July 8, 2005 Guy S. Parcel, PhD Dean, School of Public Health at Houston University of Texas P.O. Box 20186 Houston, Texas 77225 Dear Dean Parcel: On behalf of the Council on Education for Public Health, I am pleased to advise you that the CEPH Board of Councilors acted at its June 9 to 11, 2005, meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, to accredit the University of Texas School of Public Health at Houston. The Councilors conferred accreditation for a five-year term, extending to July 1, 2010 with an option to extend the term by two years based on an interim report. We are enclosing a copy of the Council’s final accreditation report. This is identical to the team’s report that you received prior to our meeting, except that the judgment for Criterion V.A. related to instructional programs was changed from “partially met” to “met” and the judgment about Criterion V.C. related to learning objectives was changed from “partially met” to “met with commentary.” Both of these changes were made in response to the school’s development of specialty tracks in epidemiology and biostatistics and the subsequent development of programmatic learning objectives for each of those tracks. Language relative to each of the criteria was modified in the body of the report to reflect the changes. The first section of the enclosed report, which assessed compliance with the accreditation criteria, is being transmitted to the chief executive officer of your university as the Council’s official report. We are also providing to you the second section of the report, which provides site team observations and recommendations that are offered with the hope they may be useful to the continued growth and development of the school. The Council will ask for an interim report to be submitted in the spring of 2007, so that we may consider the report at our spring meeting that year. Your interim report must provide evidence that your school is in compliance with the remaining criteria that were judged to be “partially met.” Please be aware that failure to come into compliance with the remaining accreditation criteria must trigger specific actions on CEPH’s part. These actions, mandated in federal regulations governing accrediting agencies that are recognized by the US Department of Education, include initiating adverse action or, if good cause is demonstrated, extending by one year the period during which the school may come into compliance with the remaining criteria, after which CEPH must take adverse action. In the past CEPH has included probation among its adverse action options, but CEPH is now required to deny or revoke accreditation when a school or program fails to demonstrate that it has come into compliance. Thus, interim reports have serious consequences.

Guy S. Parcel, PhD July 8, 2005 Page 2 CEPH staff will advise you of a specific submission deadline for your interim report several months before it is due. The report should provide evidence that the school has implemented systems to monitor student achievement of stated learning objectives and has implemented strategies to improve student graduation rates (Criterion V.D.) and that the school has implemented a proactive student advising system and improved student satisfaction with advising procedures (Criterion IX.C.). I would call your attention to the disclosure provisions in our adopted procedures. The school is expected to make its official accreditation report (the first section of the enclosed report) available to the public on request 60 days following the accreditation decision, for reasonable reproduction costs. The school may append a written response whenever it distributes the report. The official report also will be available on request from CEPH after 60 days, but it is our intent to refer all initial requests to the school. If you provide this office with a copy of a written response by August 12, 2005, we will be happy to append it whenever we respond to a request for the University of Texas report. In addition, we are enclosing an accreditation action summary of your recent review. This, too, will become available to the public on request in 60 days. We would invite you to identify any necessary corrections in the descriptive information about the school. If you want us to append a one-page written response to the summary sheet whenever we distribute it, this, too, should reach our offices by August 12, 2005. Both of these responses are optional on your part. We would also like to remind you that whenever an accredited school undergoes a substantive change, it is obligated to provide written notification to CEPH of the intended change. Substantive changes are defined in the procedures manual, but generally include offering a new degree, adding or discontinuing an area of specialization, offering a degree program in a different format or at a distant site, and major revisions to the curricular requirements. We appreciated your participation during our recent meeting when the University of Texas report was discussed. We also appreciated the many courtesies and helpfulness extended to the site visit team last fall. Sincerely,

Cheryl C. Lackey, MPH, CHES President cc: CEPH Councilors

REVIEW FOR ACCREDITATION

OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AT HOUSTON

COUNCIL ON EDUCATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH June 11, 2005

