community Partnerships

North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences (TraCS) Institute

In 2008, investigators from the Schools of Public Health and Medicine received a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to collaborate in establishing the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences (TraCS) Institute. The project seeks to create an environment that supports three broad goals, with a focus on citizen involvement:

Prepare and empower: Prepare faculty, health care providers, and citizens to work as teams to undertake and disseminate translational clinical research with the goal of solving important health problems

Design and execute: Facilitate translational projects by making it easy for teams to design and conduct quality research protocols and analyze data

Translate findings for better health: Enable proven advances to be rapidly disseminated and employed to improve health outcomes

The TraCS Institute has created a web-based platform for the development of a continuous cycle of knowledge, discovery, and dissemination based on listening to the needs and concerns of communities across North Carolina, translating those needs to hypotheses for discovery, and disseminating that knowledge to our citizenry in a partnership that will improve local and global health. A key element of this platform is a single, easy to access web portal. As core faculty for the TraCS Institute’s Community Engagement Core, school faculty and staff have a bidirectional flow of communication between TraCS Institute researchers and North Carolina communities. The portal is supported by integrated/linked electronic databases and web maps and constructed to facilitate both person-to-person and web-based interactions. SPH faculty members who have received NC TraCS pilot grants are listed on table 3.1.b.1.


179

Table 3.1.b.1. SPH TraCS Pilot Grants

Grant Investigator Department Use of Group Prenatal Care to Reduce Preterm Births Diane Rowley MCH

Development of a Model System for Measuring Transfer of Viruses via Healthcare Workers’ Hands

Lisa Casanova ESE

Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine: How to Potentiate Vaccination and Acceptance among Parents of Boys and Young Men

Tamera Coyne-Beasley

HBHE

Use of novel neuroprotective peptides to treat cerebral malaria

Carla Hand EPID

Eliminating Disparities in Delivery of Women's Preventive Health Care

Vijaya Hogan

MCH

Identifying methylated CpG sites associated with prenatal metal exposure

Rebecca Fry

ESE

Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine: How to Potentiate Vaccination and Acceptance Among Young Men

Tamara Coyne-Beasley

HBHE

Psychotropic Medication Use in Medicaid Marisa Domino

HPM

Addressing the Research-to-Practice Gap: A Feasibility Study for Use of a Web-Interface Tool in Evidence-Based Practice Translation Research

Sherri Green

MCH

Brain Function and Stress Reactivity in Trauma-Exposed Young Adults

Jonathan Kotch

MCH

Pilot Study of a Cell-Phone System to Improve Health of Youth with Diabetes

Elizabeth Mayer-Davis

NUTR

NC Research-Practice Collaborative

In April 2008, SPH leaders met with a number of local and state public health leaders to discuss common strategies for health research and public health practice in North Carolina. In addition to school representatives, the meeting included the director of the North Carolina Division of Public Health; public health research and practice leaders from UNC, Duke University, and NC State University; representatives from other state agencies; and leaders from the Office of Public Health Practice at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The group was charged with suggesting ways to foster collaboration across agencies and institutions to bridge health research and public health practice in areas such as communicable disease, chronic diseases, women’s and children’s health, injury prevention, and environmental health. The group identified the need for a smaller task force that has continued to meet; two representatives from the school are task force members.

An Engaged Institution for Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities

The school was one of twelve schools and graduate programs of public health selected to participate in the Engaged Institutions Initiative, sponsored by Community-Campus Partnerships for Health and funded by the WK Kellogg Foundation; (see Criterion 3.2.a.).


180

Community-Based Research Projects Much of the research conducted within the school is community-based (see Appendices 3.1.c.1 [new] and 3.1.c.2 [continuing], Template E). Many of the projects focus on community involvement in disease prevention and management, or use participatory research methods to develop culturally relevant interventions. Examples of community-based research projects are displayed on table 3.1.b.2. Table 3.1.b.2. Examples of Research Projects Focusing on Community Involvement or Using Participatory Methods

Study Title PI/Dept Funder Promoting CIS [Cancer Information Service] among Black Men in Barbershops

Laura Linnan HBHE

National Cancer Institute

Tests barbershop-based intervention strategies that encourage Black men to call 1-800-4-CANCER for colorectal and prostate cancer information.

Trabajando Juntos: Working for Health Disparity Reduction among Latinos

Eugenia Eng HBHE

Wake Forest University School of Medicine; NIMH, NIH

Develops a community-based participatory research approach to describe the development and strengthening of a multiple-county community HIV prevention partnership, a culturally-relevant intervention to reduce sexual risk of HIV infection among Latino men.

The Black Church and CVD—Are We Our Brother's Keeper?

Eugenia Eng HBHE

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

The NC Community-Based Public Health Consortium, a joint initiative of United Voices of Efland-Cheeks (a community-based organization), the Orange County Health Department, and the School of Public Health are working together to investigate, within rural Black church congregations of Orange County, how the cultural tools of scripture, song, prayer, and sermon can transfer meaning and impetus for change in African-American men's help-seeking to manage and control CVD in NC

Implementing Systemic Interventions to Close the Discovery-Delivery Gap

Bryan Weiner HPM

National Cancer Institute

Examines the implementation, impact, sustainability, and business case of NCI’s Community Clinical Oncology Program

Promoting Nutrition and Physical Activity in Child Care Centers

Jonathan Kotch MCH

Maternal and Child Health Bureau

Develops and tests a training curriculum for child care health consultants, who will then implement an integrated nutrition and physical activity intervention in selected Bright Horizons® child care centers in three sites across the country, addressing children’s diets and physical activity through changes in center policies and procedures and caregiver behavior.


181

Table 3.1.b.2. Examples of Research Projects Focusing on Community Involvement or Using Participatory Methods, continued

Study Title PI/Dept Funder Northeastern North Carolina Teen Tobacco Use Prevention and Cessation Initiative

John Graham North Carolina Institute for Public Health

NC Health & Wellness Trust Commission

Pursues a regionally-based public health initiative that addresses the problem of youth tobacco prevention and cessation in twelve counties.

Intensive Behavioral Weight Management in Public Health Settings

Carmen Samuel-Hodge, NUTR & Center for Health Promotion & Disease Prevention

CDC Evaluates the processes and outcomes of translating from research to practice an intense, evidence-based behavioral weight loss intervention with demonstrated effectiveness among midlife low-income women.

3.1.c. Current Research Activities Required Documentation: A list of current research activity of all primary and secondary faculty identified in Criterion 4.1.a. and 4.1.b., including amount and source of funds, for each of the last three years. This data must be presented in table format and include at least the following information organized by department, specialty area or other organizational unit as appropriate to the school: a) principal investigator, b) project name, c) period of funding, d) source of funding, e) amount of total award, f) amount of current year’s award, g) whether research is community based, and h) whether research provides for student involvement. Only research funding should be reported here; extramural funding for service or training grants should be reported elsewhere. Appendix 3.1.c.1. (Template E) provides information on newly-funded faculty research activity for fiscal years 2006-07 to 2008-09, organized by department and including the North Carolina Institute for Public Health. Appendix 3.1.c.2. provides the same information for awards that were initiated in previous years, but were still continuing during FY 2006-07 to 2008-09. 3.1.d. Outcome Measures Required Documentation: Identification of measures by which the school may evaluate the success of its research activities, along with data regarding the school’s performance against those measures for each of the last three years. For example, schools may track dollar amounts of research funding, significance of findings (e.g., citation references), extent of research translation (e.g., adoption by policy or statute), dissemination (e.g., publications in peer-reviewed publications, presentations at professional meetings), and other indicators. Table 3.1.d. displays research outcome objectives and key metrics for each. We currently have no measure for the fourth objective (dissemination of research findings). The school’s Research Council, informed by feedback from department chairs and school leadership, will develop metrics to support this extremely important objective. Possible such metrics may be related to data on number of publications, number of citations, and number of programs


182

adopted by organizations, patents, software programs, and other tools. These represent different levels of dissemination. Our metrics development will be guided by advice from three dissemination research cores led by the school—two under the direction of Cathy Melvin (MCH), and one under the leadership of Alice Ammerman (NUTR and the UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention). Table 3.1.d. Outcome Measures for Research

Outcome Measure And Metric Target 2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Research Objective #1: Continue the school’s strong productivity in research grants and contracts • Metric: Maintain or increase grant and contract funding to SPH faculty PIs

$125 million

$117.4 million

$103.8 million

$150.2 million

Research Objective #2: Strengthen research productivity and research training experience among emerging faculty and student scholars • Metric: Percentage of school tenure-track assistant professors who are PIs on awarded grants and/or contracts

70% 70% 62% 62%

Research Objective #3: Facilitate innovative, interdisciplinary research that contributes to public health improvements in North Carolina and worldwide • Metric: Percentage of SPH faculty-led grants or contracts that have a coinvestigator listed who is not appointed in the PI’s home department

45% 42.5% 42.2% 45.4%

Research Objective #4: Disseminate research findings to research and practice communities to enhance scientific knowledge and translate research to practice

TBD N/A N/A N/A

TBD: To be determined; N/A: Not available


183

3.1.e. Student Research Activities Required Documentation: A description of student involvement in research. Research is a form of teaching that engages students with faculty members in the process of discovering new knowledge, ideas, and approaches to improve the public’s health. Each department in the school, through its programs and curricula, educates its students on the elements, methods, design, and processes of research. While some students will focus their careers on public health practice rather than research, all students need some grounding in the basics of public health research to keep up with developments in their fields and to be good consumers of evidence. Overall, more than 60 courses are offered throughout the school with a focus on research methods or training. This includes:

• Introduction to Statistical Computing and Research Data Management (BIOS 511) • Laboratory Techniques and Field Measurements (ENVR 411) • Theory and Quantitative Methods (EPID 715) • Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (HBHE 753) • Study Design and Regression Analysis (HPM 771) • Research Methods (MHCH 713) • Nutritional Epidemiology (NUTR 813) • Clinical Measurement and Evaluation (PUBH 760)

Student Training Grants In FY 2007-08, there were 30 active training or fellowship grants, providing many SPH students the opportunity to develop research and/or practice skills; 23 were from the federal government. The number of active training and fellowship grants increased to 36, with 31 from the federal government, in FY 2007-08. Examples from FY 2007-08 and 2008-09 include: T32 - Biostatistics for Research in Environmental Health ($2.22 million), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Department of Biostatistics, PI Amy Herring T32 - Training Grant in Cancer Epidemiology ($634,578), National Cancer Institute, Department of Epidemiology, PI Andy Olshan T32 - Research Training in Mental Health Services and Systems ($360,128), National Institute of Mental Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, PI Joseph Morrissey U90 - North Carolina Center for Public Health Preparedness ($2.03 million), Centers for Disease Control, North Carolina Institute of Public Health, PI Edward Baker


184

R25 - Cancer Care Quality Training Program ($2.07 million), Health Policy and Management, PIs Peggy Leatt, Bryan Weiner, and Richard Goldberg T76 – Maternal and Child Health Training Program ($331,113), Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health, PI Anita Farel Research Assistantships Research training opportunities are also available to students who serve as research assistants on faculty-led projects. In fiscal year 2008-09, approximately one-third (32.4%) of faculty research contracts and grants employed students. This work often results in joint student-faculty publications. A few peer-reviewed articles joint authored with students are:

Flack, S.[ESE MSPH student], Goktepe, I. [NC A&T faculty], Ball, L.M. and Nylander-French, L.A. Development and Application of Quantitative Methods for Monitoring Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Propiconazole. J. Environ. Monit.10, 336-344, 2008 Gierisch, JM [HBHE PhD student], O’Neill, SC., Rimer, BK, DeFrank, JT, Bowling, JM, Skinner, CS. (2009). Factors Associated with Annual-Interval Mammography for Women in Their 40s. Cancer Detection and Prevention. Forthcoming

Mofidi M [HPM MPH alumnus and HBHE PhD student], Rozier RG, Zeldin LP. Factors Affecting the Oral Health of Early Head Start Children: A Qualitative Study of Staff, Parents and Pregnant Women. American Journal of Public Health. 2009;99:245-51

Conferences Students participate in many events that support their growth and independence as researchers. In April 2009, for example, the school’s chapter of the Delta Omega Honor Society and the school’s Office of Research cosponsored the annual “Spotlight on Student Research” poster presentation event that offers students the chance to find collaborators and receive feedback on their research efforts. Approximately 25 students presented posters, four of which were nominated to present at the American Public Health Association national meeting; APHA selected an HPM student from the four to present. Other students also regularly present research at this conference, as well as at other local, regional, and national meetings. Awards to Graduate Students Our graduate students receive research support from:

• Government programs, e.g., Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); National Science Foundation; Center for Disease Control and Prevention (R36);


185

• Institutes of the National Institutes of Health, including National Research Service Award (NRSA) Training Grants and Fellowships (F31); Veterans Administration; National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and

• specialty groups, e.g., American College of Rheumatology American Dietetic Association American Heart Association American Water Works Association Arthritis Foundation Gerber Foundation

Howard Hughes Medical Institute Mathematica National Estuarine Research Reserve

System National Water Research Institute

In addition to external competitive awards that students receive on their own initiative, the UNC-Chapel Hill Graduate School offers seven named competitive fellowship opportunities, including dissertation support. Our students compete successfully for several of these awards each year. Student research is often practical, and makes a real contribution to the community, as reflected in the fact that SPH students win many of the university’s annual Graduate Education Advancement Board (GEAB) Impact Awards, which honor graduate students whose research has a direct impact on the state of North Carolina). In 2007, three of ten GEAB impact awards went to SPH graduate students (two from EPID and one from HBHE). In 2008, ten of twenty-five awards were received by SPH students (three EPID, three HPM, two NUTR, and two PHLP). The six SPH recipient projects (of twenty) in 2009 were:

ESE Cardiovascular Effects of Zinc ESE Microbial Partitioning in Urban Stormwaters EPID Hurricane Evacuation Failure: The Role of Social Cohesion, Social Capital,

and Social Control EPID Ventricular Premature Complexes: A Possible Harbinger of Stroke and

Sudden Cardiac Death HBHE Health Communication and Fruit and Vegetable Consumption NUTR Examining the Causes and Consequences of Dietary Intake and Obesity

See: http://gradschool.unc.edu/student/awards/impact/.


186

3.1.f. Assessment of Research Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths

Faculty’s high productivity in generating successful research grants and contracts

School’s leadership among UNC-Chapel Hill’s health affairs schools in dollars awarded

per PI, and consistent ranking in the top five public schools of public health in NIH funding

A robust research enterprise that spans from basic sciences projects to epidemiologic

and other methodologic research to intervention research and the translation of research into practice

Many interdisciplinary and collaborative research efforts with members of the

community, government agencies, industry, and foundations Outstanding collaborations of SPH faculty and staff across the campus

Five key research initiative that highlight the school's role as a strategic leader in the

field of public health Gillings Innovation Laboratories, which support innovative research on key public health

challenges, and accelerate translation of solutions into practice in North Carolina and around the world

Successful partnership with Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center and access to

funds through the University Cancer Research Fund

Challenges Anticipating funding challenges during a downturn in available federal research funding

nationally and identifying alternative funding Obtaining funding in areas that are less likely to be funded by NIH and CDC

Future Directions

Monitor trends, and evaluate areas where there has been success, to maximize the likelihood that the school can maintain its research programs

Continue to partner with Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center to enhance population sciences opportunities with the University Cancer Research Fund

Work with various research and technical partners to enhance data systems to build a model to predict and anticipate funding challenges and opportunities


187

Develop software tools to aid research project management and dissemination of

research findings, e.g., dynamic map technologies; profile information management technology

Continue the school’s implicit research strategy, viz., focus on the school’s research mission, achieve excellence in the five strategic issue areas, and implement the stated research objectives

Communicate the potential and realized impact of our research



Advancement of Knowledge 3.2 Service

CEPH Criterion The school shall pursue active service activities, consistent with its mission, through which faculty and students contribute to the advancement of public health practice. CEPH Required Documentation a. A description of the school’s service activities, including policies, procedures and practices

that support service. If the school has formal contracts or agreements with external agencies, these should be noted.

b. A list of the school’s current service activities, including identification of the community

groups and nature of the activity, over the last three years. c. Identification of the measures by which the school may evaluate the success of its service

program, along with data regarding the school’s performance against those measures for each of the last three years.

d. A description of student involvement in service. e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service

190

3.2.a. Service Policies, Procedures, and Practices Required Documentation: A description of the school’s service activities, including policies, procedures and practices that support service. If the school has formal contracts or agreements with external agencies, these should be noted. Historical Roots of Service As a unique constituent component of a preeminent public university, the School of Public Health has long understood its obligations to the people of North Carolina. Since its inception in 1936, the school has placed a fundamental emphasis on service, especially to the state, as reflected over time by its mission statements and activities it has pursued to fulfill its mission. The school is responsive to both the North Carolina General Assembly and to the state’s taxpayers and considers its ongoing efforts to improve the health of North Carolina’s citizens a core responsibility. Originally, service was primarily the responsibility of departments and faculty, who remain key players to the present day. However, almost 40 years ago, the school recognized the need for an administrative entity to coordinate faculty and student service and practice activities. The school initially situated these functions in the Division of Community Health Service, later reorganizing them into a Center for Public Health Practice and, finally, in 1999, creating the nationally recognized North Carolina Institute for Public Health (NCIPH), described in 3.2.b. Call for Engagement The Chapel Hill campus is the flagship of the 16-campus University of North Carolina system. In September 2005, in recognition of the university’s central role, then-Chancellor James Moeser announced the creation of a university-wide Task Force on Engagement. The specific assignment of the task force was to identify North Carolina needs in three crucial fields (education, economy, and health), and to recommend strategies to effectively mobilize the university’s resources to address those needs. The task force released its report in October 2006. The task force’s broadest tier of health recommendations focused primarily on expanding, improving, and diversifying the health and public health workforce in North Carolina. The task force assigned primary leadership roles to the deans of the university’s health affairs schools (including the School of Public Health) and the Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) system (http://www.med.unc.edu/ahec/). The next tier of recommendations called for increased emphasis on community-based training, community-based research, and translation of research into practice, activities in which the SPH has played a longstanding and pioneering role. Moving in the direction suggested by the task force report, in January 2006, the school became one of 12 US schools and graduate programs of public health selected by the Community Campus Partnership for Health to participate in the WK Kellogg Foundation-funded Engaged


191

Institutions Initiative, which focuses on eliminating health disparities. The strategic plan developed by the school for the initiative (Becoming an Engaged Institution for Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, available in the Resource File and at http://www.sph.unc.edu/images/stories/communications/about_the_school/documents/eii_strategic_plan_july_2007.pdf, acknowledges the subtle difference between traditional models of public service (typically unidirectional) and community engagement (a two-way interaction involving the development, exchange, and application of knowledge, information, and expertise for mutual benefit). Some departments, centers, and institutes of the school (especially those with a strong social and behavioral science focus or a customer-driven mission) already embraced the philosophy of engagement in their participatory and community-based research and projects. Moreover, departments seeking to translate their research findings into practice increasingly understand how engagement with practitioners and clients is essential to their success. Also in 2006, the university applied for and received the new elective Community Engagement Classification of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The classification includes three categories: (1) curricular engagement (“teaching, learning, and scholarship that engage faculty, students, and community in mutually beneficial and respectful collaboration”); (2) outreach and partnerships (“application and provision of institutional resources for community use with benefits to both campus and community” and “collaborative interactions with community and related scholarship for the mutually beneficial exchange, application of knowledge, information, and resources”); and (3) a third category for institutions with substantial commitments in both curricular engagement and outreach and partnerships (http://tinyurl.com/carnegiefat). The Carnegie Foundation accorded the university its classification as a community-engaged university in December of 2006, one of 62 institutions in the country that met the requirements for the third, combined category. Definition of “Service” The school has revised its service policies and procedures since the last accreditation review, and a number of years ago, our tenure guidelines were revised to more accurately reflect engaged service. The Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure manual, adopted in December 2004 and most recently revised in March 2009, differentiates professional from public service (http://tinyurl.com/sphaptmanual, available in the Resource File [pp. 18-19]). Professional service includes but is not limited to service on department, school, and university committees; leadership in professional organizations; and editorial and personnel review endeavors. Public service involves the faculty member in broader community service at the local, state, national, and international levels. The spring 2009 issue of our magazine, Carolina Public Health, focuses on public service and engaged scholarship and provides many examples of our activities in these areas (http://www.sph.unc.edu/cph/spring2009). Nearly all departments have completed a process of articulating expectations for service at different faculty ranks. Each department has specified its expectations about the nature of services and what qualifies as service.


192

Policies on External Professional Activities Both General Administration (of the UNC system) and the university have developed policies governing external professional activities of faculty and professional staff that are conducted for payment and result in time away from university duties. Policies describe the limits of such activities, and include protocols for reporting activities and assuring disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and/or commitment. Both system and university policy statements are provided in the Resource File (“Conflicts of Interest and Commitment Affecting Faculty and Non-Faculty EPA [Exempt from the State Personnel Act] Employees”). Schoolwide Service Database Since 1986, the school has employed a centralized mechanism for recording both professional and public service performed by individual faculty and staff. The school’s service database is maintained by the NCIPH, which provides a database manager who prompts submissions, checks and validates data, and prepares reports. (A three-year compendium of all service activities reported through the Schoolwide Service Database is available in the Resource File.) The school compiles service information for several purposes. First, the database publicizes contributions of the school, its departments, and faculty to the university, the state, and the nation. The school also uses service data to generate support for grant and other funding proposals, for legislative action, and for accreditation and other reporting purposes. Finally, documentation of faculty involvement in service is considered in promotion and tenure decisions. A web-based tool is available to faculty and staff who perform service, to assist them in providing client and service data about their activities. Published guidelines specify the activities that qualify as service and can help faculty and staff categorize the type(s) of service they perform. Copies of the form and guidelines can be accessed at http://tinyurl.com/servicerept. Because data entry is a voluntary activity and compliance is less than 100%, the data underestimate the true extent of the community engagement and service efforts of the school’s faculty and staff. Incentives for compliance customarily have been stronger in the departments that emphasize service contributions in promotion and tenure decisions. Since the weight put on service contributions varies among departments, depending on the department’s mission and goals, faculty service activity commensurately varies. Formal Contracts and Agreements Departments within the school may independently develop agreements to provide service, research, and training to outside agencies. These formal understandings, many of which take the form of contracts, include agreements around issues such as field placements for students (Criterion 2.4), field studies, demonstration projects and other applied research (Criterion 3.1), consultation and technical assistance services, and training (Criterion 3.3).


