Self-Study Report. October Prepared for the Council on Education for Public Health

Transcription

1 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.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms... iii Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion ii

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

4 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 iv

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

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

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

8 Criterion 1.0 The School of Public Health Michael Hooker Research Center Atrium Dan Sears, 2006 Linda Kastleman, 2008 UNC Old Well Dan Sears, 2002 Michael Hooker Research Center Atrium Linda Kastleman, 2008

9

10 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.

11 Criterion 1.1 The School of Public Health: Mission 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 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 2

12 Criterion 1.1 The School of Public Health: Mission changing health system. (The resulting report, An Agenda for the 21 st 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 3

13 Criterion 1.1 The School of Public Health: Mission 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: Research: Service: Prepare the next generation of leaders who will improve the public s health through innovations in research, policies, systems, programs, and service. 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. 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. 4

14 Criterion 1.1 The School of Public Health: Mission 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: Objective 2: Objective 3: Objective 4: Objective 5: Objective 6: Objective 7: Objective 8: Recruit and retain a diverse faculty who are leaders in research, scholarship, education, service, and the global application of public health to human welfare. Recruit and retain a diverse staff that can support the mission, goals, and values of the school. Balance the ratio of tenure-and tenure-track faculty to fixed-term faculty Maintain faculty with public health practice experience Increase the number of Professors of the Practice Increase the number of distinguished/named professors 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 Mentor faculty to optimize their success and promote excellence 5

15 Criterion 1.1 The School of Public Health: Mission 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 Dean William Roper led a variety of information-gathering activities (e.g., meetings, task forces, white paper, expert panel) on his arrival in 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 inperson 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 (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 academic year with a presentation of the new mission to incoming students. 6

16 Criterion 1.1 The School of Public Health: Mission to improve public health, promote individual well-being, and eliminate health disparities across North Carolina and around the world 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 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 We bring about sustainable, positive changes in health by providing an outstanding program of research, teaching, and service. wide range of problems, and reflects the school s determination to identify and disseminate public health solutions that actually make a difference. (See 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 7

17 Criterion 1.1 The School of Public Health: Mission 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 selfassessment 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 widescale 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. 8

18 Criterion 1.1 The School of Public Health: Mission 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. 9

19 Criterion 1.1 The School of Public Health: Mission Table 1.1.d. Revising the School of Public Health Mission, Goals, and Values Statement: An Iterative Process Dean drafts revised mission statement (Feb 2006). Working group of chairs and faculty revises mission (March 2006). 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. 10

20 Criterion 1.1 The School of Public Health: Mission 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 21 st 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. 11

21 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.

22 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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 evidencebased 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. 14

23 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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 15

24 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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 allhands 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. 16

25 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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 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 (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. 17

26 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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. 18

27 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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 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 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 19

28 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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. 20

29 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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 wideranging efforts to solicit and integrate input from a variety of stakeholders across the school 21

30 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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 Strategic Tracking Data sources and efforts are coordinated through the quality assessment work of the Dean s Council. Since academic year , 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. 22

31 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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 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 , 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 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. 23

32 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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). 24

33 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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 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 25

34 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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. 26

35 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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 ( The school posted the final self-study on its website, and has welcomed continuing comments and suggestions. 27

36 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning 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 highquality 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. 28

37 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning Table 1.2.c. Outcome Measures, Targets, and Performance Data, AY to Education Goal Metric Target 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. Average verbal and quantitative GRE scores at matriculation (Cf. Table 4.4.f.) Degree completion rates* for all students and for underrepresented minority students (Cf. Table 4.5.d.) Proportion of underrepresented minority students in the student body (fall) (Cf. Table 4.5.d.) Above the 65 th percentile (Master s)* Above the 70 th percentile (Doctoral)* 95% (All students) 95% (Underrepresented minority students) Master s V = 72 Q = 55 Doctoral V = 80 Q = 64 UG = 92% M = 90% D = 74% UG = 100% M = 88% D = 60% Maintain or increase UG = 12% M =14% D =15% Master s V = 78 Q = 61 Doctoral V = 85 Q = 73 UG = 90% M = 89% D = 72% UG = 89% M = 85% D = 69% UG = 17% M = 15% D = 13% Master s V = 73 Q = 61 Doctoral V = 83 Q = 74 UG = 89% M = 92% D = 83% UG = 100% M = 79% D = 83% UG = 18% M = 14% D = 11% See Criterion 1.2.c. text N/A N/A N/A N/A See Criterion 1.2.c. text Public health job placement rates within 12 months (Cf. Table 2.7.b.2.) N/A N/A N/A N/A 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 29

38 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning Table 1.2.c. Outcome Measures, Targets, and Performance Data, AY to , continued Research Goal Metric Target 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. 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. TBD: To be determined; N/A Not available Maintain or increase grant and contract funding to SPH faculty PIs (Cf. Table 3.1.d.) Percentage of school tenure-track assistant professors who are PIs on awarded grants and/or contracts (Cf. Table 3.1.d.) 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 $117.4 million $103.8 million $150.2 million Increase 70% 62% 62% Increase 42.5% 42.2% 45.4% See Criterion 3.1 text TBD N/A N/A N/A 30

39 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning Table 1.2.c. Outcome Measures, Targets, and Performance Data, AY to , continued Service Goal Metric Target 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. OBJECTIVE 2: Improve 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. Number of service activities reported (Cf. Table 3.2.c.) Number of service hours reported (Cf. Table 3.2.c.) Number and percentage of faculty who provide information about service outreach efforts (Cf. Table 3.2.c.) 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) Enrollment in continuing education courses Repeat participants ( 2 courses) Enrollments among public health workers (Table 3.3.c.1.) 500 activities ,000 hours 10,022 8,467 8,765 N = 100 % = 50 Maintain State of Practice Committees; maintain current diversity of service agreement partners despite difficult economic climate Minimize reductions in CE programs and enrollments relative to budget cuts and training contract reductions and cancellations. N = 35 % = 17 See Criterion 3.2.c. text 6,800 24% 3,969 N = 37 % = 18 See Criterion 3.2.c. text 8,277 27% 4,686 N = 38 % = 18 See Criterion 3.2.c. text 6,703 23% 3,992 31