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Meeting of CEPH Criteria.............................................................................................................................. 2

Criterion I. Mission and Goals......................................................................................................... 3

Criterion II.A. Accredited Institution................................................................................................. 4

Criterion II.B. Organizational Setting............................................................................................... 7

Criterion III. Governance................................................................................................................. 9

Criterion IV. Resources................................................................................................................... 9

Criterion V.A. Professional Degrees and Concentrations............................................................. 11

Criterion V.B. Core Knowledge, Practice and Culminating Experiences...................................... 13

Criterion V.C. Learning Objectives ............................................................................................... 14

Criterion V.D. Assessment of Student Achievement .................................................................... 15

Criterion V.E. Academic Degrees ................................................................................................. 16

Criterion V.F. Doctoral Degrees.................................................................................................... 17

Criterion V.G. Joint Degrees ......................................................................................................... 17

Criterion V.H. Nontraditional Format............................................................................................. 18

Criterion VI. Research.................................................................................................................... 18

Criterion VII. Service ...................................................................................................................... 20

Criterion VIII.A. Faculty Qualifications ............................................................................................ 21

Criterion VIII.B. Faculty Development ............................................................................................. 22

Criterion VIII.C. Faculty Diversity..................................................................................................... 23

Criterion IX.A. Student Recruitment and Admission ....................................................................... 23

Criterion IX.B. Student Diversity ................................................................................................... 25

Criterion IX.C. Advising and Career Counseling .......................................................................... 26

Criterion IX.D. Student Roles in Governance ............................................................................... 27

Criterion X.A. Ongoing Evaluation ................................................................................................ 28

Criterion X.B. Self-Study Process ................................................................................................. 29

Introduction

This report presents the findings of the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) regarding the

University of Texas School of Public Health (UTSPH) at Houston. The report assesses the school’s

compliance with the criteria for accreditation of schools of public health. This accreditation review included

the conduct of a self-study process by school constituents, the preparation of a document describing the

school and its features in relation to the criteria for accreditation, and a visit in October 2004 by a team of

external peer reviewers. During the visit, the team had an opportunity to interview school and health science

center officials, administrators, teaching faculty, students, alumni and community representatives, and to

verify information in the self-study by reviewing documentation provided on site in a resource file. The team

was afforded full cooperation in its efforts to assess the program and verify the self-study document. The

school was first accredited by CEPH in 1969 and has been continuously accredited since that time.

The Texas Legislature provided for the establishment of a University for Texas System in 1881, designating

Austin as the location of the university and Galveston as the location for the medical branch. The university

opened formally in 1883 with the establishment of an undergraduate college and a school of law. The

system now includes academic campuses in Arlington, Austin, Brownsville, Dallas, El Paso,

Midland/Odessa, San Antonio, Tyler, and Edinburg and health science centers in Dallas, Galveston,

Houston and San Antonio. Additionally, a university hospital is located in Tyler and the M.D. Anderson

Cancer Center in Houston.

In 1947, a school of public health was authorized by the state, but the authorization was not implemented

he University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHSC-H) was established in 1972 and

his report is prepared in 2 sections. The first, "Meeting of CEPH Criteria," analyzes the school’s

until 1967 when a state appropriation for the school was made. The first class of students entered in 1969.

In response to the need for graduate public health education throughout Texas, regional MPH programs

were begun in San Antonio (1979), El Paso (1992), Dallas (1998) and Brownsville (2001). By the end of

spring 2003, 4,000 students had graduated from the UTSPH.

T

includes a dental branch established in 1905, the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (1963), School

of Public Health (1967), Medical School (1970), School of Nursing (1972), School of Health Information

Sciences (1973), and the Harris County Psychiatric Center (1990). The UTHSC-H employs 4,900 faculty

and staff and has 3,200 enrolled students.