193

3.2.b. Current Community Engagement and Service Activities Required Documentation: A list of the school’s current service activities, including identification of the community groups and nature of the activity, over the last three years. Faculty and Staff Service Activities Because individual service activities annually number in the hundreds, they are not all noted here. Lists describing all reported service activities for the past three fiscal years are available in the Resource File. Tables 3.2.b.1., 3.2.b.2., and 3.2.b.3. summarize the school’s service activities over the last three fiscal years by type of client organization, geographic scope of client organization, and nature of the service activity, respectively. The three tables include individual service reported by the school’s faculty and staff exclusive of the formal activities of the NCIPH; most activities of the latter are considered service or have a service component and will be discussed separately. In each of the past three fiscal years, the majority of service activities and hours reported involved client organizations in the government/municipal, educational/research, and professional categories (table 3.2.b.1.). Table 3.2.b.1. Schoolwide Summary of Service Activities, by Type of Client Organization, FY 2006-2007 to FY 2008-2009

Type of Client Organization FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 #

Activities#

Hours* #

Activities#

Hours* #

Activities #

Hours* Business/Commercial 15 716 29 1,301 14 582Community/Consumer/ Advocacy/Philanthropic

32 1,356 18 916 50 1,032

Educational/Research 142 2,773 137 3,749 125 2,408Governmental/Municipal 174 3,105 59 1,368 113 3,034Hospital/Medical 6 135 1 3 8 59Professional 117 1,937 83 1,130 116 1,650Total 486 10,022 327 8,467 426 8,765* Rounded to nearest whole number In each of the past three fiscal years, the geographic scope of faculty and staff service was primarily national or international, with the largest number of service activities and hours targeted to organizations at those levels (table 3.2.b.2.). A number of activities also focused on state-level organizations, as well as organizations within the state—multi-county, single county, and community organizations.


194

Table 3.2.b.2. Schoolwide Summary of Service Activities, by Geographic Scope of Client Organization, FY 2006-2007 to FY 2008-2009

Scope of Client Organization FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 #

Activities#

Hours* #

Activities#

Hours* #

Activities #

Hours* International 127 3,620 133 3,548 142 2,678National 133 3,598 101 2,946 136 3,303Multi-state 14 482 9 163 9 187Single State (incl. NC) 71 1,221 42 1,462 69 1,309Multi-county 42 259 16 198 34 602Single County 20 102 4 29 3 49Local Community 79 740 22 121 33 637Total 486 10,022 327 8,467 426 8,765* Rounded to nearest whole number

The nature of services provided by the school’s faculty and staff varies considerably from year to year. For the three fiscal years covered in this report, the largest number of faculty/staff service activities and hours was devoted either to planning, reviewing, or evaluating policies or programs, or to manuscript review or editing (table 3.2.b.3.). In recent years, the school has witnessed a drop in the number of activities reported by individual faculty and staff in the schoolwide service database. The data, however, may reflect a problem of submission compliance rather than being an indicator of declining effort. In part, utilizing the voluntary mechanism for reporting service activity can be time-consuming, as well as redundant in terms of other required reporting. Table 3.2.b.3. Schoolwide Summary of Service Activities, by Nature of Service Activity, FY 2006-2007 to FY 2008-2009

Nature of Service Activity FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09

# Activities

# Hours*

# Activities

# Hours*

# Activities

# Hours*

Advocacy/Testimony 0 0 3 26 7 155Consultation 73 2,225 34 1,020 25 981Educational Presentation 46 1,068 48 1,269 35 1,033Grant Proposal Review 23 561 15 259 30 586Manuscript Review/Editing 90 791 72 1,820 109 1,063Organization Leadership 49 1,303 26 1,043 29 591Policy/Program Planning, Review or Evaluation

140 2,335 53 1,157 135 3,020

Research Presentation 32 996 20 519 16 394Evaluation or Review of Peer Performance

20 259 20 125 13 68

Other 13 484 36 1,229 27 874Total 486 10,022 327 8,467 426 8,765* Rounded to nearest whole number


195

The decline in service reporting has triggered schoolwide discussions and committee work aimed at improving the data collection mechanism and enhancing voluntary compliance (see Criterion 3.2.c., Service Objective #2). The North Carolina Institute for Public Health (NCIPH) In addition to individual service activities, a significant portion of the school’s service efforts fall under the institutional umbrella of the North Carolina Institute for Public Health. The school created NCIPH, its official service and outreach arm, in August 1999 to bring public health scholarship and practice together to improve the public's health. NCIPH is, first and foremost, an educational resource for public health professionals, offering hundreds of courses and workshops each year in basic competencies as well as emerging issues. (This aspect of the institute’s work is described in Criterion 3.3.) NCIPH also is a key resource for disseminating timely, practical knowledge and information about current and emerging public health issues, policies, and practices. NCIPH addresses the public health needs of North Carolina and beyond through program emphases that include organizational development, preparedness, active living, evaluation services, and general consultation and technical assistance. NCIPH Annual Reports for the past three years, including descriptions of additional major community engagement and service initiatives, are provided in the Resource File. The institute website gateway can be found at http://www.sph.unc.edu/nciph/. NCIPH Partners and Clients Funders and collaborators from both within and outside the university are key partners in the institute’s outreach work. Table 3.2.b.4 is a partial list of NCIPH outreach partners and funders from the past three fiscal years. Table 3.2.b.4. Examples of NCIPH Partners in Outreach (including major funders), FY 2007 to FY 2009 (alphabetically by partner)

Partner Project Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Public-Private Legal Preparedness Initiative Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH)

Rapid Needs Assessment for Women of Reproductive Age After Disaster

Association of State and Territorial Health Officers (ASTHO)

Management Academy for Public Health

Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) National Public Health Leadership Institute; Caribbean Health Leadership Institute

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

National Public Health Leadership Institute; NC Center for Public Health Preparedness; NC Public Health Preparedness Systems Research Center; Public Health Grand Rounds; Southeast Public Health Leadership Institute; Strengthening Field Epidemiology Practice in Central America; Accreditation Incentives Project

deBeaumont Foundation Workforce Development to Improve Public Health Table 3.2.b.4. continued


196

Table 3.2.b.4. Examples of NCIPH Partners in Outreach (including major funders), FY 2007 to FY 2009 (alphabetically by partner), continued

Partner Project Health Resources and Services Administration

Southeast Public Health Training Center

National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO)

Evaluating Quality Improvement Training Programs initiative

National Network of Public Health Institutes (NNPHI)

Multi-state Learning Collaborative I, II, III

NC Area Health Education Centers (AHEC)

NC Public Health Academy; Grantwriting Workshops; Strategic Planning Workshops; other training events for practitioners

NC State University College of Engineering

NC Public Health Preparedness Systems Research Center

North Carolina Public Health Association Grant writing workshop for public health workers Piedmont Triad Partnership Public Health Leadership Institute Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF)

Multi-state Learning Collaborative I, II and III; Active Living by Design; Healthy Kids/Healthy Communities; applied evaluation research for accreditation programs and quality improvement programs

The Duke Endowment Public Health Academy UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School Management Academy for Public Health UNC School of Journalism Public Health Grand Rounds; NC Public Health

Collaboratives initiative UNC School of Medicine NC Public Health Preparedness Systems Research Center University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

NC Public Health Preparedness Systems Research Center; Practice-Based Research Network

W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) Food and Fitness initiative; Emerging Leaders in Public Health

Table 3.2.b.5. lists some of the major clients with which NCIPH has had contracts or other formal agreements in the past three years. Table 3.2.b.5. Examples of Major NCIPH Clients, FY 2007 to 2009 (alphabetically by partner)

Client Topic of Contract or Service Agreement Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH)

Development and implementation of a program to strengthen field epidemiology practice in Central America

Association of State and Territorial Health Officers (ASTHO)

Health Officials Leadership Program; consulting and technical assistance on state-level accreditation programs

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota Community Assessment and Engagement; Active Living Minnesota

Blue Cross Blue Shield of NC Fit Together initiative; Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE)

Avian Influenza training

John Rex Foundation Program evaluation McKing Consulting Establish legal competencies and improve emergency response

for forensic epidemiology and public health emergency law Table 3.2.b.5. continued


197

Table 3.2.b.5. Examples of Major NCIPH Clients, FY 2007 to 2009 (alphabetically by partner), continued Client Topic of Contract or Service Agreement

National Association of City and County Health Officers (NACCHO)

Training for Advanced Practice Centers

NC county and district health departments

Training on a various topics; consultation and technical assistance for community assessment, program and organizational development, strategic planning, pandemic influenza planning, and policy and resource analysis

NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA)

Annual One Medicine Conference

NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS)

Administration of NC Local Health Department Accreditation Program (see below); administration of NC Public Health Incubators Collaboratives initiative (see below)

NC Division of Environmental Health

Numerous workforce training programs for environmental health specialists and other public health workers; Lead Poisoning Prevention Social Marketing initiative,

NC Division of Public Health (several constituent units)

Annual CE training contracts in nursing, nutrition, immunization and epidemiology; pandemic influenza planning and training; evaluation services; technical assistance for strategic planning; NC Public Health Workforce Development System

NC Health and Wellness Trust Fund

Fit Community Initiative

NC Local Public Health Department Accreditation Program

Research support services; program management and coordination

NC Office of Healthy Carolinians (and local affiliates)

Training for Healthy Carolinians coalition members; Watauga County Healthy Carolinians organizational assessment; technical assistance for community health assessment/environmental assessment

NC Public Health Incubator Collaborative Initiative

Program management; consultation and technical assistance for strategic planning, program development and resource development; grant writing

Novant Health Customized training in leadership and management Oak Ridge Associated Universities

ORAL Radiation Training

Randolph Hospital Technical assistance for childhood obesity program development UNC Gillings School of Public Health

Program evaluation

UNC School of Medicine Program evaluation NCIPH Statewide Initiatives In recent years, the NC General Assembly has specifically funded NCIPH for two noteworthy statewide initiatives: the Local Public Health Accreditation Program and the North Carolina Public Health Incubator Collaboratives. In 2002, the North Carolina Division of Public Health and the North Carolina Association of Local Health Directors undertook an initiative to develop a mandatory, standards-based system for accrediting local public health departments throughout the state. NCIPH has provided staff and research support for this initiative. In 2005, the NC General Assembly mandated that the Department of Health and Human Services/Division of Public Health (DHHS/DPH) contract with the institute to administer the North Carolina Local Health Department Accreditation Program (http://tinyurl.com/localhd).


198

In 2004, the NC General Assembly allocated $1.1 million in recurring funds to the DHHS for Public Health Incubator Collaboratives, regional partnerships between local health departments and public health stakeholders that are focused on finding innovative solutions to locally identified public health problems. NCIPH coordinates and supports development, funding, and planning of the collaborative. As of 2008, the institute had coordinated six collaboratives that focus on regionally important issues and collectively represent 81 of North Carolina’s 100 counties. Complete descriptions of the Incubator Collaboratives initiative and the work of individual collaboratives are accessible at: http://nciph.sph.unc.edu/incubator/.

Active Living by Design NCIPH provides business management services to Active Living By Design (ALBD), which was established in 2001 as a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is administratively "housed" in NCIPH. Today, ALBD is supported by grants and contracts from multiple foundations. It provides technical assistance and strategic consultation to communities, practitioners, professionals, nonprofit agencies, philanthropic organizations, and other local and national partners across the United States to help build a culture of active living and healthy eating.

As of spring 2009, ALBD was assisting over 60 community partnerships across the nation. This is expected to increase significantly with the launch of its new Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities program (www.healthykidshealthycommunities.org). ALBD is fully described at http://www.activelivingbydesign.org/. Other Community Engagement and Service Projects

The Exchange Project

The Exchange Project, developed from a five-year NIEHS educational grant, unites faculty and staff at the school with researchers, government officials, community-based organizations, and attorneys to promote environmental health. Project staff works to increase dialogue among different groups by documenting community stories in short, dramatic skits, and developing discussion questions to accompany the skits and film clips. Teachers, students, community organizers, political activists, researchers, government officials, and attorneys working on environmental health issues can access project tools and resources from the project website, accessible at http://www.exchangeproject.unc.edu/.

Walking and Bicycling Sustainability Assessment Project

With support from AARP, the NC Division of Public Health, and regional nonprofits, HBHE faculty have provided tools and training for communities to audit their locally built environments for walking and bicycling. More information is available at http://www.unc.edu/~jemery/WABSA/.


199

Survey Research Unit (SRU) Founded in 1990 as part of BIOS, SRU provides expertise to the research community in the areas of survey and questionnaire design and data collection. It has conducted hundreds of collaborative studies at the national, state, regional, and local levels across a broad spectrum of issues. More information is available at http://www2.sph.unc.edu/sru/home.html. Service through Research Many research projects have a component that either incidentally or purposely provides a service in the subject population or community. This is consistent with the school’s emphasis on community engagement and research translation. The North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences (TraCS) Institute is an excellent example of this marriage of goals. For example, currently, at the request of TraCS, Alice Ammerman (NUTR and director, UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention [HPDP]), and colleagues are working with a low income primarily African American community to help them transition from tobacco to other crops. In fact, during the last three fiscal years, researchers from the school working at HPDP have been awarded more than $15 million for community-based research. Other examples of applied, participatory, and community-based research and research translation initiatives include the MEASURE Evaluation Project, the Be Active Kids Evaluation, and the Indian Health Service Area Injury Prevention Program Evaluation Project. Public service projects are conducted across every department in the school, from water quality analysis conducted by ESE for the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to workforce analyses performed by HPM, to child care workers training provided by MCH, to a variety of health behavior projects done by HBHE faculty and students.

MEASURE Evaluation Project Although technically a project of the independent and interdisciplinary Carolina Population Center at the university, MEASURE (Monitoring and Evaluation to Assess and Use Results) is directed by two faculty members in Maternal and Child Health. With a presence in nearly 50 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America, MEASURE recently received continuation funding of $181 million from USAID to monitor and evaluate programs around the world in family planning, maternal and child health, nutrition, HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and avian influenza. MEASURE Evaluation, building on the previous two phases of the project and the earlier EVALUATION project which began in 1991, also will be expanding to include programs addressing poverty and gender equity.

Be Active KidsSM (BAK) Evaluation

BAK was an early intervention program to educate four- and five-year-old children on nutrition, physical activity, and food safety. The evaluation project, based in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention and led by a NUTR faculty member, assessed the effectiveness of the program for trainers, child care providers, and the intervention audience of children and their


200

parents in the 36 North Carolina counties where the program was being implemented. The two-year evaluation (7/01/05 – 6/30/07) was funded by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation. Indian Health Service Area Injury Prevention Program Evaluation Project

The Indian Health Service (IHS) Area Injury Prevention Project has been ongoing since 1997, spearheaded by a HBHE faculty member through the UNC Injury Prevention Research Center; the project began as a mission of service to prevent injuries to Native Americans and Alaska Natives. It has completed evaluations of 12 IHS Areas (Aberdeen, Alaska, Albuquerque, Bemidji, Billings, California, Nashville, Navajo, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Portland, and Tucson). Program evaluation summaries and recommendations across the 12 Areas are provided to IHS Injury Prevention personnel at IHS headquarters and at the area, district, and tribal levels. Service through Teaching and Learning Students and faculty involved in many of the school’s curricular offerings provide direct community service through class or laboratory projects. A typical course is Action Oriented Community Diagnosis (Health Behavior and Health Education). In the course, teams of first-year master’s students’ work under field preceptors in real world contexts to acquire the analytic and empowerment education skills needed to engage communities and service providers in examining social determinants of health. In 2006, this service learning course won the university’s Office of the Provost’s “Engaged Scholarship Award” in honor of its exemplary application of university expertise to address community needs. The field practica required of students in several departments also constitute service. During the last 25 years, 1,060 students have worked with 262 communities. The field placement sites and preceptors for the past two years, identified in Appendix 2.4.b., reflect the wide range of service activities in which SPH students are involved. 3.2.c. Measures of Success Required Documentation: Identification of the measures by which the school may evaluate the success of its service program, along with data regarding the school’s performance against those measures for each of the last three years. The school has four service objectives focusing on faculty and staff service, engagement with health professionals and communities, and workforce development. Table 3.2.c. reviews the school’s success, over the past three years, in achieving the following objectives: Service Objective #1: Maintain or increase the overall service outreach effort of faculty and staff, with a focus on reducing health threats and problems.

• Metric: Number of activities, and number of hours, of consulting (paid and unpaid), technical assistance, and other service activities.

The success of the school’s service to North Carolina communities and beyond can be measured, in part, by an assessment of the data maintained in the schoolwide service


201

database. Examination of reports from the database since 1986 reveals that service reporting fluctuates from year to year. However, the data show that the school’s service efforts to North Carolina and other communities in the past three years have been both broad and deep (see tables 3.2.b.1. through 3.2.b.3., above). Recent data demonstrate that service reporting appears to have declined compared to the last CEPH report. Examination of service reports since 1986 reveals that while service reporting can fluctuate significantly from year to year, the recent decreases in the number of activities reported are outside the usual range of variation. Service Objective #2: Improve measurement and documentation of the school’s service outreach efforts in applying solutions to health threats and problems.

• Metric: Number and percentage of faculty who provide information about service outreach efforts

As reported earlier, the school has historically maintained a system for documenting the community engagement and service activities of its faculty and staff. Originally a paper-and-pencil system, with regular reminders to report, it has evolved over the years into an electronic system relying on faculty initiative to report. The system still is not optimal, however, and the school is working on a pilot effort with the university to include these activities in its VITAE system for maintaining web-based faculty CVs. This should facilitate faculty participation. In addition, however, reporting by faculty varies widely from department to department, depending to a large extent on the emphasis the department applies to service in making promotion and tenure decisions. Generally speaking, departments that use data from the schoolwide service database in annual productivity evaluations and in promotion and tenure decisions demonstrate a far higher percentage of faculty reporting service. In ESE—the heaviest user of data from the schoolwide service database—more than 65% of faculty customarily report service (80% of tenured faculty in AY 2008-09). Service Objective #3: Increase opportunities for health professionals and citizens to contribute to the school’s work and service.

• Metric: State of Practice Committees; description of service agreements initiated with the school by NC Division of Public Health and others (e.g., Local Public Health Department Accreditation Program)

The school continues to develop mechanisms and opportunities for increasing its engagement with communities to jointly address issues of public health. For example, the NC Division of Public Health (North Carolina’s state health department), local health departments, and community organizations have traditionally looked to the school for a range of services in support of their practice of public health. Many of these activities are captured in the schoolwide service database. Since the creation of the North Carolina Institute for Public Health as the service and outreach arm of the school, it has been the focus for many formal service agreements. These formal agreements and contracts include the institute’s legislated roles as administrator of the NC Local Health Department Accreditation Program, and of the NC Public Health Incubators Collaborative initiative. In addition, several of the institute’s programs have


202

their own agreements with a range of clients. These include the Institute’s NC Center for Public Preparedness, which has carried out several service contracts with branches and sections of the NC Division of Public Health; and Active Living by Design, which provides program development and technical assistance services under contract to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the NC Health and Wellness Trust Fund Commission, and the BlueCross/Blue Shield of NC Foundation. Service Objective #4: Offer an outstanding program of lifelong learning that enhances the knowledge, skills, and practices of public health workers and their capacity to apply solutions to health threats and problems

• Metric: Number (and variety) of participants in continuing education courses; repeat participants; participants who are “public health workers”

Lifelong learning programs are detailed in Criterion 3.3.


203

Table 3.2.c. Outcome Measures for Service

Outcome Measure and Metric Target 2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Service Objective #1: Maintain or increase the overall service outreach effort of faculty and staff, with a focus on reducing health threats and problems

• Metric: Number of service activities reported 500 486 327 426

• Metric: Number of service hours reported 10,000 10,022 8,467 8,765

Service Objective #2: Improve measurement and documentation of the school’s service outreach efforts in applying solutions to health threats and problems

• Metric: Number and percentage of faculty who provide information about service outreach efforts

N = 100 % = 50

35 (17%)

37 (18%)

38 (18%)

Service Objective #3: Increase opportunities for health professionals and citizens to contribute to the school’s work and service

• Metric: State of Practice Committees; Description of service agreements initiated with the school by NC Division of Public Health and others (e.g., Local Public Health Department Accreditation Program)

Maintain State of Practice Committees; maintain current diversity of service agreement partners despite difficult economic climate




Service Objective #4: Offer an outstanding program of lifelong learning that enhances the knowledge, skills, and practices of public health workers and their capacity to apply solutions to health threats and problems (Lifelong learning programs are detailed in Criterion 3.3.)

Metric:

• Enrollment in continuing education courses (= attendance count)

• Repeat participant (≥2 courses)

• Enrollment among “public health workers”

Minimize reductions in CE programs and enrollments relative to budget cuts and training contract reductions and cancellations

6,800

24%

3, 969

8,277

27%

4,686

6,703

23%

3,992


204

3.2.d. Student Involvement in Service Required Documentation: A description of student involvement in service. Schoolwide Student Service Students are active in a variety of service endeavors. Student organizations and volunteer groups coordinate these activities.

Nutrition Coalition The Nutrition Coalition is a student organization at UNC-Chapel Hill that was founded for the purpose of promoting healthy lifestyles in the community, UNC campus, and the School of Public Health through volunteer, social, and educational activities. The Coalition brings about an exchange of knowledge, thereby uniting the students and the surrounding community. The Nutrition Coalition performs healthy cooking demonstrations for community organizations, publicizes National Nutrition Month, and advocates for healthier food options on campus.

Team EpiAid

Team EpiAid is an award-winning volunteer student group coordinated by the North Carolina Center for Public Health Preparedness within NCIPH. Students in the Schools of Public Health and Medicine gain applied public health experience by assisting with outbreak investigations and other public health emergencies, while North Carolina's local and state health departments benefit from needed surge capacity. More than 130 students are currently members of Team EpiAid, which has contributed over 3,500 volunteer hours since 2003. Team EpiAid members have participated in a wide variety of activities. Outbreak investigations and disease surveillance activities have included: HIV cluster investigation; SARS investigation and response; smallpox vaccination adverse events reporting; outbreak investigation of hepatitis B in a nursing home; arboviral surveillance; foodborne disease surveillance evaluation and data analysis; and investigation of a multistate hepatitis outbreak in Buncombe County. Involvement in the response to public health emergencies has included assistance in North Carolina’s Public Health Emergency Command Center, and assistance with the public health response to Hurricanes Isabel and Charley.

UNC Student Health Action Coalition The Student Health Action Coalition (SHAC) is a student-run organization that provides free health and social services to local residents and their communities (see http://www.med.unc.edu/shac/). Founded in 1967, SHAC is run entirely by student volunteers from the Schools of Public Health, Medicine, Nursing, Dentistry, Pharmacy, and Social Work. Under the supervision of university physicians, nurses, and professors, students combine their skills to hold weekly dental and health clinics, care for home-bound elderly citizens, and create


205

sustainable community health promotion programs. SHAC members also build an annual Habitat for Humanity house and partner in activities with local health and social service organizations. The newest program within SHAC, called SHAC Outreach, was created in 2003 by students from the Schools of Public Health and Social Work. The purpose of SHAC Outreach is to address health disparities in Orange County, the university’s home county. The 2003 pilot program featured a diabetes foot clinic in Hurdle Mills and a youth camp in Chapel Hill's South Estes neighborhood that focused on nutrition and physical activity. In July 2004, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services honored SHAC Outreach with third place among interdisciplinary entries for the Secretary's Award for Innovations in Health Promotion, an award that recognizes innovative health promotion programs designed by students.