40 Criterion 1.2 The School of Public Health: Evaluation and Planning Table 1.2.c. Outcome Measures, Targets, and Performance Data, AY to , continued Faculty/Staff Goal Metric Target 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 Maintain or increase percentage of core faculty from underrepresented minorities (Cf. Table 4.3.f.) Maintain or increase percentage of underrepresented minorities on staff (Cf. Table 4.3.f.b) Number of Core tenured/tenure track faculty to Core fixed-term faculty (Cf. Table 4.1.d.) Balanced ratio between faculty with and without public health practice experience (Cf. Table 4.1.d.) Number of Professors of the Practice (Cf. Table 4.1.d.) NA: Not applicable; not available * This included one BIOS, four ENVR, two EPID, four HBHE, one HPM, and one NUTR faculty member. 32 Increase 7% 8% 8% Increase 13% 13% 13% 2:1 126:81 124:84 130:78 50% faculty with public health practice experience Minimum of 1/department/program 67% N/A 50% 2:2 3:2 5:3 Number (Cf. Table 4.1.d.) Demonstrable impact of teaching, research, and service (Cf. Table 4.1.d.) New tenure track assistant professors assigned to mentors (Cf. Table 4.1.d.)b N/A See Appendix 3.1.a.for impact summaries of research/projects See Appendix 3.1.a.for impact summaries of research/projects See Appendix 3.1.a.for impact summaries of research/projects 100% 100% 100% 100%*

41 Criterion 1 The School of Public Health 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. g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

42 Criterion 1.3 The School of Public Health: Institutional Environment 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 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 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. 34

43 Criterion 1.3 The School of Public Health: Institutional Environment 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 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. 35

44 Criterion 1.3 The School of Public Health: Institutional Environment 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 See the university s Office of Human Resources website ( 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 36

45 Criterion 1.3 The School of Public Health: Institutional Environment 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 ( 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 ( and Andrea Biddle, PhD, associate professor (HPM) is an elected member of the Educational Policy Committee ( 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 37

46 Criterion 1.3 The School of Public Health: Institutional Environment 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. 38

47 Criterion 1.3 The School of Public Health: Institutional Environment 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. 39

48 Criterion 1 The School of Public Health 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. f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

49 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

50 Criterion 1.4 The School of Public Health: Organization and Administration Table 1.4.a. Organization Chart: Gillings School of Global Public Health 43

51 Criterion 1.4 The School of Public Health: Organization and Administration 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 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 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

52 Criterion 1.4 The School of Public Health: Organization and Administration also leads the school s Research Council. (See Criterion 3.1.a. and 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) ( 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

53 Criterion 1.4 The School of Public Health: Organization and Administration 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 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 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 46

54 Criterion 1.4 The School of Public Health: Organization and Administration 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 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

55 Criterion 1.4 The School of Public Health: Organization and Administration 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 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 ( 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 ( 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 The school also is a major participant in the North 48

56 Criterion 1.4 The School of Public Health: Organization and Administration 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 nondiscrimination, conflict of interest, and harassment. (A full listing of the university s ethics policies and procedures can be found at School of Public Health faculty, staff, and students also commit to the university s Code of Student Conduct (see 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 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 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

57 Criterion 1.4 The School of Public Health: Organization and Administration 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. 50

58 Criterion 1 The School of Public Health 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, policysetting 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. f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

59 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 wellestablished 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, 52

60 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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-andtake 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. 53

61 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 ( and graduates ( 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 54

62 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 55

63 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 56

64 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 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 and The Faculty Code of University Government [UNC-Chapel Hill] 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. 57

65 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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) 58

66 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 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 UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Alice Ammerman, MPH, DrPH 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. 59

67 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 60

68 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 61

69 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance Harriet Hylton Barr Distinguished Alumni Award Committee Membership: 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, 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 Social Medicine Association of NC Boards of Health North Carolina Division of Public Health National Public Health Leadership Institute NUTR HBHE Office of the Vice Chancellor for University Advancement North Carolina Institute of Public Health HPM School of Government Representative Thomas J. Bacon, DrPH Robert R. Blackburn, MS, MPH J. Steven Cline, DDS, MPH Donna Dinkin, MPH Janice Dodds, EdD, RD Jo Anne Earp, ScD, Team Chair Kevin FitzGerald, MPA John W. Graham, PhD Sandra B. Greene, DrPH Jill Moore, JD, MPH 62

70 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 Elizabeth Puckett, PT Force 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 63

71 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 64

72 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 65

73 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 selfgovernance 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 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. 66

74 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance Table 1.5.e.2. Student Organizations (as of July ) 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 30 th annual Minority Health Conference registered over 540 people in Chapel Hill, while five other universities participated remotely and held events on their campuses. 67

75 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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. 68

76 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance 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 69

77 Criterion 1.5 The School of Public Health: Governance Conduct regular student, faculty, and staff climate surveys, and use the data for selfimprovement Review and update all policy documents on the school s intranet for community access This Criterion is met. 70

78 Criterion 1 The School of Public Health 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)

79 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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. 72

80 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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 ( 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 higherrisk 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 ( and the Collaborating Studies Coordinating 73

81 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources Center ( 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. 74

82 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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 75

83 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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. 76

84 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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 through

85 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources Table 1.6.b. Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major Category, Fiscal Years 2000 to 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, 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 $ 15,515,698 $ 22,661,253 $ 29,247,135 $ 48,821,951 $ 37,693,108 Value 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. 78

86 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources Table 1.6.d. Faculty Headcount in Core Concentration* Areas Core Faculty Biostatistics Environment Sciences & Engineering Epidemiology Health Behavior & Health Education Health Policy and Management Maternal & Child Health Nutrition PH Leadership Program Public Health Nursing Core Subtotal Other Faculty Biostatistics Environment Sciences & Engineering Epidemiology Health Behavior & Health Education Health Policy and Management Maternal & Child Health Nutrition PH Leadership Program Public Health Nursing Other Faculty Subtotal TOTAL Faculty * 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. 79

