Preparing Your Self-Study: 2011 Criteria

1. Preparing Your Self-Study:2011 Criteria Washington Marriott Hotel August 4-5, 2011

2. Planning for writing the self-study How long does it take? • Experience suggests about 18 months to 2 years • You will use a set of established criteria, developed by peer academics and practitioners, and approved by USDE, to organize this examination • Think about what data/info you will need • What will your outcome measures be? • Make a checklist by criterion • Who has the data? Often spread across university, esp. for first-timers • Strategy/leadership • Who will do the work?

3. Diving in: writing the self-study (1 of 2) • Documentation request: a piece of information, specifically requested in the criteria document, that provides evidence/information about your overall compliance with the criterion • List and answer ALL documentation requests: “NA” is fine or “see Criterion x.x” is fine. Don’t skip any.

4. Diving in: writing the self-study (2 of 2) • READ each documentation request and answer it directly • If the request asks you to LIST, then you should list… not all answers require narrative • If requested info doesn’t quite fit your mold or fully capture you, use narrative to clearly explain why and then describe how your setting operates

5. Workgroup/committee – most common approach Strengths • Easier workload on individuals – (faculty and staff make up majority of workgroup) • Inclusive of array of opinions by nature (other constituents have strong roles) • Opportunity for individual responsibility and group participation: something to react to and edit; can have sub-committees, divide work by criteria Weaknesses • Time spent in meetings, group process • Potential lack of individually-vested responsibility • Editing role becomes very important!

6. Single, dedicated individual approach Strengths • Single authority (consultant, faculty on release time, Emeritus faculty) • Ease of organization • Single point of contact • Consistency and follow-through Weaknesses • Individual often not steeped in organizational culture • May not get all nuances if not involved in daily activities • Harder to get buy-in/ investment from faculty and other constituents: “it’s the consultant’s job” • Site visitors can tell when a single person wrote the document • Hard to make this approach work without modification

7. The best approach? Combine the strengths! • Single individual with authority to “crack the whip” • Single, final editorial eye • Broad involvement and distributed workload

8. Best practices • Include constituents in working groups • mix of faculty, staff, students, university personnel, community members • not just “read this and comment” but active role in drafting/ shaping • Involve the dissenters • give them a specific task • Post on intranet or internet • Provide specific guidance or propose questions to readers/editors • Multiple drafts are a MUST

9. Document format (1 of 2) Think like a site visitor: How easy is the document to read? • Font type, size & paragraph spacing is up to you • 10 pt or 12 pt is best • appendix materials, templates, charts may use smaller/ different font • single-spaced may be hard to read • Double-side the document and appendices • Proofread for spelling, grammar, typographical errors

10. Document format (2 of 2) Make it user friendly! • Start each criterion (1.1, 1.2, etc.) on a new page • Separate all criteria (1.1, 1.2, etc.) and each appendix entry with a tab • Provide a Table of Contents for the appendices • Binding is your choice, but spiral binding wins the current popularity contest

11. Technical matters • Must send each site visitor & CEPH office a CD or USB copy of the final self-study • CD or USB must contain org charts in a useable format so that CEPH can insert them in the final site visit team’s report • Usable = Word or closely compatible format • Usable = B&W, no color, no shading • May mean including an extra copy of the org chart on the CD or USB if charts are embedded in the document as PDFs • Test the org charts you send—can you cut and paste them easily into a Word document?

12. Where do templates/tables go? • Completed data templates should generally be in the body, not the appendix • Very long lists (eg, faculty research) can go in appendix, but should be referenced in the text

13. Appendix possibilities • Full list of student practicum sites • Student handbook • Practicum & culminating handbooks/guidelines/evaluation forms • Strategic plan: program, college and/or university • SPH/PHP brochure or recruitment handout • Survey instruments: exit, alum, employer • Curricular requirements, recommended schedule or advising worksheet • Policy statements referenced in body that are 10 pages or less (include longer documents in the on-site resource file)

14. How strict is the page limit? 150 pages is the goal! • Think of the spirit of the recommendation. Where can you be more succinct? • Good documentation and well-prepared visitors are more important than counting pages • Many schools and programs have prepared strong documents under 150 pages. It can be done! • DO NOT shrink font to meet the limit • DO NOT leave out important information to meet the limit