Student Global Health Committee Created in 1996 by a group of the school’s graduate students, the Student Global Health Committee (SGHC) creates awareness of international health issues through education, advocacy, and service. SGHC fosters an interdisciplinary environment that helps students apply their acquired knowledge and skills to engage in health promotion at a global level. SGHC organized a number of activities in 2007-08: a multimedia series of speakers, films, and workshops related to the topics of “Health and Human Rights” and “Narratives of HIV”; a brownbag lunch series featuring film reviews and discussions of global health research and methodology; and global health educational sessions with North Carolina middle and high school students, covering topics such as migration and health, HIV/AIDS, and water and sanitation; see http://tinyurl.com/sphsghc.

Engineers without Borders In fall 2004, students in Environmental Sciences and Engineering created the Dan Okun Chapter of Engineers without Borders (EWB) to help disadvantaged communities improve their quality of life through implementation of environmentally and economically sustainable engineering projects (see http://www.unc.edu/ewb-usa/). The group also develops internationally responsible engineering students. EWB participants select projects on the basis of need and a majority vote, including water and sanitation projects, construction projects, design work, consulting, and other tasks. Students also raise funds to support projects, host speakers and seminars relevant to the engineer’s role in development work, and facilitate collaboration on development projects among student groups, local engineers, and other universities. Schweitzer Community Service Fellowships The US Schweitzer Fellows Programs provide community service fellowships in health-related professional fields for graduate students dedicated to addressing unmet health needs in their local areas. In 2003-2004, a HBHE MPH student shared a Schweitzer Fellowship to design and


206

implement a free, church-based diabetes foot clinic in Hurdle Mills, NC through collaboration with SHAC Outreach. Approximately 75 patients were seen at the clinic during that pilot year, and SHAC Outreach continued to work with the community to run the clinic. Their project won UNC’s Office of the Provost Public Service Award (see also, UNC Student Health Action Committee, above). That same year, an MS ESE student (later to receive a PhD in EPID), received a Schweitzer Fellowship to work with the West End Revitalization Association (WERA) to address health disparities related to failing septic systems and contaminated well water supplies in West End, White Level, and Buckhorn/Perry Hill, NC. With his help, WERA received a $10,000 grant from the Carolina-Shaw Partnership for the Elimination of Health Disparities-Project EXPORT to continue their efforts, and a $100,000 grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency to continue their work to create partnerships to address and solve environmental issues. In 2002-2003, two MPH students in Maternal and Child Health received Schweitzer Fellowships to develop a formalized mentoring curriculum to better train and support doulas at UNC Hospitals and increase their volunteer activity, and a dual degree MPH/MCH student received a Schweitzer Fellowship to identify barriers to health care and improve client services at the Piedmont Health Services clinics. Student Service Activities Summary The school’s Office of Student Affairs (OSA) regularly conducts exit interviews and end-of-semester surveys among all currently enrolled students. In May 2008, OSA for the first time included several questions designed to capture the extent of students’ participation in service during the spring semester. OSA again included service questions in its next end-of-semester survey, conducted in spring 2009. Tables 3.2.d.1 and 3.2.d.2 summarize student service activities by department and recipient organization, using students’ self-reported data in the spring 2008 and 2009 surveys. Although responses to the OSA surveys represent only a minority of the school’s student body, they nevertheless demonstrate extensive student commitment to service. Approximately two-thirds of the students who responded to the May 2008 survey reported that their service activity was ongoing in nature, with the remainder reporting one-time service events. In FY 2008, students provided service to a number of university student and department organizations, including those mentioned previously (i.e., the Nutrition Coalition, Team EpiAid, SHAC, the Student Global Health Committee), as well as the Campus Y, departmental student associations, the Minority Student Caucus, and local planning committee for the annual Minority Health Conference. Students also engaged in service activities with many nonuniversity organizations, including the Ronald McDonald House, Habitat for Humanity, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, local community and free clinics, homeless shelters and food kitchens, domestic violence shelters, animal shelters, youth organizations, local schools, area hospitals, and service organizations sponsored by communities of faith.


207

Table 3.2.d.1. Number of Students Participating in Service, by Department, May 2008, May 2009

Department # May 2008* # May 2009** Biostatistics 10 9 Environmental Sciences and Engineering 14 33 Epidemiology 23 29 Health Behavior/Health Education 28 33 Health Policy and Management 38 54 Maternal and Child Health 12 31 Nutrition 29 37 Public Health Leadership 22 19 Total respondents reporting service 176 (41%) 245 (43%) Total respondents reporting no service 254 (59%) 319 (57%)

* Total responses = 430; response rate = 33%; ** Total responses = 564; response rate = 41%

Table 3.2.d.2. Number of Students Participating in Service Activities, by Type of Recipient Organization, May 2008, May 2009

Type of Recipient Organization May 2008* May 2009** # #

University Student Organization 75 180University Department/Institute/Center 22 62University Hospital/Medical/Health Care Organization 21 56Non-University Educational or Academic Entity 11 29Non-University Hospital/Medical/Health Care Organization 9 20Non-University Community-Based Organization 43 67Government Agency (at any level) 8 12Religious or Faith-based Entity 31 39Other 8 9

* Total responses = 186; response rate = 14%; ** Total responses = 245; response rate = 18%


208

3.2.e. Assessment of Service


Strengths

• A long tradition of public service and engagement that dates to the very beginning of the school

• Broad and extensive community engagement and service outreach

• Integration of academics and service through students’ practica and other activities • Organizational structure and focus, through the NCIPH, for the school’s service outreach

efforts • Institutional commitments from the school and the university to strengthen community

engagement • Large pool of participating faculty, staff, and students with diversity of skills, experience,

and interests

Challenges

• Improving timeliness, collection, maintenance, and utility of community engagement and service reporting

• Achieving broad participation in the voluntary service reporting system • Engaging students more systematically in service activities • Maintaining public service and engagement during a time when resources are constrained

Future Directions

• Redesign service data collection system to encourage prompt submission and accurate recording of faculty, staff, and student service activities

• Continue process of institutionalizing engaged community service as a more prominent

factor in all faculty promotion and tenure decisions. • Find more financial support for students’ public service activities.



Advancement of Knowledge 3.3 Workforce Development

CEPH Criterion The school shall engage in activities that support the professional development of the public health workforce. CEPH Required Documentation a. A description of the school’s continuing education program, including policies, needs

assessment, procedures, practices, and evaluation that support continuing education and workforce development strategies.

b. Description of certificate programs or other non-degree offerings of the school, including enrollment data for each of the last three years.

c. A list of the continuing education programs offered by the school, including number of students served, for each of the last three years. Those that are offered in a distance learning format should be identified.

d. A list of other educational institutions or public health practice organizations, if any, with which the school collaborates to offer continuing education.


Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development

210

3.3.a. Continuing Education Program Required Documentation: A description of the school’s continuing education program, including policies, needs assessment, procedures, practices, and evaluation that support continuing education and workforce development strategies. Program and Policies The Institute of Medicine, in its 2003 report, Who Will Keep the Public Healthy?, recommends that schools of public health provide lifelong learning opportunities for public health professionals as well as other members of the public health workforce and health professionals who participate in public health activities. The UNC School of Public Health has institutionalized this recommendation and, though retaining a strong focus on traditional public health workers, also provides a continuum of learning opportunities for a broader and more diverse audience. In addition to degree programs, the school offers continuing education (CE) through postgraduate certificate programs, institutes, and other nondegree formats. CE programs welcome and support learning interests of those just beginning to explore public health, while also addressing needs of seasoned public health practitioners who seek to update their knowledge and skills. For over 50 years, the school’s Office of Continuing Education (OCE)—now incorporated into the North Carolina Institute for Public Health (NCIPH)—has been one of the most visible and productive arms of the school's outreach activities. OCE’s full range of professional services enables the school to operate the largest, most comprehensive CE program among the nation’s accredited schools of public health. Highly-qualified professional education staff and support personnel design, develop, and deliver courses for local, state, and national audiences, generating financial revenue not only through fees, but also through the annual state-appropriated budget. The state allocates funds to keep CE participant fees for state and local health practitioners lower than might be expected on the open market, based on a full-time equivalent (FTE) of 324 student contact hours in a course. The school follows state and university policies outlined in the policy manual, Continuing Education in the Division of Health Affairs (see Resource File), to determine if a course qualifies for FTEs. The school (along with other health affairs schools at the university) is assigned a CE goal by the NC Budget Office, and it has earned in excess of its assigned goal of 210 FTEs in each of the years since the last CEPH self-study in 2001. In the three-year period beginning with FY 2006-07 and ending in FY 2008-09, the school presented CE programs earning a total of 709 FTEs. The school offers continuing education units (CEUs) for some courses, following guidelines established by the university’s Division of Continuing Education, which manages the CEU process campuswide. In addition, OCE, in cooperation with its program partners, applies for Continuing Medical Education units, American Dietetic Association units, Nursing Contact Hours, Registered Sanitarian hours, Certified Health Education Specialist hours, and other program certifications as needed on behalf of professionals attending its programs.


211

Continuing Education Needs Assessments Training programs that take place each year under the state FTE contract are developed through a formal relationship between OCE and three state of practice committees supported by the contract: the North Carolina Public Health Nursing Continuing Education Advisory Committee, the North Carolina Environmental Health State of Practice Committee, and the North Carolina Public Health Social Work Continuing Education and Training Advisory Committee. The dean of the School of Public Health and the state health director jointly appoint committee members for three-year terms. Members of the public health workforce who sit on the committees represent geographic regions throughout the state and various levels of job classifications and include educators qualified to teach the discipline in question. The committees conduct workforce needs assessments and plan and evaluate training programs in the three disciplines. OCE staff members also conduct periodic assessments of practitioner needs and practitioner preferences for course formats and delivery methods. In FY 2009, for example, personnel from the NCIPH Public Health Academy (see Criterion 3.3.b.) traveled across the state to meet with staff of local health departments to determine and prioritize training needs. (Summary assessments are available in the Resource File.) And the North Carolina Center for Public Health Preparedness (NCCPHP; see Criterion 3.3.b.), housed in the NCIPH, has developed special programs and tools to help project participants identify and address their training needs. NCCPHP developed and continues to maintain the Public Health Workforce Development System (see http://www.publichealthpreparedness.org), a web-based tool that NC public health workers can use to assess their individual training needs and interests, identify training opportunities that meet those needs, and track the trainings they choose to take. The system can also generate assessment-based data that allow agencies, organizations, and occupational groups to identify training needs. Continuing Education Evaluation All programs offered through OCE undergo formative evaluation. At a minimum, each participant completes a form that provides quantitative and qualitative data for program improvement; some of the evaluation protocols are developed by the state of practice committees. Program participants also periodically complete surveys designed to assess learning experience satisfaction. For example, a participant survey in 2004 (N=594) found that nine out of ten participants perceived the training as useful for their jobs and would recommend their particular training to others. In addition to obtaining evaluation feedback from trainees, OCE solicits opinions from the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) regional consultants and Area Health Education Center (AHEC) public health staff for whom it develops and delivers programs. Following major course offerings, OCE holds debriefings with client organization representatives to gather information on how to improve future presentations.


212

OCE also invites and encourages partnership organizations and agencies to offer suggestions for program content and service improvement. The school’s leadership programs for senior executives typically undergo a more rigorous and formal periodic evaluation in connection with their grant-funded status. For example, NCIPH staff completed a comprehensive historical evaluation in 2007 of the National Public Health Leadership Institute (http://www.phli.org/evalreports/Complete.pdf), the results of which clearly demonstrate the program’s utility and benefits for participants. 3.3.b. Certificate Programs and Other Non-Degree Offerings Required Documentation: Description of certificate programs or other non-degree offerings of the school, including enrollment data for each of the last three years. Formal Certificate Programs The school differentiates between informal certificates (specific academic concentrations within degree programs offered to enrolled students) and formal certificates (self-contained programs of courses offered as continuing education outside of degree programs, usually to postgraduate participants). The school offers five formal certificate programs: the Certificate Program in Community Preparedness and Disaster Management, the Certificate in Core Public Health Concepts, the Certificate in Field Epidemiology, the Occupational Health Nursing Certificate, and the Public Health Leadership Certificate.

Certificate Program in Community Preparedness and Disaster Management

The Certificate Program in Community Preparedness and Disaster Management is an online 12-credit-hour program developed to enhance participants’ knowledge of the management systems needed to prepare for, and respond to, natural and man-made disasters including terrorism. The program targets community leaders in public health, health services, emergency management, emergency medical services, fire, and law enforcement, and other disaster responders. Each cohort takes four courses designed and developed for delivery via the Internet. The courses cover disasters, methods to plan for and analyze disasters, and planning and implementation of disaster management programs. Although students complete the program online, they are required to come to campus for an initial orientation visit and a concluding visit that provides them with an experiential exercise. After completing the certificate program, students may opt to obtain additional certification by completing the Certified Emergency Manager (CEM) credentialing process through the International Association of Health Policy and Management (http://tinyurl.com/sphcpdm).

Certificate in Core Public Health Concepts

The Certificate in Core Public Health Concepts is a 15-credit-hour program covering the core content taught in the school’s MPH programs. Designed and developed for delivery via


213

the Internet, the program is targeted to several categories of individuals, including those who may wish to pursue an MPH at a later time, those who work in public health but have not had formal public health education, and those in health and social service-related professions who may not need an MPH but wish to enhance their knowledge of core public health concepts. No on-campus visit is required for this certificate. A program description is available at http://www.sph.unc.edu/nciph/certificate/.

Certificate in Field Epidemiology The Certificate in Field Epidemiology is a 12-credit-hour program addressing the core functions of outbreak investigation, surveillance systems and methods, infectious disease epidemiology, and field epidemiology methods. This online program is designed for a broad range of participants, including public health preparedness staff, public health nurses, communicable disease investigators, epidemiologists, environmental health specialists, health educators, health officers, physicians, and public health veterinarians. No on-campus visit is required. A program description is available at http://www.sph.unc.edu/nciph/fieldepi/.

Occupational Health Nursing Certificate

The Occupational Health Nursing Certificate program is an 11- or 12-credit-hour program of study, offering a formal academic certificate designed to strengthen the knowledge and expertise of registered nurses working in occupational health throughout North Carolina, the nation, and the world. The program is offered via the Internet, and certificate students take the same coursework as do academic students. All courses are offered online except PHNU 781, Occupational Health Nursing I, which is offered on campus for one week with completion of the coursework off-site and via email. The certificate is designed to be completed in 12 months. See program description at http://tinyurl.com/sphohn.

Public Health Leadership Certificate The Public Health Leadership Certificate is an 11-credit-hour program of study, offering the same content as the core content taught in the Public Health Leadership Program's MPH programs. The certificate program, delivered via the Internet, is aimed at experienced public health practitioners in administration, nursing, and other public health specialties, as well as health care and social service professionals who desire formal education about effective leadership in a public health organization. Students are required to visit campus once to participate in a leadership workshop. See the program description at http://tinyurl.com/phlcert. Table 3.3.b.1. shows enrollment figures for the four formal certificate programs over the past three fiscal years.


214

Table 3.3.b.1. Summary of Enrollment in Formal Certificate Programs

Certificate Program Number of Participants FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09

Community Preparedness/Disaster Management 69 58 62Core Public Health Concepts 671 562 482Field Epidemiology 265 206 184Occupational Health Nursing N/A 4 8Public Health Leadership 12 13 18N/A: Not applicable; program not yet initiated

Programs for Health Care Executives In addition to formal, nondegree certificate programs, the school offers four grant-funded and fee-supported training programs focused on leadership and management: Southeast Public Health Leadership Institute, Management Academy for Public Health, National Public Health Leadership Institute, and Emerging Leaders in Public Health. Each program uses a unique mix of learning methods. All four programs began as grant-supported initiatives, over time shifting costs to participants, and, as of 2008, all four were partially or fully receipt-supported.

Southeast Public Health Leadership Institute

Founded in 1998 as the Tri-State Leadership Institute for the states of North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, the Southeast Public Health Leadership Institute (SEPHLI), is now a year-long leadership development program for mid- to senior-level public health administrators working in Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (http://www.sephli.org/). The institute’s purpose is to strengthen leadership skills and competencies in eight core areas, including personal development, visioning, critical thinking, partnering, communicating risk, using political and social change strategies, coaching and mentoring, and ethical decision making. Using a mix of communications media, scholars interact with local and national leaders during three working retreats and four telephone conferences, and participate in a learning plan, a community leadership project, a mentoring relationship, and four small group assignments. From 1998 to date, 363 students have graduated from the program. SEPHLI receives core funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Management Academy for Public Health

The Management Academy for Public Health (MAPH) (http://www.maph.unc.edu/) has been a joint project of the NCIPH and the university’s Kenan-Flagler Business School since 1999. The nine-month program is mostly self-supporting from participant fees. MAPH prepares health professionals for management challenges in community health, with a focus on building skills in managing money, people, data, and partnerships. Participants apply and enter as teams of three to six, and each team develops and presents a public health business plan designed to solve a key public health problem in its community. Teams come


215

to Chapel Hill in the summer for an intensive five-day management training program, take additional web-based courses, and participate in a three-day on-site session in the fall. They return to Chapel Hill in the spring to formally present their business plans. MAPH graduates (937 since 1999) include public health directors, senior and mid-level government leaders, environmental health managers, school health nurses, veterinarians, academics, nurse managers, social workers, finance managers, information system managers, hospital vice presidents, non-profit community health managers, EMS managers, WIC program managers, health educators, and others. In 2004, MAPH received the university’s Office of the Provost Public Service Award for extraordinary public service to recognize the 150+ community health projects produced by its scholars.

(National) Public Health Leadership Institute The new Public Health Leadership Institute (PHLI), previously housed at the Public Health Institute in Oakland, CA and relocated to NCIPH in 2000, is a leadership program for senior-level public health practitioners nationwide (http://www.phli.org/). It received another three years of funding in 2007 and has graduated 320 scholars since its move to NCIPH. Learning takes place online and at two retreats, one in Chapel Hill and another in California, over the course of a one-year program that relies on highly interactive discussion methods in simulations and seminars. A generous grant from the Centers for Disease Control supports tuition. Other PHLI partners and sponsors include the Center for Health Leadership and Practice (Public Health Institute) in Oakland, CA; the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, NC; the Public Health Leadership Society in New Orleans, LA; the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO); the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO); and the American Public Health Association.

Emerging Leaders in Public Health The Emerging Leaders in Public Health (ELPH) initiative is a WK Kellogg-funded program designed to prepare the next generation of public health leaders of color (http://www.publichealthleaders.org/). The initiative targets minority individuals who are committed to leadership and management careers in public health, focusing on African Americans, Native Americans/Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, Asian Americans, and Hispanics, all of whom are underrepresented in public health leadership. The intensive nine-month program uses both traditional classroom and technology-mediated methods of learning, including on-site workshops, personalized coaching, action learning teams, and individualized leadership coaching. Since its inception in 2004, the program has graduated 113 scholars. Primarily because of current funding constraints, ELPH is suspended for 2009-10. Table 3.3.b.2. shows the number of individuals graduating from the four leadership and management programs in the three most recent program years. Because of the shift away from grant funding and the need for applicants to pay to participate, enrollment has declined in several of the programs. The ELPH program has been suspended from 2008-2010.


216

Table 3.3.b.2. Graduates of Leadership and Management Programs for Senior Executives

Leadership/Management Program Number of Graduates FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09

Southeast Public Health Leadership Institute 39 N/A 30

Management Academy for Public Health 69 58 45

National Public Health Leadership Institute 40* 51 43

Emerging Leaders in Public Health (ELPH) 32 27 N/A

* Special event for program alumni; NA: Not applicable Other Workforce Development Programs The NCIPH administratively “houses” a number of other workforce development programs, principally providing business management oversight. These include training components for the North Carolina Center for Public Health Preparedness, the North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Center, the NC Public Health Academy, Public Health Grand Rounds, and the Southeast Public Health Training Center.

North Carolina Center for Public Health Preparedness

NCCPHP is one of the four original centers for public health preparedness funded by CDC. It is both administratively and physically housed in the NCIPH, and the institute director, Edward Baker, MD, is PI. NCCPHP has been at the forefront of preparedness training and consultation since its inception in 2000 (http://nccphp.sph.unc.edu/). The center’s mission is to improve the capacity of the public health workforce to prepare for and respond to terrorism and other emerging public health threats. It accomplishes this mission by assessing the competency of the public health workforce in core public health skills and bioterrorism preparedness, facilitating training to meet assessed needs, and carrying out applied research on emerging health issues. NCCPHP offers a variety of training opportunities for individuals and organizations, including the Certificate in Field Epidemiology program (discussed above); Team EpiAid (see Criterion 3.2); the Introduction to Communicable Disease Surveillance and Investigation course for communicable disease nurses in North Carolina; a pandemic influenza online course for North Carolina public health professionals; and a program in forensic epidemiology and public health emergency law, based on the CDC foundational course. The complete list of NCCPHP workforce development and continuing education programs can be accessed via the NCCPHP gateway at http://nccphp.sph.unc.edu/index.htm. NCCPHP also has managed the Lifelong Learning Initiative, a project intended to build ongoing relationships among partners with the goals of connecting resources, enhancing the culture of lifelong learning among public health workers, ensuring public health workforce access to learning opportunities, and facilitating increased public health preparedness and response capacity. Lifelong learning partners include NCCPHP, NCIPH, the UNC School of


217

Public Health, the North Carolina Division of Public Health (NCDPH), and 16 local public health agencies. The initiative’s activities include assessing the public health workforce to recognize training needs; determining appropriate training plans for individuals and organizations; and implementing a training plan in preparedness and core public health competencies. A full description of this project is available at http://tinyurl.com/sphlll.

North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Center

Also administered by the NCIPH, the North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Center (OSHERC) is one of 16 regional centers established by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to assure an ample supply of well-trained professionals in the area of occupational safety and health. OSHERC provides high quality, interdisciplinary academic courses and continuing education programs for workplace safety and health professionals in the eight southeastern states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The North Carolina OSHERC offers its continuing education courses on both an open registration basis and, for specific companies, a contract basis. The courses cover topics in industrial hygiene, occupational health nursing, occupational medicine, safety, and the workplace environment. OSHERC clients and customers have numbered 6,278 over the past three years. (See the Courses Offered section of the OSHERC website, http://osherc.sph.unc.edu/, for course descriptions, agendas, faculty profiles, and additional information.)