87 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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 ESE EPID HBHE HPM MCH NUTR PHLP Schoolwide *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 FTEF Core HC FTEF Total Total FTEF HC FTE Non FTE Doc FTE All Students SFR by SFR by Core Other Other** FAC Students Doc Students Core Total Fac. Fac. HC Students* FTEF FTEF BIOS ESE EPID HBHE HPM MCH NUTR PHLP Schoolwide *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 80

88 Criterion 1.6 Table 1.6.e. Faculty, Students and Student/Faculty Ratios by Department, Fall 2008 HC Core Fac. FTEF Core HC Other Fac. FTEF Other** Total FAC HC Total FTEF HC Students FTE Non Doc Students* FTE Doc Students The School of Public Health: Resources FTE All Students SFR by Core FTEF SFR by Total FTEF BIOS ESE EPID HBHE HPM MCH NUTR PHL Schoolwide *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 2009 HC Core Fac. FTEF Core HC Other Fac. FTEF Other** Total FAC HC Total FTEF HC Students 81 FTE Non Doc Students* FTE Doc Students FTE All Students SFR by Core FTEF SFR by Total FTEF BIOS ESE EPID HBHE HPM MCH NUTR PHL Schoolwide *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

89 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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 , , AY AY AY Full-Time Part-Time Student Temporary Other Temporary Other Personnel Total 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 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 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 offcampus 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 wastewaterrelated 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 82

90 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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 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 offcampus 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. 83

91 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources Table 1.6.g. Available Space Building Teaching Labs Open Labs Research Labs Academic Offices Conference / Meeting Study Assembly / Exhibit Other Academic Space Total ASF* Baity Lab 4, ,559 Hooker Research Center 2,035 1,079 39,356 9,614 4, ,843 1,227 63,149 Classrooms McGavran- Greenberg Hall 7,637 13,779 35,261 1,317 2,199 2,106 62,299 Miller Hall 317 3, ,598 Rosenau Hall 4,806 1,200 1,419 7,065 47,635 5,799 2,064 2,083 72,071 Offcampus/ Leased space** ,811 64, ,599 Totals 14,478 2,279 1,419 70, ,508 12,242 4,609 4,843 5, ,275 *Assignable square feet **Includes space for the North Carolina Institute for Public Health 84

92 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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 - - 3,035-3,035 BSL III ,241 Wet Labs 12,995 39,978 4,037 4,153 61,163 Dry Labs - - 2,619-2,619 Totals 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, 85

93 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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. 86

94 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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, page web site ( 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 87

95 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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 ( 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 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 88

96 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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 crossdiscipline collaboration. There are 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 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 Users may 89

97 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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 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 communitybased 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 90

98 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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 Institutional Expenditures per Student FTE Total Expenditures Increase $ 90,464,343 $ 96,284,975 $110,872,072 Enrollment FTE Increase Expenditures / 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 Research Expenditures / Core $ 234,729 $ 232,970 $ 282,034 Increase Faculty FTE Research Expenditures / Total $ 221,624 $ 220,563 $ 246,815 Increase Faculty FTE 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 91

99 Criterion 1.6 The School of Public Health: Resources 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. 92

100 Criterion 2.0 Instructional Programs Tom Fuldner, 2008 Clinical Experience Linda Kastleman, 2009 Distance Learning Tom Fuldner, 2008 Group Work

101

102 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.

103 Criterion 2.1 Instructional Programs: Master of Public Health and Other Degree Programs 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 ( The Undergraduate Bulletin provides the same information but also includes extended degree program and curricula descriptions ( 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. 94

104 Criterion 2.1 Instructional Programs: Master of Public Health and Other Degree Programs 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) 95

105 Criterion 2.1 Instructional Programs: Master of Public Health and Other Degree Programs Table 2.1.a. Instructional Matrix Degree/Specialization, continued Academic Professional Dual Degrees MPH/MRP, Health Behavior and Health Education, Regional X Planning MSPH/MBA, Health Policy and Management, Business X Administration MSPH/MSIS, Health Policy & Management, Information & Library X Sci MSPH/MSLS, Health Policy & Management, Information & Library X Sci 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 X Therapy) MHA/MBA, Health Policy and Management, Business X Administration 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 96

106 Criterion 2.1 Instructional Programs: Master of Public Health and Other Degree Programs 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 20 th century print world and the 21 st century digital world to assure that information provided about courses and policies is accurate, accessible, and easy to use This Criterion is met. 97

107 . Criterion 2 Instructional Programs 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.

108 Criterion 2.2 Instructional Programs: Program Length 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 ( 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 100

109 Criterion 2.2 Instructional Programs: Program Length 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 parttime 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. 101

110 Criterion 2.2 Instructional Programs: Program Length 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 This Criterion is met. 102

111 Criterion 2 Instructional Programs 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.

112 Criterion 2.3 Instructional Programs: Public Health Core Knowledge 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; ( 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; ( 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 ENVR 600 (Environmental -ENVR 430 Health Epidemiology Health) EPID 600 (Principles of Epidemiology) -EPID 710, 711 -PUBH 760 Health Policy & Management Social & Behavioral Science HPM 600 (Introduction to Health Policy and Management) HBHE 600 (Social & Behavioral Sciences in Public Health) -HPM 660, 564 or 754 (HPM majors only) -MCH 701 & 702 -PUBH 600 (PHLP majors only) -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) 104

113 Criterion 2.3 Instructional Programs: Public Health Core Knowledge 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 This Criterion is met. 105