T

compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation of Schools of Public Health, Revised January 2002 and

becomes the official report to the university following adoption by the CEPH board of councilors. The

second section, "Site Team Observations and Recommendations," is not adopted by the CEPH governing

body and is intended only to offer the consultation and advice of the site visit team to school officials as they

proceed with supporting and sustaining the growth and development of the school.

Meeting of CEPH Criteria

This report presents the findings of the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH), the nationally

recognized accrediting agency for graduate education in public health, about the University of Texas School

of Public Health (UTSPH) at Houston and its conformance with the accreditation criteria for schools of public

health. Based on information provided in a self-study document, interviews with the school’s constituents

during an on-site visit, and review of other materials provided to a team of external evaluators, CEPH finds

the UTSPH to be in compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation of Graduate Schools of Public Health,

amended January 2002 in the following ways:

Characteristics of a School of Public Health

To be considered eligible for accreditation review by CEPH a school of public health shall have the following characteristics:

1. The school and its faculty shall have the same prerogatives and status as

other professional schools which are components of its parent institution. 2. The school shall function as a consortium of disciplines which addresses

the health of the community and focuses on instruction, research, and community service. A school of public health should be a multidimensional university center on community health. The special learning environment of a school of public health shall provide for interdisciplinary communication, development of professional public health concepts and values, and stress problem solving.

3. The school shall provide the focus for a wide array of both academic and

professional interests and activities that relate to the health of the public. The school should provide a rich intellectual climate that stimulates and facilities multidisciplinary exchanges of ideas between academics and professionals. The school should facilitate an environment which stimulates both individual creativity and initiative and collaborative and cooperative activity among its faculty.

4. The school shall have faculty and other human, physical, financial and

learning resources to provide both breadth and depth of educational opportunity in the public health areas noted in Criterion V. and must offer education at the masters level sufficient to provide a concentration in each of the five specified areas. The school shall offer the Master of Public Health degree (MPH) and at least one doctoral level degree which is relevant to one of the five specified areas of public health.

5. The school's shall plan, develop and evaluate its instructional, research

and service programs in such a way as to assure sensitivity to the perceptions and needs of its students and to combine educational excellence with applicability to the world of public health practice.

These characteristics are evident, for the most part, in the school of public health, which enjoys the same

prerogatives and status as the other professional schools in the University of Texas Health Science Center

at Houston (UTHSC-H). The school is led by a dean who reports directly to the president of the UTHSC-H,

as do the other deans in the health science center.

2

The school was developed to improve and sustain the health of the peoples of Texas, the nation and the

international community by providing instruction, research and service. To meet its instructional goals, the

school offers a Master of Public Health (MPH) and a Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) in community health

practice, disease control, health promotion/health education, health services organization, international and

family health, and occupational and environmental health/aerospace medicine. There are also MPH

programs offered through Brownsville, Dallas, El Paso and San Antonio Regional Campuses. The school

also offers a Master of Science (MS) in 4 concentrations including biological sciences, biometry,

environmental sciences and epidemiology and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in 6 concentrations including

behavioral sciences, biological sciences, biometry/biostatistics, environmental sciences, epidemiology, and

management and policy sciences. Although the school offers a breadth of academic options, it does not

offer the MPH in each of the basic areas of public health knowledge, as required by CEPH.

The school has an active public health research program which has continued to grow in spite of the ever

changing political climate. The school collaborates with local, state, national, and international organizations

and currently has 57 funded collaborative research projects. The school obligates faculty and students to

pursue community service; each faculty member is expected to contribute 20% of his/her time to service.

The school adopted a new organizational and instructional structure in January of 2004. The new

organizational structure groups faculty into 5 divisions and 4 regional campuses and was designed to

improve upon the former “matrix model.” The former matrix model, in place for many years, grouped

faculty by disciplines, modules, and institutes and centers. According to the self-study, the new

organizational structure encourages faculty collaboration within and between disciplines, fosters

interdisciplinary research and coursework among students, and enhances a collaborative system of

governance. In addition to the change in structure, a change in the name of the degree was approved by

the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The MPH and DrPH that were formerly awarded in

community health and the MS and PhD that were awarded in community health sciences are now awarded

in public health.