15. Guiding stylistic principles • CLARITY • BREVITY • SPECIFICITY • ACTIVE VOICE

16. Other “formal” considerations • Proofread! (already mentioned, but worth saying again) • Very important: verify consistency across criteria • eg, # of faculty used to calculate SFR in Criterion 1.7 should be the same as faculty listed in Template 4.1.1 & 4.1.2, and same as names in research & service lists (Criteria 3.1 & 3.2) • Cross-check all references to appendices and resource files • Check your math in tables and data (eg, #s of students and faculty) • Remove repetition! Can reference other sections, but document should be succinct, clear and flowing

17. 1.1: Mission • Straightforward, easy-to-follow set of documentation requests: the challenge to this one is in the CONTENT • Spend time on your mission, goals and objectives. This time spent WILL pay off • MeasurableObjectives: Be sure that reviewers can clearly see the timeline and specific target for each objective (Criterion 1.1.c) • Objectives written to say “who does how much of what by when” • More general objectives with target outcomes, dates, responsible parties listed underneath (or in table format)

18. 1.2: Evaluation & Planning • Describe how the process works in succinct narrative • “Big picture” • Feedback loop • Examples help! • Outcome measures: table format • Actual data for measurable objectives that were defined in Criterion 1.1 • Sufficient narrative on self-study process to show strong process, broad involvement

19. 1.3: Institutional Environment • Brief history of institution, salient facts: #/names of grad/undergrad colleges, etc. Give reviewers a sense of the overall institution • Org charts: • More than one may be needed • Reporting lines should be clear • Description of university processes: this is about lines and decision-making authority/responsibility, NOT about operational details • Don’t detail budgetary operations here; just explain how the money flows and who has the authority to make decisions

20. 1.4: Organization and Administration • All accrediting bodies for institution as a whole (not just health related) • CLARITY in org charts: who reports to whom? Where are the faculty? • Description of roles and responsibilities: this should elucidate—no pro forma! • Grievance policy: summarize, make entire policy available in appendix or resource file • Number of grievances presented should be auditable on site by site visit team, if needed

21. 1.5: Governance • Request for composition of committees AND current membership • Composition = the formula for populating the committee (eg, 2 faculty from each concentration, appointed by the dean for 3-year terms) • Membership = who is serving now • Both must be provided • Students should also be included in the committees’ composition/membership • In addition, provide sufficient detail on student-run groups that operate in addition to the “traditional” committees

22. 1.6: Fiscal Resources • Must have adequate financial resources to fulfill MGO • Readers should be able to move between the budget description and budget table and understand what’s in each line and how it’s decided • Answer all elements of Criterion 1.6.a and others that are unique to your setting, if applicable • Eliminate blank lines in the template • Use footnotes to explain confusing lines in the template • Common issue: Is overall budget sufficiently stable?

23. 1.7: Faculty and Other Resources (1 of 2) • Must have adequate personnel and other resources to fulfill MGO • Required minimum faculty levels: these faculty must be trained and experienced in public health • Common issues: • Are there enough faculty to provide instruction, advisement, research supervision, etc.? • Are the facilities/space adequate? • Follow the instructions carefully for Criteria 1.7.a and 1.7.b. These responses need to be clear • Be succinct in other resource discussions: library, computing, etc. Think about what the team needs to know to verify compliance

24. 1.7: Faculty and Other Resources (2 of 2)

25. 1.8: Diversity • Must demonstrate commitment to diversity and cultural competence, within context of institution’s mission • Some ways to accomplish these aims: • Include diversity and cultural competence considerations in curriculum • Recruit/retain diverse faculty, staff and students • Follow policies that are free of harassment/discrimination • Demonstrate in the types of research, service and workforce development activities conducted • Refer to Diversity FAQ found with Template 1.8.1

26. 2.1: MPH Degree • Simple one: all we need is the matrix (Template 2.1.1) and a reference to your bulletin, catalog, handbook or other info that lays out requirements/curricula • Every line in Template 2.1.1 represents a concentration or track. Throughout the self-study, site visitors will refer to this matrix to ensure that each line represented is documented in terms of, eg, # of students, SFR, common competencies, etc.