114 Criterion 2 Instructional Programs 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.

115 Criterion 2.4 Instructional Programs: Practical Skills 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. 108

116 Criterion 2.4 Instructional Programs: Practical Skills Table 2.4.a. Professional Degree Program Practicum Experience Policies and Procedures for Practicum Experience Course Number Credits Biostatistics BSPH BIOS Written MPH BIOS 841, 842 3, Var* Written Report: Written/Oral/NA 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 Written Health Behavior and Health Education MPH HBHE 742, Both Health Policy and Management BSPH HPM Written MPH HPM Both MSPH, MHA HPM Both DrPH Format for practicum is under development Maternal and Child Health MPH MHCH 717, Written MSPH MHCH 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 Oral No students admitted during study years; program to be DrPH discontinued as of fall 2010 N/A N/A Public Health Leadership MPH PUBH 886; PHNU 783, 784, * Written *Number of credits depends on agreement between faculty and student; **Students complete a research practicum (NUTR 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. 109

117 Criterion 2.4 Instructional Programs: Practical Skills 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 110

118 Criterion 2.4 Instructional Programs: Practical Skills 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 ( 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 and 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 111

119 Criterion 2.4 Instructional Programs: Practical Skills 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. 112

120 Criterion 2.4 Instructional Programs: Practical Skills 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 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 113

121 Criterion 2.4 Instructional Programs: Practical Skills 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 This Criterion is met. 114

122 Criterion 2 Instructional Programs 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.

123 Criterion 2.5 Instructional Programs: Culminating Experience 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. 116

124 Criterion 2.5 Instructional Programs: Culminating Experience Table 2.5.a. Culminating Experience Professional Degree Programs Department Biostatistics Written Comprehensive 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 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 X 1 X MPH X X 2 X 2 X MSPH X X X X MHA X X X DrPH X X X X X 3 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 X 4 Public Health Leadership MPH X X X 1 Optional until , then required 2 Choice of master s paper or capstone course 3 Format for practicum is under development 4 Program to be discontinued effective fall

125 Criterion 2.5 Instructional Programs: Culminating Experience 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 This Criterion is met. 118

126 Criterion 2 Instructional Programs 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. f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

127 Criterion 2.6 Instructional Programs: Required Competencies 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. 120

128 Criterion 2.6 Instructional Programs: Required Competencies 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 , 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 121

129 Criterion 2.6 Instructional Programs: Required Competencies 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. 122

130 Criterion 2.6 Instructional Programs: Required Competencies 2.6.f. Assessment of Required Competencies Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. 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 123

131 Criterion 2 Instructional Programs 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. g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

132 Criterion 2.7 Instructional Programs: Assessment Procedures 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 competencydefined 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. 126

133 Criterion 2.7 Instructional Programs: Assessment Procedures (Starting in the 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* 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 73% MSEE 8 100% 7 100% 3 100% MSPH % 9 89% 7 86% PhD 6 67% 13 77% 9 56% EPID MPH 22 95% 16 81% % MSCR 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MSPH 6 100% 14 71% 5 100% DrPH 1 N/A 1 0 N/A 2 0 N/A 2 PhD 23 78% 21 81% 19 89% HBHE MPH % 43 98% % DrPH 2 100% 5 40% 1 100% PhD 5 60% 5 80% 8 75% HPM BSPH** 28 89% 34 88% 31 90% MHA** % % % MPH** 6 83% 8 88% % 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/A MCH MPH % 22 95% % MSPH 8 100% 7 100% % 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% % MS 2 100% 0 N/A 3 0 N/A 3 127

134 Criterion 2.7 Instructional Programs: Assessment Procedures Table 2.7.b.l. Graduation Rates* (continued) N Rate N Rate N Rate NUTR (cont) DrPH 1 100% 0 N/A 1 0 N/A 1 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/A SCHOOL BSPH 49 92% 55 90% 63 89% WIDE Master s % % % 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 1 Program began enrolling students in , so no students were eligible to graduate in No students began program 8 years before these years 3 No students began program 5 years before these years 4 Program 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, , and does not include those continuing their education. Table 2.7.b.2. Job Placement Rates* Degree ** Conferred/Specialty N 1 x 2 Rate 3 N 1 x 2 Rate 3 N 1 x 2 Rate 3 Biostatistics BSPH % % % MPH % 0 0 N/A % MS % % % DrPH % % % PhD % % % Environmental Sciences and Engineering BSPH % 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A MPH 0 0 N/A % 0 0 N/A MSPH % % % MS % % % MSEE % % % PhD % % % Epidemiology MPH % % % MSPH % % % MSCR 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A % DrPH N/A % 0 0 N/A PhD % % % Health Behavior and Health Education MPH % % % MSPH 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A PhD % % % 128

135 Criterion 2.7 Instructional Programs: Assessment Procedures Table 2.7.b.2. Job Placement Rates*, continued Degree ** Conferred/Specialty N 1 x 2 Rate 3 N 1 x 2 Rate 3 N 1 x 2 Rate 3 Health Policy and Management BSPH % % % MPH % % % MSPH % % % MHA % % % PhD % 0 0 N/A % Maternal and Child Health MPH % % % MSPH % % % DrPH 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A PhD % % % Nutrition BSPH % % MPH % % % MS % 0 0 N/A % DrPH 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A PhD % % % Public Health Leadership Program, Residential MPH % % % MS 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A Public Health Leadership Program, Distance MPH % % % MS 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A SPH Total % % % *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 ; ** Data collected beginning in December N/A: Not applicable 1 2 =total number of graduates reporting employment status via the survey or direct inquiry; = 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. 129

136 Criterion 2.7 Instructional Programs: Assessment Procedures 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 ( ). 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, Health Care D lvery Facility Private Practice Proprietary Further Educat n Non- Profit Non- Health Related Not Employed %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept BIOS ESE EPID HBHE HPM MCH NUTR PHLP %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept BIOS ESE EPID HBHE HPM MCH NUTR PHLP N 130

137 Criterion 2.7 Instructional Programs: Assessment Procedures Table 2.7.d. Destination of Graduates by Program Area, (continued) %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept %/dept BIOS ESE EPID HBHE HPM MCH NUTR PHLP Total contacts with graduates/total graduates from = 324/473 (68%); 317/459 (69%) in , and 298/484 (62%) in 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 1 Environmental Sciences and Engineering 2 Epidemiology 4 Health Behavior and Health Education 4 Health Policy and Management 3 Maternal and Child Health 3 Nutrition 1 Public Health Leadership Program 5 Total