North Carolina Public Health Academy The North Carolina Public Health Academy is the newest of the NCIPH workforce development efforts (http://www.ncpublichealthacademy.org/), provided through a partnership with the Area Health Education Centers (AHECs) across the state. The Academy was established in 2006 with funding from The Duke Endowment, and additional support from the US Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) through funding for the Southeast Public Health Training Center (discussed below). The Academy is a website resource for both individuals and organizations, offering competency-based professional development, general public health training, orientation materials, and self-assessment and training resources. Also known as the “academy without walls,” the Academy matches individual professional development needs with the learning experience options that are most accessible for individuals, providing links to educational opportunities through its electronic media, as well as directly providing/facilitating training opportunities designed to enhance practitioner competency as defined by practitioners themselves.

Public Health Grand Rounds Public Health Grand Rounds is a series of satellite broadcasts and webcasts presenting real-world case studies on pressing public health issues such as bioterrorism, food safety, obesity, and SARS (http://www.publichealthgrandrounds.unc.edu/). The project has received


218

primary funding from the CDC since 1999, with additional funding from the Association of Schools of Public Health, ASTHO, NACCHO, the National Association of Local Boards of Health, the Public Health Training Network, UNC’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication, and UNC’s School of Medicine. The project presents at least three broadcasts annually, with open registration to audiences nationwide and abroad. Over 13,000 individuals have participated in Grand Rounds in the past three years.

Southeast Public Health Training Center The Southeast Public Health Training Center (SPHTC) is part of the HRSA-funded National Public Health Training Centers Network of 14 public health training centers across the US, created to strengthen the core competencies and capabilities of the current and future public health workforce, particularly in underserved areas (http://www.sphtc.org/). The SPHTC is a partnership between academic and practice partners in six states (Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) and four other universities (University of Kentucky College of Public Health, Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina, East Tennessee State University, and West Virginia University). Practice partners represent the state and local public health agencies in the partnering states. The center's work focuses on the three key areas of training dissemination, public health nursing, and rural public health. The SPHTC mission has five components: assess and strengthen public health infrastructure by providing competency-based training delivery systems with regard to academic and practice linkages; build state and regional capacity for workforce development; share best practices locally, regionally, and nationally; support and enhance regional collaboration; and respond to requests from state and local health departments for training. A key resource through which SPHTC accomplishes its mission is Ask SPHERE, the center's interactive training database. This resource, regularly updated, includes traditional classroom-based courses (in partner states only), certificate and MPH programs, video conferences, satellite downlinks, and web courses. The database also includes reusable learning objects from many sources that can be used to develop training, such as real audio presentations, interactive websites, resource databases, image libraries, curricula, historical websites, and slide shows.


219

3.3.c. Continuing Education Participation (2006-2009) Required Documentation: A list of the continuing education programs offered by the school, including number of students served, for each of the last three years. Those that are offered in a distance learning format should be identified. OCE offers an extraordinarily rich menu of courses. In FY 2008-09, OCE and other NCIPH programs hosted 229 courses with a total of 11,442 enrollees at 255 individual sites across North Carolina. Of the 147 OCE courses, approximately 14% were offered in distance format. OCE tracks participation in its traditional programs through a registration system that records self-reports of organizations and professions that participants represent. Table 3.3.c.1. illustrates the breadth of the audience reached by the full array of courses; this table does not include Public Health Grand Rounds, programs of the NC Center for Public Health Preparedness, Executive Education programs, or programs of the Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Center. (See Resource File for a complete list of OCE courses and enrollments for fiscal years 2006-2009.) Enrollment in OCE programs varies from year to year as needs, demands, and resources for workforce development change. For instance, FY 2007-08 enrollment figures were higher than the surrounding two years, especially in the “Education/Research/AHEC” category; this particular increased enrollment reflects participation in a major conference conducted for school nurses. Table 3.3.c.1. Enrollment in Continuing Education Programs by Organization Type

Organization Type Total Enrollment FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09

Business/Commercial 94 157 97

Community/Consumer/Advocacy/Philanthropic 151 188 179

Educational/Research/AHEC 865 1,336 1,023

Government/Municipal Agency (other than LHD)* 1,005 1,045 678

Hospital/Medical Practice/Nursing Home 437 635 505

Local Health Department (LHD) 3,969 4,686 3,992

Managed Care/HMO 4 7 11

Professional Association/Organization/Society 4 32 27

Other 271 191 191

Total 6,800 8,277 6,703

** Includes workers from NC and other state-level public health agencies, CDC, and other federal agencies OCE prides itself on the proportion of returning continuing education program participants, whose brand loyalty is an indication of their satisfaction with OCE programming. Table 3.3.c.2. tallies the frequency of annual participation in OCE continuing education programs for the past three fiscal years. As the table shows, although the majority of professionals participate in only one course per year, a sizeable number take part in two or more courses annually.


220

Table 3.3.c.2. Frequency of Annual Participation in Continuing Education Programs

Frequency of Annual Participation

Number of Participants

FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09

1 course 3,722 4,312 3,428

2 courses 772 992 616

3 courses 235 317 135

4 courses 114 131 69

5 courses 39 72 30

6 or more courses 25 74 164 3.3.d. Continuing Education Partners Required Documentation: A list of other educational institutions or public health practice organizations, if any, with which the school collaborates to offer continuing education. OCE partners with a variety of educational institutions in North Carolina and beyond to prepare and deliver continuing education programs. Within the university system, OCE has collaborated in the last three years with North Carolina Central University, North Carolina State University, and East Carolina University. In addition to these NC educational institutions, the school collaborates with non-academic organizations and agencies in North Carolina, including the AHECs and the NCDHHS/DPH (see descriptions below). As indicated in the description of activities in Criterion 3.3.b., out-of-state partners include the Center for Health Leadership and Practice, the Public Health Leadership Society, NACCHO, ASTHO, APHA, ASPH, NALBOH, the University of Kentucky, the University of South Carolina, East Tennessee State University, and West Virginia University. OCE draws its faculty from throughout the school, university (especially the Schools of Business, Social Work, and Government), and from a broad national network of experts. Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) The school has a longstanding, durable relationship with the North Carolina AHEC Program. The AHEC program mission is to meet the state's health and health workforce needs by providing educational programs in partnership with academic institutions, healthcare agencies, and other organizations. As the only accredited school of public health in North Carolina, the school has been an important AHEC partner since the program's inception in 1972. OCE regularly joins with the nine regional AHEC offices to plan, coordinate, and co-sponsor training and education activities. The state's nine AHEC offices and several of the state's community colleges have served as sites for OCE and other educational programs, particularly those delivered through distance learning technology. Each year, the public health directors in the AHEC regional offices project the number of hours they will request


221

from school faculty to serve as instructors in AHEC-sponsored programs. In addition, OCE serves as liaison between regional AHECs and school faculty, staff, and students whose field activities are supported by AHEC funds. These activities include student field placements and faculty and staff travel to continuing education sites. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services/Division of Public Health The school enjoys a strong partnership with the North Carolina DHHS and its Division of Public Health, and contracts with the latter to provide training services for a variety of practitioner groups. See Criterion 3.3.a. for a description of the program development process. Specific programs funded by the state training contract include Enhanced Role Nurse Education, the Introductory Public Health Nursing Course, and SEPHLI.


222

3.3.e. Assessment Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths • Institutional commitment to improve and expand lifelong learning opportunities • Broad array of lifelong learning opportunities, including formal certificates, intensive

leadership institutes, and continuing education programs • Demonstrable brand loyalty among continuing education participants • Large pool of faculty with diverse skills, experience, and interests Challenges • Maintaining and/or increasing practitioners’ participation in continuing education in a

period of declining discretionary agency funding • Assessing needs of potential program participants in a manner that will permit better

planning for continuing education

• Developing new ways to meet the needs of millennial graduates Future Directions • Develop new continuing education programs in state-of-the-art distance learning formats

to broaden the range of audiences participating in lifelong learning • Cultivate new audiences among “nontraditional” segments of the public health system,

such as hospitals, insurers, and policy makers • Respond to the global economic crisis by adapting programs to current economic reality

• Conduct needs assessments of the workforce, including entry-level, feeder programs,

and CE for local and global participants

• Develop solid business models to assure the financial viability of these programs This Criterion is met.

Criterion 4.0 Faculty, Staff and Students

Faculty Tom Fuldner, 2008

IIS StaffTom Fuldner, 2008

Small Group Meeting with Faculty Will Owens, 2008 Student Group Meeting

Chirag Rajpuria and Paige Anderson, 2008

Criterion 4

Faculty, Staff, and Students

4.1 Faculty Qualifications

CEPH Criterion

The School shall have a clearly defined faculty which, by virtue of its distribution, multidisciplinary nature, educational preparation, research and teaching competence, and practice experience, is able to fully support the School’s mission, goals, and objectives. CEPH Required Documentation a. A table showing primary faculty who support the degree programs offered by the school.

It should present data effective at the beginning of the academic year in which the self-study is submitted to CEPH and should be updated at the beginning of the site visit. This information must be presented in table format, organized by department, specialty area or other organizational unit as appropriate to the school and must include at least the following: a) name, b) title/academic rank, c) FTE or % time, d) tenure status or classification*, e) gender, f) race, g) graduate degrees earned, h) discipline in which degrees were earned, i) institution from which degrees were earned, j) current teaching areas, k) current research interests, and l) current and past public health practice activities. *Note: classification refers to alternative appointment categories that may be used at the institution.

b. If the school uses other faculty in its teaching programs (adjunct, part-time, secondary appointments, etc), summary data on their qualifications should be provided in table format, organized by department, specialty area or other organizational unit as appropriate to the school and must include at least: a) name, b) title/academic rank, c) title and current employment, d) FTE or % time allocated to teaching program, e) gender, f) race, g) graduate degrees earned, h) discipline in which degrees were earned, and i) contributions to the teaching program.

c. Description of the manner in which the faculty complement integrates perspectives from the field of practice, including information on appointment tracks for practitioners, if used by the school.

d. Identification of outcome measures by which the school may judge the qualifications of its faculty complement, along with data regarding the performance of the school against those measures for each of the last three years.


Criterion 4.1 Faculty, Staff, and Students: Faculty: Faculty Qualifications

224

Introduction One of the school’s primary objectives is to “recruit and retain a diverse faculty who are leaders in research, scholarship, education, service, and the global application of public health to human welfare” (Faculty/Staff Objective #1). Our faculty members serve the public, not only as leaders and advisers in the classroom and laboratory, but also as leaders and catalysts in national and global public health arenas, with their work recognized and featured in professional publications and scientific journals, at conferences, and in the mainstream media. In 2004, the university conducted a Faculty Retention Survey to assess faculty satisfaction; the survey was administered again just to public health faculty in 2007. Results from both years indicated that faculty members generally were satisfied with their work environment but perceived UNC’s salaries and benefits to be less favorable than at peer institutions. The school assessed salaries at other schools of public health (based on information provided by ASPH in 2008) and found, however, that SPH faculty salaries are comparable to peer institutions in the aggregate, although there are pockets where there are gaps between UNC and peer institutions. This is discussed with department chairs during yearly salary reviews. Also discussed are gaps in a department’s faculty in light of such factors as discipline, diversity, and level and type of experience. Where we agree that the gap is an important one, we seek additional funds to support recruitment. While not always successful, we have received significant university support for key hires and retentions.

Factors that university and school faculty identified as important in retention are shown below, in order of importance. In both survey years, SPH faculty perceived colleagues as a vital element in retention:

2007 (SPH Faculty) 2004 (All UNC Faculty) 1. Colleagues in the department Colleagues in the department

2. Support for research Reputation of the department

3. Academic rank offered Support for research

4. Reputation of the department Academic rank offered

In 2007, the university made available funds that could be used to retain faculty who were being recruited by other universities. The school was able to take advantage of this funding and successfully retained several faculty members. Bridge funding has also been an asset to faculty and departments; (see criterion 3.1.a.).


225

4.1.a. Primary Faculty Required Documentation: A table showing primary faculty who support the degree programs offered by the school. It should present data effective at the beginning of the academic year in which the self-study is submitted to CEPH and should be updated at the beginning of the site visit. This information must be presented in table format, organized by department, specialty area or other organizational unit as appropriate to the school and must include at least the following: a) name, b) title/academic rank, c) FTE or % time, d) tenure status or classification*, e) gender, f) race, g) graduate degrees earned, h) discipline in which degrees were earned, i) institution from which degrees were earned, j) current teaching areas, k) current research interests, and l) current and past public health practice activities. *Note: classification refers to alternative appointment categories that may be used at the institution. The School of Public Health has 212 full-time faculty housed in its seven academic departments and one academic program. (See Appendix 4.1.a.1. – 4.1.a.3. [Template F], Faculty Who Support Degree Programs. The first table provides information on rank, gender, race/ethnicity, and education; the second on tenure status and appointment, teaching and research areas, and public health activities; the third identifies faculty members with joint appointments). Of the full-time faculty members, 131 are in tenure-track positions and 781 are in fixed-term positions (non-tenure track, ranked clinical and research positions). For brief profiles of current, full-time faculty members, see http://www.sph.unc.edu/school/about_the_faculty.html. (Curricula vitae of all faculty members are available either through the SPH website: http://www.sph.edu; Advanced Search/SPH Directory, by name; or in the Resource File, for those who preferred not to post a CV online.) In addition to five visiting professorships funded via the Gillings gift (two of whom already were full professors at the school; see Criterion 4.2.b.), the school has 18 endowed professorships at various stages of funding, which provide opportunities for faculty development and will also help the school continue to attract faculty of the highest caliber. The school further benefits from three Kenan Professorships and two Alumni Professorships, for a total of 28 "named" professorships (see Appendix 4.1.a.4. for those holding these professorships). 4.1.b. Other Faculty Required Documentation: If the school uses other faculty in its teaching programs (adjunct, part-time, secondary appointments, etc), summary data on their qualifications should be provided in table format, organized by department, specialty area or other organizational unit as appropriate to the school and must include at least: a) name, b) title/academic rank, c) title and current employment, d) FTE or % time allocated to teaching program, e) gender, f) race, g) graduate degrees earned, h) discipline in which degrees were earned, and i) contributions to the teaching program. There are 461 part-time faculty members with specific teaching (and sometimes also research) roles, including both fixed-term and adjunct appointments (see Appendix 4.1.b.


226

[Template G], Other Faculty Used to Support Teaching Programs). These include 10 joint appointments within the school (i.e., interdepartmental) and 58 joint appointments involving units outside of the school. The part-time faculty members who have joint appointments with other schools in the university (e.g., the School of Medicine, College of Arts and Sciences) bring a welcome interdisciplinary vision to their teaching and research. (See Appendix 4.1.a.3.) 4.1.c. Integration of Practice Perspective Required Documentation: Description of the manner in which the faculty complement integrates perspectives from the field of practice, including information on appointment tracks for practitioners, if used by the school. The school enjoys an international reputation for advancing public health practice through excellence in teaching, research, and service, and through a commitment to engage with state public health leaders and the public health community. One of the school’s primary objectives is for “faculty and staff to contribute to their own professional advancement through active service in public health and scientific organizations at the state, national, and international levels” (Faculty/Staff Objective #3). In addition, the work of the University of North Carolina Tomorrow Commission (Final Report, December 2007 http://www.nctomorrow.org) guides the school’s practice orientation. The Tomorrow Commission, made up of business, education, government, and nonprofit leaders from across North Carolina, has outlined six strategies to enhance UNC’s service to the state, several of which fit well with the school’s own service goals: boosting global readiness, increasing citizens’ access to higher education, improving public education, facilitating economic transformation, improving health and the environment, and strengthening the university’s outreach and engagement. More than half of the full-time faculty have public health practice experience (see Appendix 4.1.a.1.). Many full-time faculty members consider themselves practice-based, and many part-time and adjunct faculty members work primarily in the field of practice. Faculty contributions to practice include serving in fieldwork positions, providing practice-related research services, and integrating practice perspectives into their own research, courses, and student dissertations. Some faculty members provide technical assistance to the field of practice through consulting opportunities, especially in conjunction with the North Carolina Institute for Public Health (see Criterion 3.2.b.). In addition, the school in February 2005 created a new fixed-term category, professor of the practice of public health. This category is intended to attract field-specific experts from outside of academia to the school. Such individuals typically are successful professionals in their given field, whose contributions to teaching, research, or service upon joining the university community have their foundation in their prior nonacademic achievements. Four individuals currently hold the rank of professor of the practice of public health. In MCH, Miriam Labbok, MD, MPH, MMS, FACPM, IBCLC, FABM, is director of the Center for Infant


227

and Young Child Feeding and Care. Diane Rowley, MD, MPH, former director of the Research Center in Health Disparities at Morehouse College, directed development at CDC of a conceptual framework that is now being applied to the MCH Disparities Program. In BIOS, Lisa LaVange, PhD, is director of the Collaborative Studies Coordinating Center. In HPM, Sandra Greene, DrPH, is director of the Carolina Cost and Quality Initiative. Leah Devlin, DDS, MPH, former North Carolina State Health Director, joined HPM in fall 2009. Other practice appointments are in process. Some departments provide especially strong links to practice. For example, many of the teaching faculty members in Public Health Leadership have had substantial practice experience, and most students in their leadership track are working public health and related professionals. The same applies to the Executive DrPH faculty and students in HPM and to selected other programs in HPM; Edward Baker, NCIPH director, is a research professor in HPM. All departments have some faculty members with practice experience, relationships with public health agencies, and preceptors with strong public health practice experience. In addition, many of the centers with which the school collaborates have extensive community and public health practice ties. This is especially true for the Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Center and the Injury Prevention Center. 4.1.d. Outcome Measures Required Documentation: Identification of outcome measures by which the school may judge the qualifications of its faculty complement, along with data regarding the performance of the school against those measures for each of the last three years. In addition to desired diversity outcomes (addressed in Criterion 4.3.), the school assesses the quality of its faculty, and support for faculty, along four broad dimensions. These are (1) leadership in research, scholarship, education, service, and the global application of public health to human welfare; (2) active service in public health and scientific organizations at the state, national, and international levels; (3) outstanding productivity, and discovery and the application of discovery, within a collegial and collaborative context, and (4) faculty mentoring opportunities. See table 4.1.d. for the metric currently serving to measure achievement of each of these outcomes. The school is developing a process to assess the validity of the metrics and to add others to measure additional aspects of the objectives.

In addition, each department has defined outcome measures across the teaching, research, practice/service categories that are suitable to its discipline(s). In some cases, departments also define expectations/standards for faculty. Typically, each faculty member updates his or her documents annually in preparation for a review with the department chair (see Criterion 4.2.c.). Some departments have developed highly quantitative metrics that specify such variables as numbers of articles published in a defined time frame, dollars obtained, and courses taught. In other cases, the assessment is more qualitative. At the time of salary reviews, chairs and the dean review the data for each faculty member.


228

Table 4.1.d. Faculty/Staff Qualification Outcome Measures, Targets, and Performance Data, AY 2006-07 to 2008-09, continued Goal Metric Target 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Sustain the highest quality faculty and staff and their ability to contribute to public health

Balance the ratio of tenure-and tenure-track faculty to fixed-term faculty

Number of Core tenured/tenure track faculty to Core fixed-term faculty

2:1 126:81 124:84 130:78

Maintain faculty with public health practice experience

Balanced ratio between faculty with and without public health practice experience

50% faculty with public health practice

experience 67% N/A 50%

Increase the number of Professors of the Practice

Number of Professors of the Practice

Minimum of 1/department/program

2 faculty in 2 departments 3:2 5:3

Increase the number of distinguished/named professors Number 30 25 25 28

Cultivate the School of Public Health as an environment conducive to outstanding productivity, and discovery and the application of discovery, within a collegial and collaborative context

Demonstrable impact of teaching, research, and service N/A


research/projects


research/projects


research/projects

Mentor faculty to optimize their success and promote excellence

New tenure track assistant professors assigned to mentors 100% 100% 100% 100%*

NA: Not applicable; not available * This included one BIOS, four ENVR, two EPID, four HBHE, one HPM, and one NUTR faculty member.


229

4.1.e. Assessment of Faculty Qualifications Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths

Percent of faculty who hold PhDs, or the highest degree in the relevant field

Extremely broad scope of disciplines, backgrounds, interests, and experience, both

across and within departments of the school

Faculty across the school are highly productive, with strong publication track records, in most cases

System of post-tenure review to assure that faculty members continue to be productive

Access to leadership and teaching excellences resources on the UNC campus

Growth in the number of faculty overall

Twenty-eight named professorships in the school

Sixty-nine joint appointments between departments in the school and with departments

outside the school (26 have primary appointments in the school and 43 have primary appointment outside the school and secondary with the school), as well as over 400 adjunct faculty who contribute to both the teaching and research endeavors of our mission

Professor of the Practice appointment attracts practitioners and acknowledges the importance of meaningfully integrating practice with teaching and research

Strong collegiality among faculty, both within and between departments—few barriers to collaboration across departments, schools, and centers

Supportive university environment that attracts outstanding faculty

Extremely collaborative environment across the health affairs schools

Retention funds have been available for faculty being recruited elsewhere on whose retention we place very high priority

Challenges

Retaining faculty (30% reported being recruited over the past three years, reflecting their quality)

Maintaining salaries/raises and benefits at levels that are comparable to our peers


230

Increasing faculty diversity

Maintaining up-to-date, easily accessible data on faculty and staff characteristics, such as diversity

Future Directions

Increase diversity of faculty through full-time, part-time, and adjunct appointments. We

have been assured that diversity funds will be available again, and we will use them to recruit additional faculty members

Increase number of endowed chairs

Increase number of professors of the practice

Increase number of faculty members with a global health focus


Criterion 4


4.2 Faculty Policies and Procedures

CEPH Criterion

The School shall have a clearly defined faculty which, by virtue of its distribution, multidisciplinary nature well-defined policies and procedures to recruit, appoint and promote qualified faculty, to evaluate competence and performance of faculty, and to support the professional development and advancement of faculty CEPH Required Documentation a. A faculty handbook or other written documentation that outlines faculty rules and

regulations. b. Description of provisions for faculty development, including identification of support for

faculty categories other than regular full-time appointments. c. Description of formal procedures for evaluating faculty competence and performance. d. Description of the processes used for student course evaluation and evaluation of

teaching effectiveness. e. Description of the emphasis given to community service activities in the promotion and

tenure process. f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Criterion 4.2 Faculty, Staff, and Students: Faculty Policies and Procedures

232

4.2.a. Faculty Handbook Required Documentation: A faculty handbook or other written documentation that outlines faculty rules and regulations. The university provides explicit policies concerning faculty recruitment, promotions, and tenure (http://tinyurl.com/uncapt) in Trustee Policies and Regulations Governing Academic Tenure in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. These policies are mirrored in the school’s Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure Manual (see http://tinyurl.com/sphaptmanual; a copy can also be found in the Resource File), which provides guidelines, criteria, and standards for all appointments to the school. All new faculty members receive a copy of the manual, and chairs regularly review the manual’s contents with faculty members on an individual basis. All other documents relating to policies and procedures for faculty are available at the website of the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost (http://provost.unc.edu/) and/or at http://tinyurl.com/uncpolicies (the website of the Office of Faculty Governance). In the last two years, we have revised the school’s manual to be more explicit about expectations for faculty mentoring and also to explicitly require that chairs provide each faculty member with a personal timeline when within 18 months of a promotion milestone, e.g., assistant to associate and associate to full professor. The APT Manual also provides extensive discussion about service and what qualifies as service. Chairs also are developing department guidelines for promotion of research and clinical track faculty. 4.2.b. Faculty Development Required Documentation: Description of provisions for faculty development, including identification of support for faculty categories other than regular full-time appointments.