27. 2.2: Program Length • Answer honestly: if you had degree programs during the self-study period that did not require 42 semester credits, count and include all of those graduates in your response to Criterion 2.2.c

28. 2.3: Public Health Core Knowledge • ID the classes that cover the five core areas in Template 2.3.1 • Must cover all options for covering the core, for all professional degrees • Be clear about any policies regarding waiver of core courses. Records should be available on-site for audit by site visitors • Present in table form • Course syllabi: not needed in body – include in on-site resource file

29. 2.4: Practical Skills • Be succinct but provide enough information to explain the practicum experience from selection to evaluation • Agencies and preceptors for past 2 years should be comprehensively listed, in table format • Clearly indicate which professional degrees are covered by each set of policies and procedures • All PH professional degrees must be addressed (eg, DrPH)

30. 2.5: Culminating Experience • Describe how the process works, milestones, timing and responsible parties • Accurately characterize WHAT students do & produce. Especially important when culminating experience is related to practicum • Clearly describe how it is evaluated (using what standards/by whom?) • All PH professional degrees must be addressed (eg, DrPH)

31. 2.6: Competencies • List for MPH/DrPH as a whole in Criterion 2.6.a • List for each concentration in Criterion 2.6.b. This includes BS, PhD and MS concentrations. • Matrix linking learning experiences and competencies identified in 2.6.a and 2.6.b

32. 2.7: Assessment Procedures (1 of 2) • Describe methods of evaluating “student progress in achieving the expected competencies” - do not focus on how you monitor student progress through your curriculum • Focus on specific ways you determine whether students have gained competency, esp. through practicum and culminating • How are those evaluated? Do the evaluations of those components reference competencies? • Other methods: competency check-off sheets, advisor/advisee meetings that involve competency discussions, written comprehensive exams, etc.

33. 2.7: Assessment Procedures (2 of 2) • Graduation & job placement rates: VERY IMPORTANT • MUST present an easy-to-follow grad rate – use Template 2.7.1 • For new SPH/PHP, may not have 3 years of graduation data • 2.7.d: certification of professional competence. This is NA for most degree programs - possible exceptions include a health education MPH that sends students to the CHES or industrial hygiene in SPH

34. SPH only: Other Professional Degrees/Other Bachelors Degrees (2.8 and 2.10) • MHA, communication disorders, physical therapy, exercise science, etc. • These were already/also listed in Template 2.1.1 • Brief description (list courses and highlight relevant elements) of how students “acquire a public health orientation” • Equivalent to at least 3 semester-credit hours

35. Bachelors Degrees in Public Health (2.8 PHP and 2.9 SPH) • At least 12 semester-credit hours of coursework that address the 5 core areas • One course on epidemiology, specifically • Required coursework (core and public health electives) and capstone experience must be taught/supervised by faculty documented in Criteria 4.1.a and 4.1.b • Specific support and resources for baccalaureate degree programs

36. Academic Degrees (2.9 PHP and 2.11 SPH) • These were already/also listed in Template 2.1.1 • The degree name (eg, MS) doesn’t automatically make it academic! • Analysis is based on competencies, curriculum, intended path for graduates • Brief description (list courses and highlight relevant elements) of how students “acquire a public health orientation” • At least 3 semester-credit hours covering breadth of public health • Equivalent to at least 3 semester-credit hours covering epidemiology

37. Doctoral Degrees(2.10 PHP and 2.12 SPH) • Easy to follow documentation requests • Especially important to provide enough info to allow site visitors to evaluate the curricula • See TA paper on doctoral degrees for more info

38. Doctoral Degrees (2.12 SPH ONLY) • For SPH only: • Must offer doctoral degrees in or related to at least 3 of 5 core public health knowledge areas • For initial accreditation, one doctoral degree must have graduated at least one student; two others must be fully functional with at least one student enrolled in each

39. Joint Degrees: (2.11 PHP and 2.13 SPH) • Breadth of all public health knowledge in all joint degree options (eg, MD/MPH, MBA/MPH, MSW/MPH) • Equivalency to separate MPH degree • Looking for rational explanation of credit sharing