138 Criterion 2.7 Instructional Programs: Assessment Procedures 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 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. 132

139 Criterion 2.7 Instructional Programs: Assessment Procedures Table 2.7.f. Employers Ratings of Graduates Disciplines* 3: On the Competency 5: Very effectively trained 4 whole, are average 2 1: Not very effectively trained Average (N/A excluded) N/A Biostatistics Environmental Health Sci Epidemiology Health Management Health Policy Social & Behavioral Sci Informatics: Management Informatics: Presentation Informatics: Design Diversity and Culture Leadership Public Health Biology Professionalism Program Planning Financial Literacy Systems Thinking * 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. 133

140 Criterion 2.7 Instructional Programs: Assessment Procedures 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 experienceperformance process. This Criterion is met. 134

141 Criterion 2 Instructional Programs 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. c. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

142 Criterion 2.8 Instructional Programs: Other Professional Degrees 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. 136

143 Criterion 2 Instructional Programs 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 disciplinebased 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.

144 Criterion 2.9 Instructional Programs: Academic Degrees 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 crossdisciplinary 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 138

145 Criterion 2.9 Instructional Programs: Academic Degrees 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 , 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 modules. The modules in ENVR 401 for the 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 (Empirical, Conceptual, and Theoretical Foundations of Public Health and Health Behavior/Health Education), first offered in fall The first module is 139

146 Criterion 2.9 Instructional Programs: Academic Degrees 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 ), 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 ). 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. 140

147 Criterion 2.9 Instructional Programs: Academic Degrees 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). 141

148 Criterion 2.9 Instructional Programs: Academic Degrees 2.9.d. Assessment of Academic Degrees Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. 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. 142

149 Criterion 2 Instructional Programs 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.

150 Criterion 2.10 Instructional Programs: Doctoral Degrees 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 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

151 Criterion 2.10 Instructional Programs: Doctoral Degrees 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 This Criterion is met. 145

152 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.

153 Criterion 2.11 Instructional Programs: Joint Degrees 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. 148

154 Criterion 2.11 Instructional Programs: Joint Degrees 2.11.b. Assessment of Joint Degrees Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. 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 This Criterion is met. 149

155 Criterion 2 Instructional Programs 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, onsite 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. c. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

156 Criterion 2.12 Instructional Programs: Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs 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 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 152

157 Criterion 2.12 Instructional Programs: Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs 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 21 st 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 21 st 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. 153

158 Criterion 2.12 Instructional Programs: Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs 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 154

159 Criterion 2.12 Instructional Programs: Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs 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 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 fourday 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 155

160 Criterion 2.12 Instructional Programs: Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs 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. 156

161 Criterion 2.12 Instructional Programs: Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs 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. Administrative and Student Support Services 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 capability, and conferencing and data storage capability accessible anywhere in the world though the Internet. Academic Rigor and Equivalence Monitoring 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 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, 157

162 Criterion 2.12 Instructional Programs: Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs 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 ( and 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 158

163 Criterion 2.12 Instructional Programs: Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs 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. 159

164 Criterion 2.12 Instructional Programs: Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs 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. Administrative and Student Support Services 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 faceto-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. Academic Rigor and Equivalence Monitoring 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, 160

165 Criterion 2.12 Instructional Programs: Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs 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): ; Jimbo, M., MPH Through the Internet, Family Medicine, 2002; 34 (10) ; 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): ) 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. 161

166 Criterion 2.12 Instructional Programs: Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs 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 peerreviewed 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 This Criterion is met. 162

167 Criterion 3.0 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge In the Field Student Poster Session Linda Kastleman, 2007 Lab Research In the Field 2009

168

169 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 peerreviewed 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.

170 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 , 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 ($103.3 million) through FY ($117.4 million), decreased somewhat during FY ($103.8 million) but then peaked during FY 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 , 384 in FY , 370 in FY , 380 in FY , and 400 in FY ). For , 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 and FY , the federal government provided 42% of research funding. The National Institutes of Health, in particular, awarded 102 grants to school faculty in FY (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 164

171 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research total dollars awarded to public schools of public health and eighth in total dollars to all schools of public health ( rankings available currently through FY ). Several other federal agencies funded faculty research in FY and FY (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.). $160.0 Dollars in Millions $120.0 $80.0 $40.0 $103.3 $114.5 $117.4 $103.8 $150.2 $0.0 FY FY FY FY FY Figure 3.1.a 1.Total Dollars of Grants and Contracts by Principal Investigators in the Gillings School of Global Public Health 23.40% Federal Government 6.30% 7.40% 42.10% Foundations Industry NC State Government Other State Government Other Non Profit Organizations 12.40% 8.40% 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 During FY , 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 Faculty also carried out funded research in all five areas of excellence. School research projects with the 165

172 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 , 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). 166

173 Criterion 3.1 Table 3.1.a.1. Examples of Research in the Five Areas of Excellence Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research Study Title PI/Department Funder Description Cancer Deciding on HPV Immunization Noel Brewer, HBHE CDC Study the psychology of medical decision making. in North Carolina 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 Reducing Colorectal Cancer Related Deaths in North Carolina Environmental Exposure and Effect of Hazardous Chemicals Anastasia Ivanova, BIOS NCI, NIH Specializes in developing adaptive statistical designs for clinical trials, including oncology trials. Cathy Melvin, MCH NCI, NIH Implement two evidence-based approaches that focus on improving rates of colorectal cancer screening among underinsured and uninsured individuals. Ivan Rusyn, ESE NIEHS Explores the toxicogenetic approach to studies of trichloroethyleneinduced liver and kidney toxicity and carcinogenesis. Genomics of Normal Breast Tissue and Breast Cancer Microenvironment: Relevance for Breast Cancer Prevention Environment/Water Quality Innovative Tool to Measure Indoor Air Pollution Improving Disinfection Methods for Drinking Water Better Detection of Unsafe Water Quality for United States Beaches Technologies to Improve the Quality of Drinking Water Biostatistics in Environmental Health Research 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. David Leith, ESE NIOSH, NIH Develop a better and less expensive method to measure the level of airborne particles. Philip Singer, ESE, Drinking EPA; WRRI, Improve quality of drinking water. Water Research Center NCSU 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. Howard Weinberg ESE & Water Resources Develop analytic tools and techniques for evaluating the chemical Jeff Wagner ESE PhD alum Research Institute quality of drinking water. (WRRI), NCSU Haibo Zhou, BIOS NIEHS Develops unique biostatistical methods to evaluate both long-term and transient effects of environmental toxins on human fertility. 167