Faculty Mentoring

Faculty/Staff Objective #5 is to “mentor faculty to optimize their success and promote excellence.” To help achieve this objective, each department has its own mentoring program to ensure that new faculty members have opportunities to discuss career planning and personal goal-setting; receive performance feedback; and have someone to help to open doors and identify opportunities. HPM, for example, has a working document describing different types of mentoring and department expectations for regular meetings and discussions. Typically, each new full-time faculty member within a department is assigned to a senior faculty member (or, in some cases, a team of mentors) who provides guidance on discipline-specific issues as the faculty member advances. Some departments have extended their mentoring program to all categories of faculty at all ranks, including part-time faculty. A schoolwide mentoring program was established in 2005 to supplement departmental activities. This program provides opportunities for new faculty to obtain a schoolwide


233

perspective and to facilitate multidisciplinary approaches. Mentors and new faculty meet as a group three times during the year. The program also offers participating faculty members assistance with manuscript editing. The program will be scaled back because of the current budget crisis, but schoolwide sessions to orient new faculty and provide them a shared context on such important topics as promotion will be retained.

Research Funding

To pursue its objective of “cultivating the School of Public Health as an environment conducive to outstanding productivity and discovery within a collegial and collaborative context” (Faculty/Staff Objective #4), the school makes every effort to help its faculty acquire external funding. In addition, start-up packages are usually provided for new tenure track faculty members especially for highly recruited positions; the amount is determined on a case-by-case basis, but may be greater than $100,000 of one-time-only funding from the university. Typical start-up packages provide salary support for highly sought after recruits and may also provide research support such as a lab renovation and upfit, equipment, and research support positions. State of North Carolina budget allocations for faculty development are limited, and, in times of budget cuts, funding for faculty development tends to be a lower priority. Fortunately, the Gillings gift makes other faculty development opportunities available. For example, the Gillings Innovation Laboratories (GILs) allow faculty members to develop ideas that have the potential to result in innovative solutions to public health problems. The GILs competitions have funded 14 projects to date—two in early 2007, five in 2007-08, and seven in 2008-09; see Criterion 3.1.a. for details on these projects. It is noteworthy that these projects involve faculty and students from several departments in the school and university, advancing the interdisciplinary perspective that the school values. Gillings Visiting Professorships (GVPs), also funded by the Gillings gift, have provided the opportunity so far for two SPH faculty members to promote their professional development, with the expectation that they also must give back to the school through seminars, interactions with students, and projects. In addition, three people outside the school, also were awarded GVPs. GVPs are awarded to (1) faculty from the School of Global Public Health who may undertake focused working sabbaticals in an approved organization, working in the field of study anywhere around the world, and (2) experts from outside the school, who are invited or competitively selected from think tanks, businesses, nongovernment organizations, and academic institutions from across North Carolina and around the world to come to the school to work on important public health problems. Professor Sheila Leatherman was the first GVP; she is visiting HPM to work on a project to use microcredit organizations to enhance access to health education and services in developing countries. Professor Tom Ricketts (HPM) received two years of funding to assist the École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique in Paris and Rennes to create a National School of Public Health that will involve faculty members from all departments in the school. Dr. James Merchant is a GVP in ESE; he is immediate past dean of the University of Iowa


234

College of Public Health and will facilitate rural health and prevention work at UNC. The fourth award was made in early 2009 to Dr. Rohit Ramaswamy (PHL) to develop a pilot distance-based global health learning program for public health professionals around the world. Finally, Don Holzworth, CEO Futures Group and Adjunct Professor HPM, was made Executive in Residence in 2009—a variant on the GVP; Mr. Holzworth has a very strong practice orientation, and a company that delivers public health programs around the world. UNC and its many centers and institutes offer a variety of kinds of research support, particularly for pilot projects. One avenue of support for faculty scientific and scholarly efforts is the university’s Junior Faculty Development Awards. These grants (up to $7,500 in 2008) may be used for supplies, equipment, salaries of assistants, travel, or to assist with any other dimension of faculty development (http://tinyurl.com/jrfacdev). The university encourages the use of these grants as a steppingstone to extramural support. Publication grants are also available to help pay the costs of publishing scientific and scholarly work. The SPH has partnered with the School of Medicine as part of the CTSA initiative to offer support for both large-scale pilot projects and smaller projects; see also, Criterion 3.1.b. One of our faculty members just received support for a community-based diabetes initiative. In 2007, UNC’s Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center obtained a commitment from the NC legislature to receive about $50M/year in perpetuity for a variety of activities—the University Cancer Research Fund (UCRF; http://ucrf.unc.edu/). The population sciences, which include the School of Public Health, is one of the key components of the program. Already, we have received significant research support, including critical funds for several faculty recruitments and student support. Funds should grow dramatically over the next several years, as the result of a strategic planning process of which the school is a fundamental part. UCRF support includes funds for innovative pilot projects, two significant cohorts, and infrastructure, and will also include support for several major projects.

School-Based Faculty Development Opportunities Several schoolwide events are open to all faculty members, students, and others. Among the most notable is the Minority Health Conference (see Criterion 1.4.b.). The 41st Fred T. Foard Memorial Lecture, last held April 2009, hosted William McDonough, FAIA, world-renowned architect and Time magazine's “Hero for the Planet,” who presented his vision of an environmentally and economically intelligent future of design that draws inspiration from natural systems. Each year, we present two of our most important school awards at the Foard Lecture. In most cases, one of the two awards is given to a public health professional with strong practice ties. The 2009 Barr Award for Distinguished Alumni was given to Rebecca King, DDS, PhD (MPH ’87), chief of the Oral Health Section, NC Department of Health. In 2008, the award was given to Charles McGrew (MPH ’73), head of the Arkansas Department of Health.


235

Some department-initiated events are co-sponsored by the school and are made available schoolwide. The half-day “Team-Based Learning” workshop, led by expert Larry Michaelsen of the University of Central Missouri, was hosted by HPM. Other events are more disciplinary focused, but are open to all, such as the symposium sponsored by EPID in honor of Dr. Barbara Sorenson Hulka, “The Molecular Epidemiology of Cancer: Perspectives and Approaches.”

University-Based Faculty Development Opportunities

The mission of the university’s newly created (2008) Center for Faculty Excellence is to provide holistic support to individual faculty members across the broad spectrum of professional development (http://cfe.unc.edu/events.html). The center describes itself as “a springboard so that good researchers will become great researchers, good instructors will become great instructors, and faculty members will become leaders.” Many instructional resources are available through the center, such as publications and workshops. Peggy Leatt, the school’s associate dean for academic affairs, is on the center’s Advisory Board. The university’s Academic Leadership Program is a university-sponsored faculty development opportunity for tenured faculty members (http://tinyurl.com/acadlead).

The university does not have a sabbatical or other system of faculty leaves. Internal university-wide competitive research and scholarly leaves pay the full salary of a full-time faculty member for one semester, or half salary for two semesters (up to $60,000) (http://tinyurl.com/facleaves), but there are only a limited number of these leaves available. Gillings Visiting Professorships now offer another way for SPH faculty members to obtain sabbatical experiences. 4.2.c. Faculty Evaluation Required Documentation: Description of formal procedures for evaluating faculty competence and performance. The school provides guidelines for faculty expectations and standards of performance in its Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure (APT) Manual (see Resource File), where criteria for promotion and tenure are clearly spelled out. At the time of consideration for promotion, required documentation includes the individual’s curriculum vitae, a teaching portfolio, a career focus statement, and external letters of reference. To proceed, the candidate must first receive approval for promotion within his/her department with a vote of the full professors; in some departments, this could include associate professors voting on assistant to associate promotions. Each department tailors the guidelines to its specific expectations, e.g., numbers of published papers expected, amount of grant support. At the school level, the APT Committee reviews candidates for promotion (see Criterion 1.2.a. for additional details on the APT Committee). The committee first assigns each


236

candidate to primary and secondary reviewers who report back to the committee. The full committee then votes and makes a recommendation to the dean, who in turn makes a recommendation to the provost and to the universitywide APT Committee. It would be extremely unusual for the dean not to support the committee’s recommendation; in fact, the current dean has accepted all the committee’s recommendations to date. Department committees conduct post-tenure reviews, which can be carried out at any time but should occur five years post-tenure. A plan of action for the faculty member’s professional development is recommended, as necessary. In addition, department chairs meet at least annually with faculty members on an individual basis. Although there is some variation, most departments expect faculty members to prepare a progress report to summarize their achievements for the preceding year in research, teaching, and service, and to delineate goals for the next year. The progress report and the discussion are recorded and are used by the department chair when making judgments about salary increases. 4.2.d. Course and Teaching Evaluation Required Documentation: Description of the processes used for student course evaluation and evaluation of teaching effectiveness. All courses are evaluated using both informal and formal mechanisms. Informal mechanisms include regular feedback from students in classes and at brown bag lunch discussions, as well as regular meetings between students and program directors and chairs. Some departments also conduct focus groups, exit interviews, and/or midprogram evaluations. Each semester, students also formally evaluate all courses that they have completed. Course evaluation results are made available to the faculty member(s) teaching the course, the teaching assistants, the department chair, and, in some cases, students. Historically, course evaluations have been a paper-and-pencil exercise, although some departments are experimenting with electronic surveys. In 2006, the school volunteered to participate in a pilot project to develop a university-wide electronic course evaluation system. The school recognizes the value of a single course evaluation system that can provide consistent data to students and faculty and can be used as part of dossiers for promotion and tenure. Although the system met with considerable success in some departments, the school’s overall experience in the pilot project was mixed. Some faculty members, for example, expressed dissatisfaction with the way questions were worded, and others noted the system’s inability to evaluate multiple teachers in one course. Moreover, the student response rate was lower with the electronic system than with paper-and-pencil evaluations. The school is now experimenting with a number of strategies to accommodate these limitations. Meanwhile, the university has established a committee, including representatives from the school, to identify a new course evaluation system that


237

schools throughout the university can use. The provost has identified this effort as a high priority. The students’ course evaluations and other forms of feedback are used extensively by individual professors to make improvements in courses on an ongoing basis, and chairs and program directors discuss the evaluations for discussion during annual faculty reviews. In addition, evaluation of teaching is a very important part of faculty assessment for promotion and tenure. As previously noted, the school expects faculty members to maintain a teaching portfolio documenting the courses they have taught and how they have used course evaluation feedback to change the course and reshape students’ learning experiences. In addition, as part of preparation for promotion, faculty members are subject to peer evaluation. Typically, two faculty members attend the promotion candidate’s class(es) on more than one occasion and document their appraisal of the candidate’s teaching in terms of course design, pedagogy, and participation (see, for example, “Peer Teaching Evaluation, Department of Health Policy and Management,” updated September 2008 in the Resource File). This peer evaluation then is shared with the faculty member for continuous quality improvement purposes. Excellence in teaching is a significant factor in consideration for promotion, and is considered along with the faculty member’s research productivity and service contributions; teaching excellence is weighted more heavily for fixed-term clinical faculty, whose primary role is teaching. A number of university-wide and SPH awards recognize teaching excellence. Students have the opportunity to nominate any faculty member for any UNC award (http://provost.unc.edu/teaching-awards), however these awards are very competitive, and it is difficult for the school’s faculty to compete successfully because of the much larger course enrollments (and votes) in the College of Arts and Sciences. Within the school, teaching awards include the McGavran Award for outstanding teaching, the E. Larsh Jr. Award for mentoring, and department-specific recognitions for teaching excellence.


238

4.2.e. Faculty Community Service Required Documentation: Description of the emphasis given to community service activities in the promotion and tenure process. As noted in Criterion 4.1.c., one of the school’s primary objectives for faculty and staff is active service at the state, national, and international levels. The school considers ”contributions to practice or service” to be one of the three main criteria for promotion (along with research and teaching), although, historically, it has been rare for a faculty member to be promoted primarily on the basis of excellence in practice. The APT Manual, which delineates the relevance of community service activities in the promotion and tenure process, spells out some of the links between practice and other areas of endeavor. For example, research in “collaboration with public health agencies and/or communities for the purpose of helping them assess public health problems, assure the delivery of public health services, or develop public health policies” is included as a basis for promotion (page 16). The amount of community service provided by faculty members varies across individual interests and departments. Faculty members are inherently more practice-oriented in departments such as HBHE, HPM, and MCH, as well as within the PHL Program. Involvement of faculty in practice is frequently facilitated through NCIPH (see Criterion 3.2.b.). As noted in Criterion 4.1.c., the school also created the position of professor of the practice of public health as a way of signifying the importance of practice in its mission.


239

4.2.f. Assessment of Faculty Policies and Procedures Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths An excellent set of published documents regarding appointments and promotions, which

have been further modified by individual departments to meet their department-specific needs

A comprehensive faculty review system, with a multipronged approach for monitoring

and assisting faculty member’s progress through the ranks Department-level mentoring to assist junior faculty in understanding and preparing for

promotion A schoolwide orientation program that supplements department mentoring

Support for innovative and potentially high-impact ideas through Gillings Innovation

Laboratories Support for other developmental activities for faculty, such as visiting professorships

provided by the Gillings gift Availability of various levels of funding, including start-up funding and small research

grants, including through the University Cancer Research Fund Significant school-led efforts to raise awareness about the urgent need for an online,

university-wide course evaluation system, and the school’s major role in developing and implementing such a system

Challenges Providing sufficient resources to support professional development for faculty, such as

workshops and training; travel to, and participation in, conferences; professional association membership, and so on

Operationalizing an online course evaluation system for all departments

Future Directions

Seek external sources of funding for faculty development

Refine mentoring programs so that all departments have consistently strong programs, supplemented by schoolwide resources

Participate in development, testing, and implementation of university new online course

evaluation system


Criterion 4


4.3 Faculty and Staff Diversity

CEPH Criterion

The School shall recruit, retain and promote a diverse faculty and staff, and shall offer equitable opportunities to qualified individuals regardless of age, gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or national origin.

CEPH Required Documentation

a. Summary demographic data on the school’s faculty, showing at least gender and

ethnicity; faculty numbers should be consistent with those shown in the table in 4.1.a. Data must be presented in table format. See CEPH Data Template H.

b. Summary demographic data on the school’s staff, showing at least gender and ethnicity.

Data must be presented in table format. See CEPH Data Template I. c. Description of policies and procedures regarding the school’s commitment to providing

equitable opportunities without regard to age, gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or national origin.

d. Description of recruitment and retention efforts used to attract and retain a diverse

faculty and staff, along with information about how these efforts are evaluated and refined over time.

e. Description of efforts, other than recruitment and retention of core faculty, through which

the school seeks to establish and maintain an environment that supports diversity. f. Identification of outcome measures by which the school may evaluate its success in

achieving a diverse faculty and staff, along with data regarding the performance of the school against those measures for each of the last three years.


Criterion 4.3 Faculty, Staff, and Students: Faculty and Staff: Faculty and Staff Diversity

242

Introduction

In 2005, UNC-Chapel Hill’s Chancellor Moeser appointed a task force through the Office of

Minority Affairs to assess the state of diversity on campus. At that time, the chancellor

affirmed the university’s commitment to practices that foster an inclusive environment, as

stated in UNC’s policies on nondiscrimination, racial harassment, and sexual harassment;

(see http://tinyurl.com/uncdiverse, Diversity Plan: Goals, Strategies and Responsibilities 2006-

2010, August 1, 2006).

The university’s diversity plan identifies five goals to inform university leaders’ efforts as they

develop strategies to foster diversity and identify measures to evaluate the university’s

progress and achievements in this area. The goals (pages 5-6) are:

1. Clearly define and publicize the university’s commitment to diversity.

2. Achieve the critical masses of underrepresented populations necessary to ensure

the educational benefits of diversity in faculty, staff, students, and executive,

administrative and managerial positions.

3. Make high quality diversity education, orientation, and training available to all

members of the university community.

4. Create and sustain a climate in which respectful discussions of diversity are

encouraged and take leadership in creating opportunities for interaction and cross-

group learning.

5. Support further research to advance the university’s commitment to diversity.

The university’s diversity goals are intended to guide all graduate and professional schools,

the College of Arts and Sciences, and other units in establishing their specific objectives.

Deans report their progress annually to the Provost’s Office, and the associate provost and

director, diversity and multicultural affairs, monitors this progress (see Diversity Matters at

UNC: Diversity Plan Report 2008-09, http://www.unc.edu/diversity/09diversityreport.pdf).

The school’s diversity plan reports (1) identify the university’s diversity goals prioritized by

the school for the preceding academic year, along with (2) the school goals supporting the

prioritized goals, action steps taken, evaluation measures utilized, and outcomes achieved;

and (3) outline the school’s diversity plan for the subsequent academic year, along with

priorities, goals, action steps, and evaluation measures. Input from school leadership and

students informs these plans. (See Appendix 4.3 for the three most recent reports, AY 2007-

08 to 2009-2010).

The School of Public Health concurs with the university’s belief that diversity is an essential

element in the pursuit of academic excellence, and shares the university’s commitment to a

diverse and inclusive community. Socioeconomic, cultural, racial, and ethnic diversity confer

many advantages, including the potential for increased innovation, motivation, and creativity;

the ability to attract and retain highly competent personnel; our capacity to serve

communities of color with cultural competence and the strengthening of cultural values.

http://tinyurl.com/uncdiverse

http://www.unc.edu/diversity/09diversityreport.pdf


243

The school has taken many actions over the last several years to address diversity issues

and to increase diversity of our faculty, staff, and students. Among the most important steps

was revising our mission to include a specific statement about reducing health disparities.

We have worked on multiple fronts to increase diversity and to enhance the climate around

diversity issues. All offer letters to department chairs now include a statement that the chair

is expected to increase diversity within the department, and the dean’s annual performance

review of each chair/director includes a report documenting activities to increase diversity in

the department/program.

In addition, the school has provided continued support for the Program on Ethnicity, Culture

and Health Outcomes (ECHO), jointly sponsored by the Schools of Public Health and

Medicine, to heighten UNC’s contributions to diversifying the health professions and

eliminating health disparities. ECHO has strengthened the school’s ties with a number of

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) through innovative research grants

and the ECHO small grant program. We provide modest yearly support and space.

Soon after becoming dean, Dr. Rimer appointed Jessie Satia, PhD, MPH, associate

professor Nutrition and Epidemiology, to serve as special assistant to the dean for diversity.

Dr. Satia also leads the school’s strategic initiative on eliminating health disparities. One of

her first steps involved hiring a diversity consultant, Joanna Moody, EdD, who came to the

school and conducted diversity training for the Dean’s Council and a number of other people

across the school. She also met with faculty, staff, and students, and returned the following

year to provide additional consultation. Working with a number of faculty and staff, Dr. Satia

created a handbook for minority applicants and others to highlight special features of UNC

and to show the advantages of living in Chapel Hill. This was intended to address some

concerns heard from faculty applicants over the years about living in the south. She also

convened an ad-hoc working group to strengthen our EEO statement in advertisements to

make it clear that we want minority applicants, and reaches out to every search committee

to offer assistance and has played an important role in several searches, including one in

HBHE that resulted in hiring two minority assistant professors. Dr. Satia recently conducted

a survey to assess faculty and staff members’ reactions to questions about the school’s

climate, discussed below (Criterion 4.3.d.).

4.3.a. Faculty Demographic Data

Required Documentation: Summary demographic data on the school’s faculty, showing at least

gender and ethnicity; faculty numbers should be consistent with those shown in the table in 4.1.a.

Data must be presented in table format. See CEPH Data Template H.

The school’s goal pertaining to faculty diversity is to recruit and retain a diverse faculty who

are leaders in research, scholarship, education, public service and engagement, and the

global application of public health to human welfare. Summary demographic data for the

school’s faculty are shown in Table 4.3.a. (Template H). Over the last few years, we

identified a number of minorities to recruit for postdoctoral and faculty positions; promoted


244

the special assistant to the dean for diversity as a resource to faculty search committees;

and strengthened mentoring programs for junior minority faculty.

The school hired two new underrepresented minority tenure-track faculty members (African

American women) in 2007-2008 as assistant professors; a third, Giselle Corbie Smith, MD,

MPH (School of Medicine), received a joint appointment in the school. An appointment for a

fourth African American woman as Professor of the Practice was completed in 2008, and

the school is nearing completion of a similar appointment for an African American male. We

have increased the number of minority clinical track faculty members in NUTR. ESE, which

has had a problem with gender diversity, is in the process of addressing this; of the last six

tenure track assistant professors hired in ESE, four were female (and one was an Hispanic

male).

Table 4.3.a Summary Demographic Data for Current Core and Other Faculty [Template H]

Core Faculty Other Faculty TOTAL

# % # % # %

# % Male 103 29.4% 247 70.6% 350 52.0%

# % African American Male 2 1.9% 12 85.7% 14 4.0%

# % Caucasian Male 83 80.6% 214 72.1% 297 84.9%

# % Hispanic/Latino Male 3 2.9% 8 72.7% 11 3.1%

# % Asian/Pacific Islander Male 15 14.6% 11 42.3% 26 7.4%

# % Native American/Alaska Native Male 0 0.0% 2 100.0% 2 2.8%

# % Unknown/Other Male 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

# % International Male 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

# % Female 109 33.7% 214 66.3% 323 48.0%

# % African American Female 10 9.2% 15 60.0% 25 7.7%

# % Caucasian Female 90 82.6% 175 66.0% 265 82.0%

# % Hispanic/Latino Female 2 1.8% 5 71.4% 7 2.2%

# % Asian/Pacific Islander Female 6 5.5% 11 64.7% 17 5.3%

# % Native American/Alaska Native Female 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

# % Unknown/Other Female 1 0.9% 0 0.0% 1 0.3%

# % International Female 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

# % Unknown/Other, Unknown Gender* 0 0.0% 8 100.0% 8 100.0%

TOTAL 212 31.5% 461 68.5% 673 100.0%

NOTE: Schools and programs may also include other aspects to demonstrate diversity among faculty at their discretion

We are committed to enhanced diversity. In fall 2008, the number of African-American

faculty members was 39 (11.7%; 11.2% core faculty); the number of Hispanic faculty

members was 18 (5.6%; 4.8% core faculty).


245

4.3.b. Staff Demographic Data

Required Documentation: Summary demographic data on the school’s staff, showing at least

gender and ethnicity. Data must be presented in table format. See CEPH Data Template I.