40. Distance Education/Executive Degree Programs (2.12 PHP and 2.14 SPH) • These degrees will have also been addressed in other criteria (eg, total credits, core coverage, practicum, culminating, etc.) • See TA Paper on Distance Education for more information • Detailed response: • thorough description of program, its faculty, its students • model or methods used • rationale for offering this degree • administrative/student supports • evaluation of academic rigor • monitoring equivalence/comparability to other offerings • evaluation of educational outcomes • evaluation of format/methodologies

41. 3.1: Research • Policies, procedures and practices: broad ranging • What to include in Template 3.1.1? • Separate out research grants from service/workforce development EVEN if your institution thinks it’s all the same • Eg, faculty work with local HD to design a smoking cessation program = service; faculty evaluate that smoking cessation program = research • What research counts when faculty have multiple university responsibilities? No firm formula • Does the research inform, provide examples for PH classes taught? • Is there actual or potential PH student involvement in the research?

42. 3.2: Service • CEPH may define service differently from you/your university • Service = application of knowledge and expertise to community or professional settings with knowledge not being general and no new research being generated (eg, volunteerism at a food bank where person works to set up system of volunteering (ie, not carrying the food)) • Service ≠ university-based committee work (list committee work in Criterion 1.5) • Service = projects that fit with mission, goals & objectives • Service ≠ compilation of individual faculty efforts • Template is optional

43. 3.3: Workforce Development • Description in Criterion 3.3.b should provide evidence of SPH- or PHP-based policies, practices etc. for workforce development • Needs assessment explanation is key • Opportunities for individuals who work in public health to maintain and advance their knowledge of public health without pursuing an MPH or other advanced degree • This is NOT simply a list of the presentations and CME lectures that each faculty member has given, but a programmatic, public health mission-driven approach • List will provide evidence of what the policies and practices produced • Providing attendee numbers for programs is important

44. 4.1: Faculty Qualifications • Complete all columns of Template 4.1.1 • This table is critical to evaluating faculty, so the easier it is to use, the happier readers will be • Help site visitors evaluate the “blend” of your faculty: specific training, experience, # with degrees in public health, etc.

45. 4.2: Faculty Policies & Procedures • Include descriptions of mentoring; reference incentive or intramural grant programs • Description of instructional support available and if it’s used • Make description of faculty evaluation process simple and clear • indicate regularity • levels through which it progresses • what it is tied to (eg, annual merit increases)

46. 4.3: Student Recruitment & Admissions • Be detailed without being overwhelming • Templates/quantitative info are very important here • In Template 4.3.1, readers are looking for the flow from application to enrollment • In Template 4.3.2, readers are looking for the viability of degree programs: what are the level totals of enrolled students from year to year?

47. 4.4: Advising & Career Counseling • Be honest, quantitative & thoughtful in presenting student satisfaction with advisement • CEPH considers career counseling to be important, even if your student body is already working

48. Self-assessments in each criterion • Be analytical! • Answer with one of four possible findings • Met, Met with Commentary, Partially Met, Not Met (see definitions in CEPH’s procedures manual) • There’s always room for improvement: finding yourself “met” on all criteria generally evidences a lack of analytical thought and may be cited as a weakness by site visitors • Strengths, weaknesses and plans should be included in the response • Don’t present new information: just argue for a finding based on the info already presented

49. Don’t reinvent the wheel • Per CEPH procedures, all final self-studies are public documents, available to anyone - all accredited SPH/PHP must post information on website about how to request a copy of the self-study • Some institutions will e-mail you the file upon request, others keep self-study posted on their website • Ask an institution that’s been through the process recently • Ask an institution that’s “like” you • Let CEPH know if you have problems

50. Important tips • Don’t copy your last self-study • Don’t hide problems by not answering the documentation requests • Do ask CEPH staff for help when you’re stuck, particularly after receiving preliminary reviewer comments • Do consider all comments from self-study preliminary reviewers and address them as appropriate • Don’t write a letter explaining why you feel that certain preliminary reviewer comments weren’t correct or applicable