174 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 Advancing the Science of HIV Testing in North Carolina and Beyond Empowering Malawians to Fight Infectious Disease Using Best Public Health Practices International Dietary Assessment from the Arctic to the Amazon Description: Improving the Reproductive Health of the Urban Poor in Sub- Saharan Africa and South Asia The Impact of AIDS Treatment on the Economic Outcomes in Rural Kenya Health Disparities North Carolina Tribal Health Assessment Health Disparities in Mental Health Care Eliminating Disparities in Interconceptional Care 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. Michael Hudgens BIOS NIAID, NIH Develop methods to increase the efficiency of detecting individuals recently infected with HIV. Steve Meshnick, EPID Sangita Sharma, NUTR Ilene Speizer, MCH Fogarty International Center American Diabetes Assoc., USDA, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 168 Study tropical and infectious diseases in developing countries, including Malawi. 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. 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. 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. Carolyn Crump, HBHE and Robert Letourneau, HBHE Michael Foster, MCH Vijaya Hogan, MCH NC Office of Minority Health & Health Disparities, NCDHHS Macro International National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Assesses the extent to which North Carolina tribes and tribal organizations have been addressing, or would like to address, their health needs and priorities. Studies health disparities, including racial differences in health care and mental health. 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.

175 Criterion 3.1 Table 3.1.a.1 Examples of Research in the Five Areas of Excellence, continued Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research Study Title PI/Department Funder Description Health Disparities, continued Access to Health Care for Children Health Disparities Related to Cancer Factors Affecting Health Services Access for Children in Child Welfare Obesity Managing Overweight/Obesity for Veterans Everywhere (MOVE!) 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. Jessie Satia, NUTR, EPID NCI; American Cancer Society; US Army Medical Research Studies disparities in cancer among African-American men. 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. 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 The Importance of Gestational Weight Gain for Maternal and Child Health Outcomes Online Weight Loss Programs Nutrition and Physical Activity Self-Assessment for Child Care Laura Linnan, HBHE CDC; NHLBI Works collaboratively with community partners to promote healthy lifestyles and combat obesity. Anna Maria Seiga-Riz,, NUTR/EPID Deborah Tate HBHE, Elizabeth Lyons PhD student National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Robert Wood Johnson Studies the associations of weight gain during pregnancy on adverse outcomes including pre-term birth, low birth weight, cesarean delivery and initiation of breastfeeding. Studies energy expenditure in a variety of video games, and video game characteristics that relate to physical activity. Foundation 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. 169

176 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research Table 3.1.a.2. Examples of Research by Assistant Professors Study Title PI/Department Funder Description Claire USAID Barrington, HBHE Social Network Influences on Sexual Behavior and HIV in the Dominican Republic Ensuring HPV Vaccine Coverage among Rural and African American Female Adolescents Promoting Partnerships to Prevent Workplace Violence Monitoring Social Change: Health, Reproduction, Aging Genomics and Systems Biology Approaches: Understanding the Biological Impacts of Environmental Exposures and Predicting Inter- Individual Susceptibilities Psychosocial Determinants of African-American Men's Health Noel Brewer HBHE, Jennifer Smith, EPID Carri Casteel EPID, UNC Injury Prevention Research Center Shufa Du, NUTR Rebecca Fry, ESE Wizdom Powell Hammond, HBHE Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) CDC; NIOSH National Institute for Child Health and Human Development Chulabhorn Research Institute, Thailand National Cancer Institute with the Carolina Community Network (CCN) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Investigates the psychosocial contribution of traditional male role norms to prostate cancer screening behavior and survivorship among African-American men in North Carolina. 170

177 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research Table 3.1.a.2. Examples of Research by Assistant Professors, continued Study Title PI/Department Funder Description Kristen University of Hassmiller Michigan Tobacco Lich, HPM Research Network Tailoring Public Health Solutions through Systems Modeling Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement & Leadership Through Alliances (NC DELTA) Biostatistical Investigation of Gene Expression Beth Moracco, HBHE Wei Sun, BIOS Table 3.1.a.3. Gillings Innovation Labs Centers for Disease Control UNC-CH University Cancer Research Fund 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. 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. Applies advanced statistical methods to the genetic basis of complex traits 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 Ralph Baric EPID Infants and Children A Study of the Public Health Impact of Moving toward a Local, Sustainable Food System A Laboratory for Molecular Surveillance of Tropical Disease to do Population-Based Measurement Mapping; An Analytical Laboratory for Development of Biomarkers of Environmental Exposures to Arsenic 2 nd round An Integrated System for Energy Production and Nitrogen Removal from Swine Waste Population-Based Evaluation of Drug Benefits and Harms in Older U.S. Adults Statistical Genomics FY st round Teaching and Training in Public Health for the 21st Century Alice Ammerman NUTR Steven Meshnick EPID Miroslav Styblo EPID Michael Aitken ESE Til Stürmer, EPID Fred Wright & Danyu Lin BIOS William Zelman, HPM 171

178 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 , 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 , 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 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), (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 cuttingedge 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. 172