The school also aims to recruit and retain a diverse staff that can support the mission, goals,

and values of the school. Among the school’s 396 full-time staff, slightly less than a third

(30%) are male, almost one fifth (17%) are African-American, and 4.2% are of

Hispanic/Latino origin. Summary demographic data for the school’s staff are shown in Table

4.3.b. (Template I). The recent climate survey (see Resource File) showed that staff were

quite positive, but we did identify some concerns among minority staff that we will address.

Table 4.3.b. Summary Demographic Data for Full-Time Staff [Template I]*

Full-Time Staff

# % TOTAL

# % Male 122 30.4% 122

# % African American Male 9 7.5% 9

# % Caucasian Male 92 66.8% 92

# % Hispanic/Latino Male 5 3.1% 5

# % Asian/Pacific Islander Male 14 20.5% 14

# % Native American/Alaska Native Male 1 0.7% 1

# % Unknown/Other Male 1 1.4% 1

# % International Male 0 0.0% 0

# % Female 267 69.6% 267

# % African American Female 30 9.7% 30

# % Caucasian Female 217 72.6% 217

# % Hispanic/Latino Female 1 1.6% 1

# % Asian/Pacific Islander Female 16 14.7% 16

# % Native American/Alaska Native Female 2 0.1% 2

# % Unknown/Other Female 1 1.2% 1

# % International Female 0 0.0% 0

TOTAL 389 100.0% 389

NOTE: Schools and programs may also include other aspects to demonstrate diversity among staff at their discretion *Full-time staff includes full-time student workers who are considered full-time employees of the school


246

4.3.c. Equitable Opportunities Policies and Procedures

Required Documentation: Description of policies and procedures regarding the school’s

commitment to providing equitable opportunities without regard to age, gender, race, disability, sexual

orientation, religion or national origin.

The school adheres rigorously to the university’s policies of nondiscrimination in hiring.

These include equal opportunity policies for faculty (The University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Program, http://tinyurl.com/eooada); for

instructional and research non-faculty employees (Employment Policies for EPA Non-

Faculty Employees of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,

http://hr.unc.edu/epanf/epa-nf-pol/index); and for employees subject to the State Personnel

Act (SPA) (Equal Employment Opportunity Plan for Staff Employees at the University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill, http://tinyurl.com/eeoplan). The university’s affirmative action

plan for SPA employees establishes specific goals and timetables to remedy

underrepresentation in situations where there is significant evidence indicating that

members of a protected class have been underutilized.

The principle of equal employment opportunity applies to all aspects of the employment

relationship. These include initial consideration for employment; placement and assignment

of responsibilities; evaluation of performance, promotion, and advancement; compensation

and fringe benefits; access to training and other professional development opportunities;

formulation and application of personnel rules and regulations; access to facilities and

services; discipline; and termination (http://tinyurl.com/eooada).

4.3.d. Recruitment and Retention Efforts

Required Documentation: Description of recruitment and retention efforts used to attract and retain

a diverse faculty and staff, along with information about how these efforts are evaluated and refined

over time.

The mandate of the special assistant to the dean for diversity includes increasing the

recruitment and retention of underrepresented minority faculty. To this end, she worked with

the school’s Human Resources Office in late 2007 to modify the language used in faculty job

announcements to more strongly invite minorities to apply. (Job announcements formerly

stated: “UNC-Chapel Hill is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Women and minorities are

encouraged to apply.” The new language states: “The School of Public Health is actively

committed to diversity. We strongly encourage applications from women, minorities, and

individuals with disabilities. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is an Equal

Opportunity Employer.”) Moreover, the 2008-2009 School of Public Health Diversity Plan

Report (dated February 21, 2008; see Appendix 4.3) lays the groundwork for evaluating the

progress made in achieving diversity goals and assessing the efficacy of the school’s

diversity efforts through process evaluation and measurable, time-bound success criteria.

http://tinyurl.com/eooada

http://hr.unc.edu/epanf/epa-nf-pol/index

http://tinyurl.com/eeoplan

http://tinyurl.com/eooada


247

In January/February 2009, we conducted an online diversity and work climate survey of staff

members (see Resource File) to understand our environment from their perspectives; 148 of

392 staff members responded (37.8%). The survey included questions about socio-

demographic characteristics (gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation), as well as cultural and

other climate issues (tolerance for political views, language, physical appearance, and

attire).

We found overall satisfaction with attitudes towards diversity and with work climate (see

tables 4.3.d.1. and 4.3.d.2.). For example, 88% of respondents said the climate is

supportive/very supportive of minorities, and 78% rated the climate supportive/very

supportive with regard to gays. There are some areas that merit further inquiry, e.g.,

physical appearance. For example, only 57% of respondents said the school is supportive of

those who are overweight, and 69% are supportive of those who are underweight. Few

minority staff (only 9) participated, and while they seem somewhat less satisfied than

majority staff, we must interpret these results with caution due to the extremely small sample

size. The majority of respondents rated the school environment as respectful, collegial,

collaborative, and cooperative.

Follow-up included presentation of findings by the dean at the spring Faculty and Staff

Meeting, with opportunity for discussion, as well as at the May 2009 Dean’s Council

meeting. In addition, we have committed to expand our school’s diversity training to all

business managers (in addition to previous training for the Dean’s Council and selected

other leaders). We also have been conducting informal conversations with several staff

members who function as opinion leaders to determine how best to create a mechanism by

which staff members can communicate regularly with the school’s leadership about their

issues and concerns.

Table 4.3.d.1. Summary of Spring 2009 Staff Diversity Attitudes Survey (in %)

Attitude toward:

Very Supportive

Supportive

Neutral

Not Supportive

n

Males 49 43 6 2 110

Females 31 50 16 3 111

Whites 40 44 16 0 110

Minorities 35 53 9 3 111

Gays 29 49 20 2 93

Overweight 19 38 30 13 97

Underweight 21 48 27 4 96

Cultural attire 26 51 20 3 98

Disabilities 27 55 16 2 97


248

Table 4.3.d.2. Summary of Spring 2009 Staff Work Climate Survey (in %)

Friendly: 1 2 3 4 Hostile: 5 n

45 41 13 1 0 114

Respectful: 1 2 3 4 Disrespectful: 5 n

50 32 16 2 0 114

Collegial: 1 2 3 4 Contentious: 5 n

42 34 15 8 1 112

Collaborative: 1 2 3 4 Individual: 5 n

33 38 18 8 3 112

Cooperative: 1 2 3 4 Competitive: 5 n

31 41 15 11 2 112

4.3.e. Other Efforts to Support Diversity

Required Documentation: Description of efforts, other than recruitment and retention of core

faculty, through which the school seeks to establish and maintain an environment that supports

diversity.

In addition to strengthening diversity in faculty recruitment and retention, the school upholds

the values of its diversity plan through focused initiatives spearheaded by the office of the

special assistant for diversity, including attention to improving minority student enrollment;

(see Criterion 4.5.). The school also is working to cultivate an environment that advances

research related to health disparities. A diversity website (http://www.sph.unc.edu/diversity/)

is regularly updated to include new information about research projects that are related to

health disparities, and to highlight related funding opportunities that are available to students

and faculty at the school. Several faculty members within the school have partnered with

North Carolina Central University in Durham (the second largest of North Carolina’s eleven

HBCUs), Shaw University, another HBCU, and other historically black colleges to

collaborate on eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in local communities. Third, the

special assistant for diversity has conducted a preliminary assessment of diversity content

within core courses and is making recommendations regarding how to expand course

content to include more consideration of diversity issues.

In addition to the schoolwide diversity plan and the actions described earlier, individual

departments have strategies for achieving an inclusive culture and working environment.

Both BIOS and ESE, for example, have been focusing on increasing the number of women

faculty members and students. HPM has developed a department-level strategic plan for

diversity, held faculty planning sessions to discuss diversity that were followed up by

establishing a faculty-student Diversity Committee to develop diversity initiatives, and

modified curricula to include diversity content.

Also, Peggye Dilworth-Anderson, PhD (HPM), has received a K07 Leadership Award (2004-

09), through National Institute on Aging funding, to support training and mentoring. The

Research Working Group on Minority Aging in Later Life was created as the major vehicle

http://www.sph.unc.edu/diversity/


249

for training and mentoring. A strong mix of senior and junior faculty members and

postdoctoral students, representing a range of disciplines and schools (e.g., public health,

medicine, nursing, and dentistry) meet monthly. The majority of participants are minority

junior scholars, with at least three senior scholars at each meeting. Topics such as grant

writing, building networks, and developing strategies and planning for success in the

academy are discussed. Invited luncheons for members of the group are held at least twice

a year with an expert scientist, to foster further knowledge and expertise in certain areas of

research that address health disparities in later life. (In 2006, Dr. Dilworth-Anderson

received the Gerontological Society of America Minority Task Force Outstanding Mentorship

Award.)

4.3.f. Outcome Measures

Required Documentation: Identification of outcome measures by which the school may evaluate its

success in achieving a diverse faculty and staff, along with data regarding the performance of the

school against those measures for each of the last three years.

Two specific outcome measures are of great importance to the school’s culture. First, we

want to increase the percent of underrepresented minority faculty in the school. While the

school has a relatively diverse population in terms of gender and other minorities such as

those of Asian descent, underrepresented minorities are our target. Second, in terms of

staff, our outcome measure is to increase the percentage of underrepresented minority staff;

however, the aim is to have minority staff beyond the entry level. This is an indicator of the

extent to which staff are being provided with opportunities for professional development and

advancement through the ranks.

Table 4.3.f. Faculty/Staff Diversity Outcome Measures, Targets, and Performance Data, AY 2006-07 to 2008-09

Goal Metric Target 2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Sustain the highest quality faculty and staff and their ability to contribute to public health

OBJECTIVE 1: Recruit and retain a diverse faculty

Maintain or increase percentage of core faculty from underrepresented minorities*

Increase 7% 8% 8%

OBJECTIVE 2: Recruit and retain a diverse staff

Maintain or increase percentage of underrepresented minorities on staff*

Increase 13% 13% 13%

* Data currently are not archived according to specific ethnic categories of faculty and staff


250

4.3.g. Assessment of Faculty and Staff Diversity


Strengths

Heightened awareness and sensitivity to need to increase in underrepresented

minorities among faculty and staff

Special assistant to the dean for diversity focused on recruitment and retention of a

diverse faculty

A number of significant steps taken to try to increase diversity among faculty and

staff

A schoolwide plan (School of Public Health Diversity Plan 2008)

Department-level efforts to increase diversity

University commitment to diversity

School conducted diversity training for senior faculty and staff and is in the process

of expanding this to include all business managers.

Challenges

Increasing the underrepresented minority applicants when a relatively large number

of schools are competing to hire these applicants

Understanding factors not completely under the school’s control that often have a

strong influence on an individual’s decision to join our faculty/staff and remain here

Maintaining up-to-date, easily accessible data on faculty and staff characteristics,

such as diversity

Future Directions

Increase the pool of minority faculty nationally by increasing diversity in the school’s

doctoral student body

Encourage the university to increase its financial (and other) support for diversity

hiring, and take advantage of these resources as they become available


Criterion 4


4.4 Student Recruitment and Admissions

CEPH Criterion The School shall have student recruitment and admissions policies and procedures designed to locate and select qualified individuals capable of taking advantage of the school’s various learning activities, which will enable each of them to develop competence for a career in public health. CEPH Required Documentation a. Description of the school’s recruitment policies and procedures. b. Statement of admissions policies and procedures. c. Examples of recruitment materials and other publications and advertising that describe,

at a minimum, academic calendars, grading, and the academic offerings of the school. If a school does not have a printed bulletin/catalog, it must provide a printed web page that indicates degree requirements as the official representation of the school. In addition, references to website addresses may be included.

d. Quantitative information on the number of applicants, acceptances and enrollment, by

program area, for each of the last three years. Data must be presented in table format. See CEPH Data Template J.

e. Quantitative information on the number of students enrolled in each specialty area

identified in the instructional matrix, including headcounts of full- and part-time students and a full-time-equivalent conversion, for the last three years. Non-degree students, such as those enrolled in continuing education or certificate programs, should not be included. Explain any important trends or patterns, including a persistent absence of students in any program or specialization. Data must be presented in table format. See CEPH Data Template K.

f. Identification of outcome measures by which the school may evaluate its success in

enrolling a qualified student body, along with data regarding the performance of the school against those measures for each of the last three years.


Criterion 4.4 Faculty, Staff, and Students: Student Recruitment and Admissions

252

4.4.a. Recruitment Policies and Procedures Required Documentation: Description of the school’s recruitment policies and procedures. Recruitment Policy The school has an equal opportunity approach to student recruitment, treating all prospective students according to the nondiscrimination policies described in section 4.4.b. Recruitment Procedures The school’s recruitment efforts occur formally and informally at both the department and schoolwide levels, with department program directors and faculty committees playing a major role in identifying and recruiting qualified students. Each department has unique programs and needs, so most recruitment occurs within departments, where student services staff support recruitment activities and serve as an invaluable resource for prospective students. Many of the degree programs rely on the school’s Office of Student Affairs (OSA) for outreach to groups of prospective students. OSA staff work with department student services staff, program directors, and student volunteers to support more than 50 recruitment events and programs annually. These events include school representation at graduate and professional career fairs throughout the country, as well as career sessions on the UNC campus for area high school students and UNC undergraduates. In all, OSA staff members interact with more than 1,500 prospective students each year at events, by phone and email, or in meetings at the school. Recruiting activities include the following:

• Sponsoring open houses and informational events for prospective students and applicants

• Arranging campus visits • Attending undergraduate seminars, classes, and lectures to discuss careers in public

health and describe the school’s training opportunities • Connecting with prospective students identified at professional and scientific

conferences and other events • Participating in various recruitment fairs • Networking with other professionals to identify prospective students • Helping to raise funds for scholarships and awards • Making selective visits to other campuses, especially historically black colleges and

universities • Coordinating activities such as the summer enrichment programs (see Criterion

4.5.b.)

OSA recruitment efforts focus on introducing prospective students to public health fields and presenting students with information about specific degree programs and other educational opportunities in the school. On-campus sessions for secondary school students often


253

include entertaining and informative exercises related to statistics or basic public health concepts. OSA staff members attend sessions for undergraduate peer health advisors on the university campus as well as meetings of the North Carolina Association of Advisors for the Health Professions. OSA staff members always conclude their contact with prospective students by connecting them with a specific department or program of interest. The variety of online recruitment and outreach activities and information directed toward prospective and newly admitted students includes RSS feeds through iGoogle (http://tinyurl.com/sphnews); a Facebook page, launched in 2008, with 1,250 fans by July 2009 (http://www.facebook.com/); and new website sections that include separate pages for prospective and for admitted students. A LinkedIn site (http://tinyurl.com/linkto) and a Flickr site contain several photo collections (http://tinyurl.com/flickpics). We use these social media sites to create/enhance communities of students with shared interests and to provide some insight into the benefits of applying and matriculating into the school’s programs.

In December 2008, the Dean’s Council approved the creation of undergraduate and graduate student recruitment and retention advisory committees, comprising all degree program directors in each category, along with appropriate student services staff. The committees each meet quarterly to encourage 1) sharing of best practices, 2) interdepartmental collaborations (e.g., for open houses), and 3) consideration of common issues (such has how to handle gaps in Graduate School tuition support). Student Involvement in Recruitment Current students play an important role in department and OSA recruitment activities. In MCH, students serve as hosts and mentors for admitted students during the admissions process, including their visits to campus. In HPM, students sit on committees responsible for recruitment and admissions. Throughout the school, students volunteer to attend recruitment events and talk with prospective students about the school, their programs, and their experiences. Several of the school’s student organizations (e.g., the Minority Student Caucus, the ESE Student Organization) sponsor outreach activities that connect their membership with local secondary school students interested in public health. In addition, a minority student in coordinates OSA’s summer recruitment programs, which are primarily aimed at increasing diversity. (See Criterion 4.5.b., and http://tinyurl.com/sphdiverse.) Financial Aid Incentives Many of the school’s students receive scholarships and other awards from the school and university, as well as research assistantships located in both school-based units and in departments, and teaching assistantships, which are offered through departments. For assistantships meeting eligibility criteria defined by the Graduate School, health insurance is included; tuition coverage is often but not always a part of the assistantship package. (See http://tinyurl.com/finclinfo for additional information.)


254

The school’s deans, department chairs, and others join the school’s External Affairs Office in fundraising efforts to increase the pool of competitive scholarships. The Dean’s Council agreed to make raising funds for students’ scholarships the top fundraising priority for 2009-2010, with a goal of raising at least 30 new scholarships. The Annual Fund has also been earmarked as an important source of scholarships; this academic year, the school awarded eight $5000 scholarships to departments and PHLP through this mechanism. In addition, for the last two years, the state-supported University Cancer Research Fund has supported one scholarship each in the five departments with substantial cancer research activity. And, recognizing the difficult financial situation caused by the current economic climate, we have decided to allocate a pool of funds from the Gillings’ gift for scholarships in each department to support their recruiting some of their top choices. Thus, we have come together as a school and decided to place major focus on securing funds for our most important asset—our students. Table 4.4.a. reports school-level awards made to graduate students for academic year 2008-2009. Table 4.4.a. Academic Year 2008-2009 Schoolwide Recruitment and Retention Awards* Self-nominated Awards

Award Amount Eligibility (SPH) Alumni Association President’s Challenge Scholarship, NEW in 2009

$1,500(2)

A minority student or any student who intends to pursue topics that are the focus of the UNC Program on Ethnicity, Culture and Health Outcomes (ECHO)

Robert and Kristen Greczyn Scholarship in Public Health

$2,000 (2)

A promising student, as defined by strong academic ability and practice, service, or research experience.

Sandra Winn Green Scholarship in Public Health

$1,200 An outstanding student, defined by strong academic ability and practice experience, and demonstrated potential to contribute to the field of public health

Naomi R. Koehler Endowment for Professional Development in Nutrition and Women’s Health

$1,500 An applicant with a commitment to the fields of nutrition and/or women’s health (preferably both), who will use this award to further professional development

Curtis Glenn Southard Award in Community Mental Health

$1,200 A graduate student with experience in community mental health and future plans for professional work in this field

Robert Verhalen Endowed Scholarship in Injury Prevention / Trauma Management

$1,700 Any graduate student with a commitment to the field of injury prevention and/or trauma management, who will use this award to further her/his professional development

Department-nominated Awards Annual Fund Scholarships, NEW 2009

$5000 to each dept (8)

An outstanding incoming student, as defined by strong academic ability and practice experience, and demonstrated potential to contribute to the field of public health.

Miriam L. Cole Scholarship Fund

$3,500 Incoming master’s student with strong academic ability & potential to contribute to the field of public health.

Table continued on next page


255

Department-nominated Awards, continued Greenberg Award for Excellence in Doctoral Research

$2,500 (2)

A doctoral student with outstanding doctoral research, as defined by impact on public health, clarity, and contribution to the appropriate discipline

Ibrahim Fellowship. $8,000(2)

Incoming doctoral student with strong academic ability and potential to contribute to the field of public health

Donald and Jennifer Holzworth Merit Scholarship, NEW in 2009

$20,000 An outstanding incoming student, as defined by strong academic ability and practice experience, and demonstrated potential to contribute to the field of public health

Gary G. and Carolyn J. Koch Merit Scholarship in Public Health, NEW in 2009

$25,000 A highly qualified, incoming doctoral student; support available up to five years

Susanne Moulton and Thomas Wong Endowed Scholarship Fund in Health Policy

$1,250 (2)

An outstanding, incoming NC graduate student in HPM or EPID, with a diverse background and an interest in health policy

Winstanly Scholarship, NEW in 2009

$1,250 An outstanding incoming student, as defined by strong academic ability and practice, and demonstrated potential to contribute to the field of public health.

* This list does not include awards made from HRSA Public Health Traineeship monies, or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA] funds to supplement these monies over the next three years. The school awards do not guarantee that all departments’ “first choices” will choose to come to Carolina, as multiple factors influence an applicant’s choice of graduate program. However, the applicant pool in all programs is extremely well qualified, and these awards help to assure that many of their top choices matriculate at Carolina. This is why student funding is now the school’s number one fundraising priority. 4.4.b. Admissions Policies and Procedures Required Documentation: Statement of admissions policies and procedures. Non-Discrimination Policy To ensure fair admissions decisions, the school has adopted the university’s commitment to base decisions on individuals’ abilities and qualifications. “Consistent with this principle and applicable laws, it is therefore the University's policy not to discriminate in offering access to its educational programs and activities or with respect to employment terms and conditions on the basis of race, color, gender, national origin, age, religion, creed, disability, veteran's status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” (See http://tinyurl.com/uncnondisc.)


256

Application and Selection Procedures The Graduate School is the admitting unit for graduate degree programs, and the school is the admitting unit for the BSPH programs. The university uses a bifurcated admissions process for its graduate programs; applicants simultaneously submit application materials to the appropriate department(s) within the school and to the Graduate School. Undergraduate students submit applications directly to relevant department prior to their junior year, with copies sent to OSA. At the department level, the admissions process is multi-tiered. First, each department has at least one committee responsible for reviewing applications and making admissions recommendations. Membership of these committees varies, but generally consists of faculty members, student services staff, and students. Some departments require full faculty approval of proposed admissions. In all departments, the final decision on proposed admissions rests with the department chair. After departments have concluded their review of applications, department chairs submit the proposed admissions to either the school (for undergraduates) or to the Graduate School (for master’s and doctoral applicants). The school and Graduate School have final approval and send the official acceptance letters. Selection Criteria

Graduate Degree Programs Basic admissions criteria for graduate degree programs are promulgated by the Graduate School. Minimum requirements include an undergraduate degree from an accredited college or university or its international equivalent (based on a four-year curriculum) and a grade point average of “B” or better for the last two years of study. The Graduate School also requires a minimum level of competency on specific standardized tests, including the TOEFL for international students. Each department imposes additional admissions requirements specific to individual degree programs, often including specific prior coursework and/or work or volunteer experience. For example, MCH gives priority to applicants who have had post-baccalaureate MCH-related, community-based health experience. Departments also strive to provide opportunities to applicants who show potential for success but do not meet all minimum requirements. In these cases, departments may justify their admission recommendation based on other compensating factors related to successful degree completion. To help ensure that students admitted in this manner successfully complete their degree programs, departments may recommend that an applicant fulfill certain requirements prior to matriculation.


257

Undergraduate Degree Programs Four SPH departments offer the Bachelor of Science in Public Health (BSPH) degree. To be eligible to apply to one of the four programs, current students in the university must complete BSPH program prerequisites (http://tinyurl.com/sphbsph) and have completed most of the university's general education requirements—typically 52-60 credit hours of course work (http://www.unc.edu/depts/uc/06overview.html). Interested students generally apply to the school in the second semester of their sophomore year of study for fall admission to a BSPH program the following academic year. Transfer students who are eligible for admission to the university (as determined by the Office of Undergraduate Admissions) may also be considered. Tracking Applications and Admissions The university is in the midst of implementing a new campuswide administrative information system, ConnectCarolina (http://connectcarolina.unc.edu), SPH leaders, and student services staff have been actively engaged in the process since fall 2007. The student systems component of ConnectCarolina focuses on the admissions, process (including registration), student financials and financial aid, i.e., most aspects of student services and support. The university initiated this new enterprise resource planning system to process undergraduate applications this past summer (2009), and graduate applications will follow in summer 2010. This transition has been a catalyst for reviewing the school’s recruitment and admissions processes to improve their efficiency. 4.4.c. Recruitment and Admissions Materials Required Documentation: Examples of recruitment materials and other publications and advertising that describe, at a minimum, academic calendars, grading, and the academic offerings of the school. If a school does not have a printed bulletin/catalog, it must provide a printed web page that indicates degree requirements as the official representation of the school. In addition, references to website addresses may be included.