179 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research Other centers that collaborate with the school include: Carolina Population Center Highway Safety Research Center Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Injury Prevention Research Center Research Center for AIDS Research Institute on Aging NSF Science and Technology Center Center for Health Promotion and Disease (comprising Brown, Caltech, Cornell, Prevention 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 toptiered 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 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: 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 173

180 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 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 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 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 Technology Transfer Policies The Office of Technology Development licenses innovations developed by faculty, students, and staff. Services include evaluating, patenting, licensing, and assisting 174

181 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research faculty in obtaining research support from corporate sponsors. See 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 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. 175

182 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 ( 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 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 176

183 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 , 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 (( 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. 177

184 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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

185 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine: How to Potentiate Vaccination and Acceptance among Parents of Boys and Young Men Use of novel neuroprotective peptides to treat cerebral malaria Eliminating Disparities in Delivery of Women's Preventive Health Care Lisa Casanova Tamera Coyne-Beasley Carla Hand Vijaya Hogan ESE HBHE EPID MCH Identifying methylated CpG sites associated with prenatal Rebecca Fry ESE metal exposure Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine: How to Potentiate Tamara Coyne-Beasley HBHE Vaccination and Acceptance Among Young Men 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 Brain Function and Stress Reactivity in Trauma-Exposed Young Adults Pilot Study of a Cell-Phone System to Improve Health of Youth with Diabetes Sherri Green Jonathan Kotch Elizabeth Mayer-Davis MCH MCH 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.). 179

186 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 communitybased 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 Trabajando Juntos: Working for Health Disparity Reduction among Latinos The Black Church and CVD Are We Our Brother's Keeper? Implementing Systemic Interventions to Close the Discovery- Delivery Gap Promoting Nutrition and Physical Activity in Child Care Centers Laura Linnan HBHE Eugenia Eng HBHE Eugenia Eng HBHE Bryan Weiner HPM Jonathan Kotch MCH National Cancer Institute Wake Forest University School of Medicine; NIMH, NIH National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute National Cancer Institute Maternal and Child Health Bureau Tests barbershop-based intervention strategies that encourage Black men to call CANCER for colorectal and prostate cancer information. 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 NC Community-Based Public Health Consortium, a joint initiative of United Voices of Efland-Cheeks (a communitybased 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 helpseeking to manage and control CVD in NC Examines the implementation, impact, sustainability, and business case of NCI s Community Clinical Oncology Program 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. 180

187 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 Intensive Behavioral Weight Management in Public Health Settings John Graham North Carolina Institute for Public Health Carmen Samuel-Hodge, NUTR & Center for Health Promotion & Disease Prevention 3.1.c. Current Research Activities NC Health & Wellness Trust Commission CDC Pursues a regionally-based public health initiative that addresses the problem of youth tobacco prevention and cessation in twelve counties. 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. 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 to , 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 to 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 181

188 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 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 Target $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 tenuretrack 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: To be determined; N/A: Not available TBD N/A N/A N/A 182

189 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 , 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 Examples from FY and 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 183

190 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 , 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, , 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 Conferences 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: 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); 184

191 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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: 185

192 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 186

193 Criterion 3.1 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Research 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 This Criterion is met. 187

194 Criterion 3 Creation, Application and 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.

195 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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 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 ( 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 190

196 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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 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 ( 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 ( available in the Resource File [pp ]). 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 ( 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. 191

197 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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 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). 192

198 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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 to FY Type of Client Organization FY FY FY # # # # Hours* Activities Hours* Activities # Activities # Hours* Business/Commercial , Community/Consumer/ 32 1, ,032 Advocacy/Philanthropic Educational/Research 142 2, , ,408 Governmental/Municipal 174 3, , ,034 Hospital/Medical Professional 117 1, , ,650 Total , , ,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. 193

199 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service Table 3.2.b.2. Schoolwide Summary of Service Activities, by Geographic Scope of Client Organization, FY to FY Scope of Client Organization FY FY FY # # # # Hours* Activities Hours* Activities # Activities # Hours* International 127 3, , ,678 National 133 3, , ,303 Multi-state Single State (incl. NC) 71 1, , ,309 Multi-county Single County Local Community Total , , ,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 to FY Nature of Service Activity FY FY FY # # # # Hours* Activities Hours* Activities # Activities # Hours* Advocacy/Testimony Consultation 73 2, , Educational Presentation 46 1, , ,033 Grant Proposal Review Manuscript Review/Editing , ,063 Organization Leadership 49 1, , Policy/Program Planning, 140 2, , ,020 Review or Evaluation Research Presentation Evaluation or Review of Peer Performance Other , Total , , ,765 * Rounded to nearest whole number 194

200 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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 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 Rapid Needs Assessment for Women of Reproductive Age (ASPH) After Disaster Association of State and Territorial Management Academy for Public Health Health Officers (ASTHO) Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) National Public Health Leadership Institute; Caribbean Health Leadership Institute Centers for Disease Control and National Public Health Leadership Institute; NC Center for Prevention (CDC) 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 195

201 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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 Southeast Public Health Training Center Administration National Association of County and City Evaluating Quality Improvement Training Programs initiative Health Officials (NACCHO) National Network of Public Health Multi-state Learning Collaborative I, II, III Institutes (NNPHI) NC Area Health Education Centers NC Public Health Academy; Grantwriting Workshops; (AHEC) Strategic Planning Workshops; other training events for practitioners NC State University College of NC Public Health Preparedness Systems Research Center Engineering North Carolina Public Health Association Grant writing workshop for public health workers Piedmont Triad Partnership Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) The Duke Endowment UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School UNC School of Journalism UNC School of Medicine University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) Public Health Leadership Institute 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 Public Health Academy Management Academy for Public Health Public Health Grand Rounds; NC Public Health Collaboratives initiative NC Public Health Preparedness Systems Research Center NC Public Health Preparedness Systems Research Center; Practice-Based Research Network 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 Development and implementation of a program to strengthen field Health (ASPH) epidemiology practice in Central America Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Leadership Program; consulting and technical Health Officers (ASTHO) 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 Avian Influenza training Epidemiologists (CSTE) 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 196

202 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service Table 3.2.b.5. Examples of Major NCIPH Clients, FY 2007 to 2009 (alphabetically by partner), continued Client National Association of City and County Health Officers (NACCHO) NC county and district health departments NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA) NC Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) NC Division of Environmental Health NC Division of Public Health (several constituent units) NC Health and Wellness Trust Fund NC Local Public Health Department Accreditation Program NC Office of Healthy Carolinians (and local affiliates) NC Public Health Incubator Collaborative Initiative Novant Health Oak Ridge Associated Universities Randolph Hospital UNC Gillings School of Public Health UNC School of Medicine NCIPH Statewide Initiatives Topic of Contract or Service Agreement Training for Advanced Practice Centers 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 Annual One Medicine Conference Administration of NC Local Health Department Accreditation Program (see below); administration of NC Public Health Incubators Collaboratives initiative (see below) Numerous workforce training programs for environmental health specialists and other public health workers; Lead Poisoning Prevention Social Marketing initiative, 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 Fit Community Initiative Research support services; program management and coordination Training for Healthy Carolinians coalition members; Watauga County Healthy Carolinians organizational assessment; technical assistance for community health assessment/environmental assessment Program management; consultation and technical assistance for strategic planning, program development and resource development; grant writing Customized training in leadership and management ORAL Radiation Training Technical assistance for childhood obesity program development Program evaluation Program evaluation 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 ( 197

203 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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: 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 ( ALBD is fully described at 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 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 198

204 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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 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 Kids SM (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 199

205 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service parents in the 36 North Carolina counties where the program was being implemented. The twoyear 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 200

206 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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-andpencil 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 ). 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 201

207 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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

208 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service Table 3.2.c. Outcome Measures for Service Outcome Measure and Metric Service Objective #1: Maintain or increase the overall service outreach effort of faculty and staff, with a focus on reducing health threats and problems Target Metric: Number of service activities reported 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 N = 100 % = (17%) 37 (18%) 38 (18%) Metric: Number and percentage of faculty who provide information about service outreach efforts 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) 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 Maintain State of Practice Committees; maintain current diversity of service agreement partners despite difficult economic climate Minimize reductions in CE programs and enrollments relative to budget cuts and training contract reductions and cancellations See Criterion 3.2.c. text 6,800 24% 3, 969 See Criterion 3.2.c. text 8,277 27% 4,686 See Criterion 3.2.c. text 6,703 23% 3,

209 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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 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 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 204

210 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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 : 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 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 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 , a HBHE MPH student shared a Schweitzer Fellowship to design and 205

211 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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 , 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-ofsemester 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 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 twothirds 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. 206

212 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 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 Epidemiology Health Behavior/Health Education Health Policy and Management Maternal and Child Health Nutrition Public Health Leadership 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 May 2008* May 2009** Type of Recipient Organization # # University Student Organization University Department/Institute/Center University Hospital/Medical/Health Care Organization Non-University Educational or Academic Entity Non-University Hospital/Medical/Health Care Organization 9 20 Non-University Community-Based Organization Government Agency (at any level) 8 12 Religious or Faith-based Entity Other 8 9 * Total responses = 186; response rate = 14%; ** Total responses = 245; response rate = 18% 207

213 Criterion 3.2 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Service 3.2.e. Assessment of Service Required Documentation: Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met. 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. This Criterion is met. 208

214 Criterion 3 Creation, Application and 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. e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

215 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development 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 In the three-year period beginning with FY and ending in FY , 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. 210

216 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development 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 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. 211

217 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development 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 ( 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 ( 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 212

218 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development 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 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 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 . The certificate is designed to be completed in 12 months. See program description at 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 Table 3.3.b.1. shows enrollment figures for the four formal certificate programs over the past three fiscal years. 213

219 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development Table 3.3.b.1. Summary of Enrollment in Formal Certificate Programs Certificate Program Number of Participants FY FY FY Community Preparedness/Disaster Management Core Public Health Concepts Field Epidemiology Occupational Health Nursing N/A 4 8 Public Health Leadership N/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 receiptsupported. 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 ( 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) ( has been a joint project of the NCIPH and the university s Kenan-Flagler Business School since 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 214

220 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development 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 seniorlevel public health practitioners nationwide ( 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 ( 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 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

221 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development Table 3.3.b.2. Graduates of Leadership and Management Programs for Senior Executives Leadership/Management Program Number of Graduates FY FY FY Southeast Public Health Leadership Institute 39 N/A 30 Management Academy for Public Health National Public Health Leadership Institute 40* Emerging Leaders in Public Health (ELPH) 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 ( 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 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 216

222 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development 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 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 welltrained 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, 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 ( 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 selfassessment 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 ( The project has received 217

223 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development 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 ( 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. 218

224 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development 3.3.c. Continuing Education Participation ( ) 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 , 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 ) Enrollment in OCE programs varies from year to year as needs, demands, and resources for workforce development change. For instance, FY 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 Total Enrollment Organization Type FY FY FY Business/Commercial Community/Consumer/Advocacy/Philanthropic Educational/Research/AHEC 865 1,336 1,023 Government/Municipal Agency (other than LHD)* 1,005 1, Hospital/Medical Practice/Nursing Home Local Health Department (LHD) 3,969 4,686 3,992 Managed Care/HMO Professional Association/Organization/Society Other 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. 219

225 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development Table 3.3.c.2. Frequency of Annual Participation in Continuing Education Programs Frequency of Annual Participation Number of Participants FY FY FY course 3,722 4,312 3,428 2 courses courses courses courses or more courses 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 OCE regularly joins with the nine regional AHEC offices to plan, coordinate, and cosponsor 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 220

226 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development 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. 221

227 Criterion 3.3 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge: Workforce Development 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. 222

228 Criterion 4.0 Faculty, Staff and Students Faculty Tom Fuldner, 2008 IIS Staff Tom Fuldner, 2008 Small Group Meeting with Faculty Will Owens, 2008 Student Group Meeting Chirag Rajpuria and Paige Anderson, 2008