OSA and departments have a variety of recruitment tools that describe the school’s degree programs and other educational opportunities. These are available in the Resource File. In 2008, renaming of the school served as a catalyst to update and review the school’s print and online recruitment materials for their effectiveness. The result was a major redesign of many materials to enhance their clarity and improve access to important student information. The redesign allows the school to better showcase how it deploys technology, faculty, and staff to provide the best possible experience for prospective and current students.


258

School Website The school’s website is the primary mechanism to communicate admissions and academic information to prospective (and current) students. A substantial amount of audience-testing two years ago led to refined student components of the website, which now includes the following:

• Degrees, certificates, and continuing education opportunities: http://tinyurl.com/degreesetc

• Contact information for prospective students: http://tinyurl.com/contactvisit • Admissions deadlines: http://tinyurl.com/deadlns • Admissions statistics: http://tinyurl.com/admitstats • Admissions procedures and selection criteria: http://tinyurl.com/admitcrit • Academic calendars, grading policies, and registration information: http://tinyurl.com/miscinfo • Degree requirements: http://www.sph.unc.edu/departments/ • Course information:

o The “Course Information Database” menu option on the SPH website links to a database of current and recent courses offered: http://sph.unc.edu/course_database.

o The “Courses” menu option on each department’s section of the school’s website links to university catalogs and department courses

4.4.d. Admissions Data Required Documentation: Quantitative information on the number of applicants, acceptances and enrollment, by program area, for each of the last three years. Table 4.4.d. (Template J) provides detailed admissions data for academic years 2006-2008. In the past three years, new enrollment in the school has increased by 8%, all taking place in fall 2008. This increase in new enrollments appears to reflect increases in applications across the school, while admission and matriculation rates remain about the same. Moreover, the increases are in particular areas and not always consistent from year to year. The HPM MHA program experienced an increase in applications and new enrollment. While applications to the BIOS PhD program declined, the program admitted more students. ASPH data show that in fall 2008 (the most recent data publicly available), the school’s admission to application rate was 45 percent compared with 53 percent for all accredited schools of public health. The school’s matriculation rate was 60 percent compared with 43 percent for all schools.


259

Table 4.4.d. Quantitative Information on Applicants, Acceptances, & Enrollments by Program Area, AY 2006 to AY 2008 AY

2006-07 AY

2007-08 AY

2008-09

Biostatistics BSPH Applied 8 5 11Accepted 7 3 10Enrolled 7 3 10

MPH Applied 7 8 17Accepted 5 3 9Enrolled 4 2 3

MS Applied 67 77 63Accepted 33 39 38Enrolled 14 11 11

DrPH Applied 10 8 14Accepted 5 7 8Enrolled 4 5 5

PhD Applied 141 119 99Accepted 24 35 46Enrolled 9 8 14

Environmental Sciences & Engineering BSPH

Applied 5 12 10Accepted 4 11 8Enrolled 4 11 8


MSPH Applied 19 18 30Accepted 16 13 26Enrolled 11 5 16


MSEE Applied 19 17 12Accepted 15 9 8Enrolled 4 3 4


Epidemiology MPH Applied 53 41 58Accepted 18 13 14Enrolled 11 12 11

**Effective AY2007-2008, students admitted directly to PhD program rather than to the MSPH program.

MSPH** Applied 57 0 0Accepted 0 0 0Enrolled 0 0 0


Health Behavior & Health Education MPH




260

Table 4.4.d. Quantitative Information on Applicants, Acceptances, & Enrollments by Program Area, 2006 to 2008, continued

AY 2006-07

AY 2007-08

AY 2008-09

Health Policy & Management – Residential BSPH




MHA Applied 126 140 114Accepted 51 49 51Enrolled 31 27 28


Health Policy & Management – Executive MPH


MHA Applied 24 50 43Accepted 19 41 36Enrolled 17 30 30


Maternal & Child Health MPH Applied 70 87 104Accepted 24 33 47Enrolled 18 19 28





261

Table 4.4.d. Quantitative Information on Applicants, Acceptances, & Enrollments by Program Area, 2006 to 2008, continued AY

2006-07 AY

2007-08 AY

2008-09

Nutrition BSPH Applied 16 31 40Accepted 11 22 17Enrolled 10 22 16



Beginning with fall 2010, the DrPH in Nutrition will no longer be offered. DrPH



Public Health Leadership – Residential MPH



Public Health Leadership – Distance

MPH



Total Applied 1814 1832 1,949Accepted 781 816 876Enrolled 489 487 527

4.4.e. Enrollment Data Required Documentation: Quantitative information on the number of students enrolled in each specialty area identified in the instructional matrix, including headcounts of full- and part-time students and a full-time equivalent conversion, for the last three years. Explain any important trends or patterns, including a persistent absence of students in any program or specialization. Table 4.4.e. (Template K) provides enrollment data for academic years 2006-2009. The school’s total FTE enrollment increased less than 5% each year, from fall 2007 to fall 2008. Enrollment in part-time, distance learning programs increased by 20% during the study period. As with the applications data, enrollment patterns vary across degree programs and departments.


262

Table 4.4.e. Students Enrolled in Each Degree Program by Area of Specialization, Academic Years 2006 to 2009

2006 to 2007 2007 to 2008 2008 to 2009

HC FT HC PT FTE HC

FT HC PT FTE HC

FT HC PT FTE

BIOS BSPH 16 0 16.00 10 1 10.50 14 0 14.00 MPH 5 4 7.00 6 2 7.25 4 5 7.00 MS 22 3 23.50 20 1 20.50 18 4 20.75 DrPH 10 18 19.75 10 19 21.00 8 22 20.25 PhD 34 27 49.50 34 30 49.50 38 33 55.50

ESE BSPH 14 0 14.00 16 0 16.00 19 0 19.00 MPH 3 0 3.00 2 0 2.00 1 0 1.00 MSPH 24 2 25.00 23 0 23.00 25 4 27.00 MS 25 9 29.75 19 3 21.00 24 1 24.25 MSEE 9 0 9.00 8 2 9.00 8 3 10.00 PhD 45 22 56.25 48 16 56.25 48 18 56.75EPID MPH 21 5 23.75 20 3 21.75 22 3 23.50 MSPH* 11 2 12.50 6 2 7.00 0 2 1.25 DrPH 0 0 0 0 1 0.50 0 0 0.00 PhD 54 69 92.25 67 72 105.00 73 72 111.50HBHE MPH 85 3 86.50 83 0 83.0 81 1 81.25 DrPH 1 3 2.50 1 1 1.50 0 1 0.50 PhD 19 27 32.75 17 27 31.25 14 23 26.75HPM BSPH 63 0 63.00 71 1 71.75 73 0 73.00 MPH 14 1 14.75 10 1 10.75 14 3 15.50 MSPH 26 1 26.50 33 1 33.50 37 1 37.50 MHA 65 2 66.25 57 1 57.75 57 0 57.00 DrPH 0 3 1.50 0 1 0.75 0 2 1.00 PhD 19 32 35.25 20 25 33.00 21 31 36.75 MPH† 0 38 27.25 2 47 36.00 5 43 35.75 MHA† 4 81 61.25 3 107 79.50 8 117 93.25 DrPH† 3 16 14.75 2 29 21.25 0 37 21.25MCH MPH 40 1 40.50 38 0 38.00 51 1 51.50 MSPH 11 2 11.75 16 1 16.75 6 1 6.50 DrPH 3 3 4.25 3 2 4.00 0 3 1.75 PhD 10 10 15.00 12 9 16.75 12 11 17.75NUTR BSPH 20 1 20.75 32 0 32.00 34 1 34.25 MPH 34 3 36.25 41 2 42.50 47 3 49.00 MS 1 0 1.00 3 0 3.00 1 0 1.00 DrPH 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 PhD 42 9 46.75 41 5 43.5 43 6 46.00PHLP MPH 56 10 61.50 55 31 68.75 50 20 59.0 MS 1 0 1.00 0 1 0.50 0 0 0.00 MPH † 4 97 67.75 5 113 76.75 3 134 91.25 MS† 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 814 504 1120.00 834 557 1172.75 859 606 1229.25HC = Head Count; FT = Full-time students (9 credit units or more per semester) PT = Part-time students; FTE = Full-time equivalent students *Effective AY2007-2008, students admitted directly to PhD program rather than to the MSPH program. † Distance Learning


263

4.4.f. Student Body Required Documentation: Identification of outcome measures by which the school may evaluate its success in enrolling a qualified student body, along with data regarding the performance of the school against those measures for each of the last three years. One of the school’s objectives is to “recruit and retain a diverse, accomplished student body.” A key indicator of success in enrolling a qualified student body is average GRE score (percentiles) for incoming graduate students. The school’s goal is to admit master’s and doctoral students with average verbal and quantitative GRE score percentiles above the 65th (master’s) and 70th percentiles (doctoral). On the basis of this measure, it is clear that the school has continued to enroll a highly qualified student body over the past three years (see table 4.4.f.). Average verbal score percentiles for incoming master’s and doctoral students have been consistently higher than the target levels, and average quantitative score percentiles have increased over the past two years. Doctoral students were below the quantitative target level in fall 2006 but met the target level in the fall of 2007 and 2008; in the past two years, incoming master’s students were just under the target level. The school is continuing to develop more and better financial aid packages, along with academic, research, teaching, and service opportunities that will attract top students. Table 4.4.f. Outcome Measures: Enrolling a Qualified Student Body, Academic Years 2006-2008 Outcome Measure Target 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Average verbal and quantitative GRE scores at matriculation

Above the 65th percentile (Master’s)* Above the 70th percentile (Doctoral)*



Master’s V = 78 Q = 61

Doctoral

V = 85 Q = 73



Degree completion rates** 95%

UG = 92%M = 90%D = 74%

UG = 90% M = 89% D = 72%

UG = 89%M = 92%D = 83%

*The Graduate School recommends a minimum of the top 50th percentile. **Time to completion is designated by the university: Undergraduate (UG) = 2 years (in major, i.e., junior and senior years), Master’s (M) = 5 years, Doctoral (D) = 8 years. Degree completion rates are calculated by identifying the cohorts of students who matriculated two, five, or eight years in advance of the May graduation dates (depending on the degree level) and calculating the proportion of students who complete their degree within that time period. The school consistently has higher graduation rates than average for accredited schools of public health. In 2008, the average graduation rate for all MPH programs was 79%. For the school, MPH graduation rates ranged from 77% in the HPM Executive Master’s Program to 100% in BIOS, HBHE, the residential program in HPM, and MCH. Similarly, for PhD programs, the 2008 graduation average for accredited schools of public health was 59%, while at UNC the average was 72%.


264

4.4.g. Assessment of Student Recruitment and Admissions


Strengths

Strong undergraduate programs in four departments Redesigned and improved recruitment materials, including revamped website, to

recognize the different stages of recruitment process—viz., thinking about UNC, applying, accepted—as well as current students

Multifaceted recruitment processes and events involving faculty, students, department

student services staff, and the Office of Student Affairs Clearly articulated and fair admissions procedures

High matriculation rate for high quality students

Commitment across the school to seek more diverse student body and more funding for

students—funds from the Annual Fund to support Annual Fund Scholars, from the Gillings gift for student scholarships, and many new scholarships in the past year, a number focused on diverse student recruitment

Several new programs in development to reach out to diverse potential applicants

Challenges

Enhancing comprehensive and effective mechanisms to identify qualified, diverse prospective students and encouraging them to apply

Effectively using information systems that support recruitment and admissions

processes Increasing competitive financial student aid

Future Directions

Recruit and maintain a highly qualified and diverse student body

Continue to develop more efficient recruitment and admissions processes via major changes in systems (as part of the university’s change to new student information systems)

Enhance fundraising for student scholarships and awards


Criterion 4


4.5 Student Diversity

CEPH Criterion Stated application, admission, and degree-granting requirements and regulations shall be applied equitably to individual applicants and students regardless of age, gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or national origin. CEPH Required Documentation

a. Description of policies, procedures and plans to achieve a diverse student population. b. Description of recruitment efforts used to attract a diverse student body, along with

information about how these efforts are evaluated and refined over time. c. Quantitative information on the demographic characteristics of the student body,

including data on applicants and admissions, for each of the last three years. Data must be presented in table format. See CEPH Data Template L.

d. Identification of measures by which the school may evaluate its success in achieving a

demographically diverse student body, along with data regarding the school’s performance against these measures for each of the last three years.


Criterion 4.5 Faculty, Staff, and Students: Student Diversity

266

4.5.a. Achieving and Supporting a Diverse Student Body Required Documentation: Description of policies, procedures and plans to achieve a diverse student body. The premise underlying the school’s strategy for increasing student diversity is that a diverse student population enhances the educational environment in several ways:

• Students educated in diverse classrooms learn to think in deeper and more complex ways and are better prepared to become active participants in a pluralistic society;

• A climate of inclusion has positive benefits on educational outcomes; and • A diverse student body encourages a greater faculty emphasis on racial and gender

issues in their research and in the classroom. A commitment to “recruit and retain a diverse, accomplished student body” is the first of the school’s education objectives (Criterion 1.1.c.) and has been affirmed in the school’s equal opportunity approach to student recruitment (Criterion 4.4). This is both a broad commitment, as well as a targeted approach to increase race/ethnicity enrollment focusing on African American and Hispanic applicants. Both pools of applicants are relatively small, but the Hispanic pool is very small (approximately 40 applicants/year), making this a challenging objective. It is also important to note that while increasing diversity and eliminating disparities are two different concepts, there is a significant conjunction between the two. Namely, in order to effectively reduce disparities, the school must have more students (and faculty) who represent the communities that experience disproportionate disparities. Therefore, our diversity objectives are directly related to our mission to eliminate health disparities. Policies The university defines the scope of diversity to “relate to race, gender, age, class, sexual orientation, culture, nationality, disability, religion, and region.” The dean, department chairs, and all school leaders agree on the priority of matriculating and supporting students from underrepresented minority groups. Underrepresented minority groups are not necessarily racial or ethnic in nature; for some programs, for example, one gender may be underrepresented. Nevertheless, it is clear that in the school and its departments—as with our peer institutions—racial and ethnic diversity continue to be a primary focus. Critical to the concept of diversity is the need for an atmosphere of inclusion and tolerance, even when this challenges closely held ideas and comfort zones. The school thus strives for a climate of inclusion that will create a sense of community within the school and promote excellence in the learning environment. The school promotes its commitment to the university’s equal opportunity and nondiscrimination policies by posting them to frequently visited web pages (e.g.,


267

http://tinyurl.com/sphdiverse and http://tinyurl.com/sphcurrent), and includes them in its program handbooks. Procedures and Plans The university’s diversity plan for 2006-2010 (http://tinyurl.com/uncdiverse; see Criterion 4.3, Introduction) provides context for SPH diversity efforts. The school has established five areas of focus, one of which is students. Two strategic goals specifically address students:

• Increase the number of underrepresented minority students who enroll and successfully graduate from the UNC School of Public Health.

• Train the next generation of public health researchers by ensuring that students at the school are knowledgeable about racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and regional health disparities—including why disparities exist and how that can be addressed and ultimately eliminated.

Efforts supporting student diversity efforts over the past three years, many of which are ongoing, include:

• Dedicated office space for the Minority Student Caucus • Faculty advisors for student organizations that address diversity issues, such as the

Minority Student Caucus, the Student Global Health Committee, and the Health Sciences Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) Alliance

• A meeting each term with the dean, senior school leadership, and leadership of the Minority Student Caucus to identify student issues of concern

• The Annual Minority Health Conference (http://minority.unc.edu/sph/minconf/2009), the nation’s oldest minority health conference, and the largest student-led conference in the U.S. is supported by the school and is a special focus for the school’s Office of Student Affairs (OSA)

• A class to introduce international public health students to American university life and resources (EPID 689: Resources for International Students; http://tinyurl.com/epid689)

• Department-based initiatives, such as HPM’s diversity plan and their faculty-student Diversity Committee

• Involvement of school faculty and staff in policy initiatives to ensure that students are treated fairly. For example, all of the OSA staff (and some faculty and other staff throughout the school) are Safe Zone Allies, a network of people working to make the university community a safe and supportive place for people of all sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions (http://tinyurl.com/sphsafe).

• A schoolwide diversity orientation that welcomes new students and connects them to resources. In addition, we focus attention on ethnic/minority diversity and sexual orientation

• Input from school leadership and students to the school annual diversity plan reports; (Appendix 4.3). For example, in spring 2007, the assistant dean for students met with each department chair, faculty involved with admissions, and students to discuss student diversity issues and recruitment. Also, each year, the school’s special


268

assistant to the dean for diversity works with the assistant dean for students to identify activities for the next academic year that will address those goals

• Participation in the Initiative for Maximizing Student Diversity at UNC-Chapel Hill—an educational training grant to increase the number of underrepresented students that attain PhDs in biomedical research and biostatistics

Most recently (February 2009), the following outcomes were reported to the Provost’s Office:

• OSA staff participated in 12 recruiting events, with more than 800 minority contacts, and 13 UNC-CH summer programs, with 279 contacts.

• Fall 2008 saw 212 minority applications to the school’s graduate programs, with 80 applicants admitted and 47 enrolled. In total, 12% of the school’s student body were underrepresented minorities in 2007-08.

• With $93,000 from the Provost’s Office to increase student diversity, two students were funded to attend the BIOS Summer Undergraduate Research Experience in 2009, new targeted recruitment materials were developed, and the school began to put infrastructure in place for “pipeline” development collaborations. In summer 2009, the school began planning a new program to reach out to diverse undergraduates as another strategy to increase diversity by strengthening the pipeline. This included a special Biostatistics Summer Undergraduate Research and Education (BSURE) Program for minority students, also supported by the provost’s funding (http://tinyurl.com/biosbsure).

• The school’s Public Health Traineeship funds provided $48,500 for support to 33 minority students.

• A new minority scholarship (Donald and Jennifer Holzworth Merit Scholarship) was launched.

• The third annual schoolwide orientation for diverse students (including LGBTQ students) was held, as part of a broader orientation for new students, to send the message that the school welcomes students from all backgrounds. Participants included the dean of the school, the vice-chancellor for diversity, and representatives from UNC’s Office of Diversity Affairs.

• The school provided administrative assistance and $10,000 to the Minority Student Caucus to support the 30th Annual Minority Health Conference.

• Students were surveyed on their satisfaction with student body diversity (spring 2009; 63% of self-identified underrepresented minority students were very satisfied or satisfied, as compared to 74% of the remaining students).

• A comprehensive review of syllabi of all core/required SPH courses was undertaken to identify courses that included content related to health disparities, and to establish benchmarks and targets for future evaluation.

• A climate survey was administered to all students in April 2009; (see Resource File.) The February 2009 diversity report to the provost projected more than two dozen activities for 2009-10 to continue these efforts. The school also developed a proposal for an eight-week residential summer program on the UNC-Chapel Hill campus (Summer Public Health Fellowship [SPHF] program), designed in conjunction with NCIPH and department faculty


269

and staff and targeted to disadvantaged and minority high school graduates and college students with academic potential to pursue careers in public health. The assistant dean for students collaborated with faculty and staff at UNC-CH’s medical and dental schools to include SPHF in UNC’s Health Careers Opportunities Program (HCOP). The UNC HCOP proposal was approved by HRSA but was not funded; the school continues to seek funding to implement this program. In addition to direct recruitment and retention activities, there are indirect factors that influence decisions to come to and remain at Carolina. These are activities that reflect the dedication of the school and those who comprise the school to issues of primary concern to diverse populations. One of these activities is the Minority Health Project (MHP) to eliminate health disparities, and its Annual Summer Public Health Research Institute and Videoconference (http://www.minority.unc.edu/). Founded at UNC in 1999, the MHP focuses on filling gaps in minority health research literature and data. Based in EPID, there have been a multitude of UNC-based and other cosponsors over the years, including, for example, Center for Health Disparities Solutions (Morgan State University), National Center for Infectious Diseases, Office of Minority and Women’s Health; National Institute for Drug Abuse; GlaxoSmithKline; and Quintiles Transnational Corporation. 4.5.b. Recruitment Required Documentation: Description of recruitment efforts used to attract a diverse student body, along with information about how these efforts are evaluated and refined over time. For the majority of the school’s degree programs, OSA takes the lead on formal recruiting. The assistant dean for students and OSA staff coordinate with department student services staff, faculty, and students to implement a variety of diversity-related initiatives, including a number of specific minority recruitment initiatives on and off campus. Two OSA web pages describe these activities: http://tinyurl.com/sphdiverse and http://tinyurl.com/sphosa, and include: • Participating in programs and fairs sponsored by the HBCUs and universities with

significant minority student populations (e.g., Morehouse School of Medicine, North Carolina Central University)

• Identifying and communicating with qualified minority students and practitioners at meetings and conferences (e.g., American Public Health Association annual meeting, Minority Student Caucus’s Minority Health Conference, Truman Scholars Leadership Week, Public Health Awareness Conference)

• Providing public health experiences, information sessions, and advice for the university’s enrichment programs for minority students (e.g., the Health Professions Partnership Initiative, North Carolina Health Careers Access Program, Summer Pre-Graduate Research Experience, Saturday Science Program, Carolina Contact)

• Conducting on-site recruitment programs targeting minority students (e.g., REACH—Recruitment Event Affecting Change)


270

• Providing funding and administrative support for student-led diversity initiatives (e.g., Minority Student Caucus Prospective Student Day, ESE Student Organization), including the Annual Minority Health Conference

• Providing funding and administrative support for department diversity initiatives (e.g., BIOS Summer Undergraduate Research Experience)

4.5.c. Student Body Demographics Required Documentation: Quantitative information on the demographic characteristics of the student body, including data on applicants and admission, for each of the last three years. The demographic characteristics of the school’s student body are provided in table 4.5.c. (Template L). Table 4.5.c. Demographic Characteristics of Student Body, Including Data on Applicants and Admissions, 2006-2008

Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Race/Ethnicity Male Female Male Female Male Female African American

Applied 44 138 44 157 33 151Accepted 21 51 15 63 11 52Enrolled 20 43 11 36 9 33

Caucasian


Hispanic/Latino


Asian/Pacific Islander Applied 48 113 46 89 48 117Accepted 18 54 28 45 20 60Enrolled 8 29 17 24 16 30

Native American/Alaska Native


Unknown/Other


International


TOTAL Students



271

4.5.d. Evaluation of Student Diversity Required Documentation: Identification of measures by which the school may evaluate its success in achieving a demographically diverse student body, along with data regarding the school’s performance against these measures for each of the last three years. The university's Diversity Plan for 2006-2010 (http://www.unc.edu/diversity/plan/index.html) states the university's, school's, and individual departments' clear and unequivocal commitment to the goal of diversity in the student body at all levels, in all academic units. Because diversity enriches the learning environment and strengthens our commitment to nondiscrimination, increasing the proportion of underrepresented minority students in our student body is, therefore critical. However, the factors that influence this growth are many, and growth can be slow, so it is equally important not to lose traction in this area. Therefore, the school focuses on several measures to assess progress towards meeting its goals of recruiting and retaining a diverse and accomplished student body. Two of these are reflected in table 4.5.d., with the school's primary diversity recruitment goal being to maintain or increase the proportion of underrepresented minority students in the student body, viz., Black/Non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan Native students. Overall, in most cases, our proportions of minority students have changed little over the last three years despite a number of efforts that we have employed to increase diversity. We have compared our proportions to our peer institutions, and have met our goal in the undergraduate and master's student populations; diversity increased from 12% to 18% among undergraduates and stayed at about 14% for master's students. At the doctoral level, the proportion of underrepresented minority students has dropped slightly over the past three years, from 15% in fall 2006 to 11% in fall 2008; we aim to increase future cohorts to 2006 levels or higher. At the same time, just increasing the number of minority students is a necessary but not sufficient measure of the more significant outcome of producing a more diverse and well-educated work force. Therefore, a second student diversity goal is for the degree completion rates of underrepresented minority students to equal (or exceed) that of the entire student body. The school’s overall goal is for 95 percent of students to graduate within the university’s designated time to degree. The school’s results for this measure are mixed (table 4.5.d.). In the first and third years of this report, all underrepresented minority students who enrolled in the school’s undergraduate programs completed their degrees within the designated time period, exceeding the 95% target and also exceeding the completion rate for students as a whole. Completion rates for underrepresented minority doctoral students initially were well below both the target and the rate for all students, but improved to equal to the rate for all students in the final year of this report.


272

Table 4.5.d. Outcome Measures for Success in Recruiting a Diverse Student Body

Outcome Measures/Metrics Targets 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 The matriculation rate for qualified underrepresented minority students

70% UG = 100% Mas = 75% Doc = 70%

UG = 92% Mas = 69%

Doc = 9%

UG = 100% Mas = 62% Doc = 32%

Degree completion rates* 95% UG = 92% Mas = 90% Doc = 74%

UG = 90% Mas = 89% Doc = 72%

UG = 89% Mas = 92% Doc = 83%

Degree completion rates for underrepresented minority students*

95% UG = 100% Mas = 88% Doc = 60%

UG = 89% Mas = 85% Doc = 69%

UG = 100% Mas = 79% Doc = 83%

Proportion of the following demographics in the student body**

• Underrepresented minority students

• International students • NC residents (at

matriculation)

Maintain or improve proportions

UG = 12% Mas = 14% Doc = 15%

UG = 1% Mas = 6%

Doc = 21%

UG = 89% Mas = 57% Doc = 36%

UG = 17% Mas = 15% Doc = 13%

UG. = 0% Mas = 5%

Doc = 20%

UG = 89% Mas = 67% Doc = 29%

UG = 18% Mas = 14% Doc = 11%

UG = <1% Mas = 5% Doc = 21%

UG = 80% Mas = 51% Doc = 32%

* Time -to-completion calculation is detailed in Criterion 2.7.b. Each academic year comprises three graduation dates—August, December, and May. ** At matriculation The school recently examined ways to engage more of its stakeholders in monitoring and evaluating diversity outcomes and, starting in 2009-2010, student recruitment and retention advisory committees will take primary responsibility for evaluating student diversity. This mechanism will enable faculty and staff from each department, along with student representatives, to assess student diversity outcomes and make recommendations. The school is also considering means of involving other stakeholders in this process, such as alumni and community members. Evaluation of Student Recruitment Efforts Two formal processes provide regular opportunities for the school to evaluate and refine its student diversity recruitment efforts. First, each February, the university requires the school to submit a diversity report and plan for the upcoming year (Criterion 4.5.a.). As discussed in Criterion 1.1.d., we have made student recruitment a major issue across the entire school. All departments and units are to become actively involved in the issue and to be accountable for results. The school’s 2008-2009 budget included a highest priority request to enhance diversity under the leadership of our Office of Student Affairs. Subsequent funding enabled us to create special materials aimed at diverse students and to plan more targeted outreach. In addition, during the spring 2009 recruitment season, departments identified minority applicants they really wanted to recruit to the school but who lacked adequate funds, and the dean and the school’s External Affairs Office made special efforts to find funds for them.


273

Second, at the end of each academic year, OSA presents a report of student diversity recruitment activities to school leadership and the Minority Student Caucus. However, over the last couple of years, we have realized that this is not sufficient for purposes of quality control and quality improvement, and are working to integrate self-improvement processes more fully into our operations. Consideration of diversity and the need to enhance diversity is to become part of a data-driven, continuous process of self-improvement, and not merely perfunctory. At the June 2009 meeting of the Dean’s Council, data on minority recruitment trends for the last year were reviewed, with consideration given to what we could do to improve the proportion of minority applicants and students. Chairs agreed that they would each regularly review minority data, making recommendations within their own departments, and monitoring the status of their efforts. They were also asked to raise the issue at their next department faculty meetings and come back with interpretations of their data and suggestions about what they could do to enhance minority student recruitment. A substantial part of the August 2009 Dean’s Council meeting was devoted to consideration of these issues, including descriptions. of experiments occurring within different departments. For example, associate professor Lloyd Edwards (BIOS) works with PhD students in the Initiative for Maximizing Student Diversity (IMSD) at UNC-Chapel Hill who are interested in pursuing a PhD in biostatistics; the primary goal of the IMSD is to increase the number of underrepresented students who attain PhDs in biomedical research and biostatistics (http://www.sph.unc.edu/bios/imsd_8379.html and http://imsd.unc.edu/). HPM telephoned minority applicants with incomplete applications to explore their intentions, and this resulted in an increase in their minority applicants. Each year, we have sought and obtained more scholarships, but each year, there is more competition for students from other schools of public health. We have concluded that part of the challenge is to increase the size of the pool rather than merely for schools to compete for the same relatively small pool of applicants. But the issue is multi-factorial and involves a focus on each stage of recruitment from application through matriculation, and then attention to students once they are here. Financial support is necessary but not sufficient; nevertheless, we believe it is a major rate-limiting step. Because of that, we have made our top fundraising priority to attract more scholarships, including scholarships for minority students. At the fall 2009 Faculty and Staff meeting, Dean Rimer provided an overall summary of our minority student data and urged everyone to try harder and smarter to increase the school’s diversity. She committed that we will stay focused on this issue until, and then after, our proportions of minority students improve. In the current economic environment, more applicants require financial assistance; this is providing additional challenges to our success in enhancing diversity. However, we believe that with more timely data, more scholarships, and a schoolwide focus on the goal of enhancing minority enrollment, we will increase diversity in our study body.


274

4.5.e. Assessment of Student Diversity Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths Multifaceted approaches by school and departments for recruiting and retaining a

diverse student body

University and school financial and other support for diversity recruitment and retention efforts

High quality of matriculated students in diverse subgroups

New programs to reach diverse students under development in school’s Office of Students Affairs, and in Biostatistics

New programmatic materials for use in recruitment

Use of recruitment data to identify points in the student recruitment process where we

fall short so that we can identify strategies for improvement Challenges

Attracting highly “targeted” minority students (e.g., African American and Hispanic) who are being heavily recruited by other schools and programs

Providing sufficient resources (including improved financial aid packages) to recruit and retain highly qualified underrepresented minority students

Increasing engagement of various stakeholders in monitoring and evaluating outcomes, and developing follow-up activities

Future Directions Continue to enhance and expand diversity recruitment pipelines and materials

Improve feedback mechanisms related to recruiting and retaining a diverse student

population, and institutionalize means of following up on this feedback

Fully implement a broad outcomes assessment process

Secure resources to increase financial aid packages for targeted underrepresented minorities


Criterion 4


4.6 Advising and Career Counseling

CEPH Criterion There shall be available a clearly explained and accessible academic advising system for students, as well as readily available career and placement advice. CEPH Required Documentation

a. Description of the advising and career counseling services, including sample orientation materials such as student handbooks.

b. Description of the procedures by which students may communicate their concerns to

school officials, including information about how these procedures are publicized and about the aggregate number of complaints submitted for each of the last three years.

c. Information about student satisfaction with advising and counseling services. d. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

Criterion 4.6 Faculty, Staff, and Students: Advising and Career Counseling

276

4.6.a. Advising and Counseling Services Required Documentation: Description of the advising and career counseling services, including sample orientation materials such as student handbooks. All departments in the school provide academic advising services that help ensure that students receive information they need to complete their program successfully. Services include group orientation sessions at the beginning of the academic year, orientation handbooks, and ongoing advising from faculty, staff, peers, and alumni. Orientation Every degree program in the school sponsors sessions that introduce incoming students to curriculum, training and service opportunities, financial resources, faculty, and student services staff. Some of the orientation programs also incorporate skill development, preliminary testing, team building, and other exercises. Students in the HPM residential master’s programs spend an entire week on academic and social orientation activities, including a ropes course (team building exercise). Even students enrolled in distance learning programs typically spend several days on campus, touring school and campus resources before starting classes. NUTR holds an all-day retreat for new and returning doctoral students and faculty at the beginning of the school year. During orientation, departments give each student a handbook or academic manual specific to the degree program. The handbooks provide essential information on academic and other requirements, expectations, resources, timetables, policies, and procedures. Prospective and current students may also access handbooks through the school’s website, as well as via other online document management tools (e.g., Blackboard) accessed through their department’s webpage. (Sample materials are in the Resource File.) Advising Department faculty members and student services managers are students’ primary resources for advice on fulfilling degree program requirements and managing course work successfully. Although advising varies by and is tailored to students in specific degree programs, common features include:

• Faculty advisor assignments based on interests and skills; • Regular faculty-student advising sessions; • Mechanisms for switching advisors, if necessary; • Access to adjunct faculty who also mentor and advise students; and • Occasional support (for students and their faculty advisors) from OSA

Each department has at least one staff person dedicated to helping students manage access to courses, keep track of requirements, complete degree and course-related paperwork and more. Department student services staff also play a key role in notifying


277

students about academic-related information from degree program directors, the Graduate School, and the university. Current students are another important source of advice on degree requirements, course selections and other academic issues about which new and other students may have questions. The BIOS Student Association and the NUTR Coalition work with student services staff to match incoming students with current student mentors. Current EPID students volunteer for Peer Counsel, a group of students who are on call to answer questions from new students. Career and Job Placement Counseling Career counseling services are available from departmental, school, and university sources.

Department-Based Services

Academic advisors and other department faculty provide one-on-one career counseling geared to individual students’ internship and job placement needs, and also help students make employment contacts. In addition, each department has at least one staff person who helps students find internship and career opportunities. HPM has a Career Services Office and a director of professional development to facilitate and monitor summer and postgraduate placements (http://tinyurl.com/hpmprofdev; the department places approximately 100 students in practica each summer). Each department also has a group of active alumni who volunteer to mentor current students. Alumni help students make critical connections between their academic experiences and their next career steps and take an active role in providing students with career-related information. The EPID Student Association, for example, invites alumni from its degree programs to participate in annual panel presentations and networking sessions on career paths, job opportunities, school-to-workforce transitions, and more. EPID faculty and staff provide administrative and financial support for these activities, including funds to help alumni travel to the university. HPM’s voluntary alumni liaison program for undergraduate and master’s students, HPALS, is another example of a well-organized alumni advising system that provides career and personal guidance. Launched in spring 1997, HPALS matches students in one-on-one mentoring relationships with HPM alumni (and, in a few cases, non-alumni "friends"); in 2007-2008, there were 28 student-alumni pairings. The department provides a resource manual to help structure the mentoring relationship.

Schoolwide Services

Students in all departments draw on OSA as a career resource. The director of career services in OSA offers a wide range of career counseling and job placement services to all students in the school, including:

• Individual counseling;


278

• Workshops (e.g., interviewing skills, resume critiques); • Career symposia (featuring alumni); • Annual Internship and Career Fair; • Etiquette dinners (dining tutorials that introduce students to the proper way to

present themselves professionally, greet others, socialize, and dine during a job interview, business meeting, or formal affair) and other student-coordinated programs; and

• eRecruiting and other online career resources (http://www.sph.unc.edu/careers/). Student services staff throughout the school use email, web pages, listservs, and other communication mechanisms to link students with internship and job opportunities. In fall 2008, the OSA director of career services formed a coordinating group comprising all staff who formally dedicate some time to career and placement advising. The coordinating group’s primary purpose is to help career services staff provide a more efficient and comprehensive employment network for all public health students. OSA also has tasked the coordinating group with improving the way the school collects data on internships and job placements. Currently, the school relies on department-specific processes and an OSA exit survey to collect placement data; these approaches yield useful information but are time-consuming and probably are less efficient than a centralized system might be.

University Services

Students also have access to career counseling and placement services provided by University Career Services (UCS) (http://careers.unc.edu/). UCS offers a variety of services to facilitate the search for internships, part-time jobs, and career opportunities that are occasionally utilized by School of Public Health students, primarily undergraduates. On the whole, however, the primary sources of support for School of Public Health students for these services are their departments and OSA. Other Counseling Faculty advisors, along with school and department student services staff, may provide non-academic counseling to students on topics such as time management and conflict resolution. In situations where professional counseling is needed, faculty and staff refer students to the appropriate university office. The university offers counseling resources in a number of areas:

• Counseling and Wellness Services (Campus Health Services) provide students with confidential mental health services (http://studenthealth.unc.edu/index.php).

• The International Student and Scholar Services Office supports international students with services regarding passports, visas, travel, and employment regulations (http://oisss.unc.edu/).

• The Office of Scholarships and Student Aid Counseling offers comprehensive advice and services on financial matters (http://studentaid.unc.edu/).


279

4.6.b. Student Feedback Required Documentation: Description of the procedures by which students may communicate their concerns to school officials, including information about how these procedures are publicized and about the aggregate number of complaints submitted for each of the last three years. A variety of mechanisms at the school and university levels are available to students who want to express concerns about their program experiences or about the school. Schoolwide Feedback Mechanisms There are numerous opportunities within the school for students to provide feedback to decision-makers. New student orientations are an initial source of information, and program handbooks guide students to faculty advisors and student services staff. OSA regularly publicizes—on calendars, bulletin boards, and online—upcoming student meetings with the school’s deans. The student feedback section of the school’s website also reminds students of feedback mechanisms, and reports summary results and responses (http://tinyurl.com/studentfeedbk). Within the student body, student leaders collect feedback from students through email and online solicitations. To summarize, school feedback mechanisms include:

• Faculty advisors and student services staff; • Student representatives who participate in department and school governance; • Monthly meetings with Dean Rimer and other school deans (including online

sessions for distance learning students); • Individual and group sessions with the assistant dean for students, on an as needed

basis; monthly attendance by the assistant dean for students at the Minority Student Caucus meeting; semi-annual meetings of the OSA Advisory Board with the assistant dean for students;

• Presentations by student government representatives to the Dean’s Council regarding student concerns;

• Schoolwide surveys; • Course evaluations; and • Department exit interviews, surveys, and focus groups.

The school’s Student Input Hotlink is also available for students who wish to present issues and concerns anonymously to school leadership. The link is on the school’s website and is publicized to the entire student body in a weekly email that contains school announcements. In addition, students frequently email the dean with feedback and suggestions, and she responds promptly.


280

University Feedback Mechanisms The university provides several additional mechanisms for students to submit complaints or grievances. The university Office of Student Affairs supports a student grievance process for issues related to discrimination, harassment, and other unfair practices: http://tinyurl.com/uncgrieve. In addition, there are policies and procedures for the adjudication of grade appeals, which are described in the Undergraduate Bulletin (http://www.unc.edu/ugradbulletin/) and the Graduate School Handbook (http://handbook.unc.edu/). These policies and processes are publicized on UNC web pages, as noted immediately above, in the school’s degree program handbooks, on department websites, and on the school’s website, http://tinyurl.com/sphadvising.

Table 4.6.b. displays the number of complaints from School of Public Health students over the past three academic years, by complaint mechanism. Grade appeals begin with the course instructor and, if not resolved at that level, move on to subsequent levels as prescribed by the relevant process (undergraduate or graduate). The school has not had any undergraduate grade appeals, and graduate grade appeals are relatively rare. When students in the school file formal grievances or grade appeals with the university, the resolution of each case follows university procedures for adjudication. Table 4.6.b. Aggregate Number of Student Complaints, AY 2006-07 to AY 2008-09

Complaint Mechanisms Academic Year 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Student Input Hotlink *9 13 11 UNC Student Grievance Process 0 1 0 Undergraduate grade appeals 0 0 0 Grade Appeals to Graduate School 0 0 0 *January – June 30, 2007; Hotlink launched in January 2007 Addressing Student Grievances and Complaints The school’s faculty and leadership take student concerns, grievances, and grade appeals very seriously. At the school level, staff and faculty members who collect complaints and concerns expressed through student feedback mechanisms, quickly report them to appropriate individuals or organizations in the school for consideration and response. For example, the assistant dean for students forwarded student complaints regarding the lack of wireless Internet access in some areas of the school to the assistant dean for information technology (IT); in response to this feedback, the school’s IT staff were able to provide necessary access. The assistant dean for students plans to provide an annual student feedback report to the Dean’s Council, summarizing feedback from the school’s Student Input Hotlink, schoolwide surveys, and other data collection mechanisms. Brief monthly accounts will be presented subsequently. Analysis and discussion of this type of report will allow the school’s deans,


281

department chairs, student representatives, and others to identify trends and patterns across the school, laying the foundation for policies, programs, and other responses to alleviate problems. 4.6.c. Satisfaction with Advising and Counseling Required Documentation: Information about student satisfaction with advising and counseling services.

At least once a year, the assistant dean for students surveys the entire student body for input about their experiences in the school. Table 4.6.c. shows student satisfaction with advising and counseling services. The results indicate very high levels of satisfaction with general advising in May 2007, with over 72% of respondents satisfied with the services provided by faculty, staff, and the Office of Student Affairs. A majority of students in May 2007 were satisfied with career-related advising, although the level of neutral responses and dissatisfaction was higher than desirable.

In May 2008, while 61% of respondents continued to be satisfied with advising from the Office of Student Affairs, only 45% were satisfied with other advising services or career counseling and placement services. In addition to indicating a possible change in the quality of advising in the school from May 2007 to 2008, there are at least three other plausible explanations for the shift in these results. First, different cohorts may have different experiences; future longitudinal analysis may clarify this. Second, in May 2008, a set of questions related to public health competencies was added to the survey preceding the advising questions. This may have influenced views about advising, since students had not previously been prompted to think about their academic training in detail before they considered their satisfaction with advising. Third, the competency questions increased the length of the May 2008 survey. To offset this and encourage completion of the survey, advising questions were condensed from six (with two specific questions for faculty, staff and the Office of Student Affairs) to three (with specific questions for career counseling and placement services and the Office of Student Affairs and a general question about other advising services); this accounts for the “--” entries on table 4.6.c.

These survey results should also be put in the context of respondents’ overall assessments of their experience in the school. In May 2007, 91% of respondents were satisfied overall with their decision to attend the school, with 48% of these very satisfied. In May 2008, 96% of respondents were satisfied overall with their choice of school; of these, 53% were very satisfied. (Surveys are available in the Resource File.) In sum, while advising services may be one aspect of the school that could benefit from some improvements, views about these services are probably not lowering overall satisfaction with the school.

The schoolwide survey is an important assessment tool because it captures feedback across programs. While creative efforts to increase response rates have succeeded, the results are still based on a minority of the student population. Consequently, school and


282

department leaders combine this feedback with input from other mechanisms to get a more comprehensive picture of student satisfaction. The current data indicate the need for more precise and representative results to establish students’ actual satisfaction with advising and career counseling services. The first assessment step would be for the faculty and staff leaders of the degree programs to establish additional measures of satisfaction. For example, dissatisfaction with access to faculty advising would warrant different responses than dissatisfaction with the quality of faculty advising. Once measures are established, a survey focused on student advising and career counseling would help establish a more comprehensive picture of students’ views. Leaders of the degree programs would be charged with helping to ensure that a majority of their students provide feedback on this survey. A concerted effort to establish representative results (i.e., response rates of more than 50%) are key to determining what improvements are most needed. After the comprehensive survey, the general questions on the regular survey will be used to indicate the impact of changes or shifts in views each semester. Also, once every two years, the comprehensive survey will enhance the general data.


283

Table 4.6.c . Satisfaction with Advising and Counseling Services (Schoolwide Survey)

May 2007

(response rate = 25%) N = 1,275

May 2008 (response rate = 34%)

N = 1,314

May 2009* (response rate = 42%)

N = 1,374

Advising Support/ Services Sa

tisfie

d

Neu

tral

Dis

satis

fied

# w

ith a

n O

pini

on

Satis

fied

Neu

tral

Dis

satis

fied

# w

ith a

n O

pini

on

Satis

fied

Neu

tral

Dis

satis

fied

# w

ith a

n O

pini

on

General

Faculty advisor

72% 12% 17% 315 -- -- -- -- 72% 15% 14% 568

Student services staff

84% 9% 6% 290 -- -- -- -- 70% 21% 9% 542

Office of Student Affairs

72% 24% 4% 144 61% 36% 4% 332 33% 57% 10% 293

Other advising services

-- -- -- -- 45% 36% 19% 329 -- -- -- --

Career-Related

Faculty advisor

54% 23% 23% 233 -- -- -- -- 49% 33% 18% 464

Student services staff

62% 20% 18% 190 -- -- -- -- 40% 45% 15% 392

Office of Student Affairs

57% 37% 12% 86 -- -- -- -- 28% 59% 13% 286

Counseling and placement services

-- -- -- -- 45% 36% 19% 301 -- -- -- --


284

4.6.d. Assessment of Advising and Career Counseling Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. Strengths Clear, easily accessible program policies and procedures

Well-defined and supported student grievance procedures

General student satisfaction with advising and career counseling services

Challenges Raising response rate in student satisfaction surveys

Monitoring and assessing the extent to which the school translates student concerns into

actual improvements

Generating and maintaining comprehensive, up-to-date internship and job placement data

Future Directions Enhance coordination of department and school-level career and job placement

counseling services

Improve systems for collecting and reporting internship and job placement data

Increase student participation in assessments of advising and career counseling services

Maintain a high level of student satisfaction with advising and career counseling services


entire self-study report without appendices (pdf, 4.5 mg)

Documents