Criterion I. Mission and Goals

The school shall have a clearly formulated and publicly stated mission with supporting goals and objectives. This criterion is met. The longstanding mission of UTSPH is “to improve and sustain the health of people

by providing the highest quality graduate education, research, and community service for Texas, the

nation, and internationally.” In 1996, the school augmented this broad statement and developed, through

a highly iterative, widely regarded process, a set of core public health values for the entire UTSPH

community. Both the mission and values statement appear to remain highly visible and well integrated

into the school’s operations. The mission statement was formally reviewed by the faculty since the last

accreditation and incorporated in UTSPH’s 1999-2005 strategic plan. A recent survey indicated that the

3

vast majority of faculty believe that the school’s combination of missions, goals, and objectives reflect the

school’s needs and the broad mission of public health as defined by CEPH.

Evolving from the mission statement, the school has 3 overarching goals – education, research, and

community service – each with a series of measurable objectives. Overall, these objectives are well

aligned with the school’s mission and goals. Although the objectives can be measured as written, the

school could strengthen its objectives by quantifying targets for success and setting forth specific

timelines.

For example, UTSPH’s third education goal is specifically targeted at reaching communities and

practitioners: “Make graduate public health education available to major population centers and public

health practitioners throughout the state.” The related objectives are measurable, but lack a target for

success:

1. Increase funding for the San Antonio, El Paso, Dallas, and Brownsville regional campuses.

2. Obtain funding for a regional MPH program in Austin.

3. Through outreach education programs, provide courses to public health practitioners in diverse locations around the state.

To increase the functionality of these objectives, specific funding targets could be set in terms of percentage

increases in funding or actual numbers of practitioners who participate in regional programs.

Criterion II.A. Accredited Institution

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. This criterion is met. The UTSPH is one of 6 member schools of the UTHSC-H, which is a component of

the statewide University of Texas System (UTS). At the system level, the 6 schools comprising the health

sciences are overseen by the executive vice chancellor for health affairs whose position in the system

exists at the same organizational level as those of vice chancellors for business affairs, academic affairs,

and administration.

Within the organizational structure of the UTHSC-H, the dean of the School of Public Health holds a

position at the same level as deans of the schools of medicine, dentistry and nursing and the Graduate

School of Biomedical Sciences. All deans report to the senior executive vice president and chief

operating officer. The UTHSC-H is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges (SAC), and the

schools within the center are also accredited by appropriate agencies.

4

igure 1. Organizational Chart for the University of Texas System

F

The UTSPH participates in the budgeting processes within the UTS, which funnels requests to the

he Handbook of Operating Procedures also describes processes for hiring both tenure and non-tenure

chancellor and ultimately by the Board of Regents.

Legislative Budget Board, the Governor’s Budget Office, and ultimately the Texas Legislature. The

budgets of individual schools are prepared following guidelines issued by UT and the UTHSC-H

administration. Policies governing grant and contract funds and funds from gifts are defined in the

Handbook of Operating Procedures. Reduced budget support from the state did, for a time, inhibit the

ability of UTSPH to hire new faculty in areas of critical need. Recently, however, the school succeeded in

opening 4 active searches for faculty positions in epidemiology and biostatistics. At the regional

campuses, on the other hand, the hiring of faculty to provide depth in several disciplines has had to be

postponed because of budget restraints.

T

track faculty. Processes for granting tenure and promotion begin at the UTSPH and proceed to the

University Promotion and Tenure Committee, whose membership includes the UTSPH chair of the faculty

and dean. Promotion and the award of tenure are reviewed and approved by the president and

5

igure 2. Organizational Chart for the UTHSC-H

F

TSPH faculty and the associate dean for academ

The U ic affairs determine and monitor general academic

tandards and policies for the school. Apart from new degree programs, which must be approved at the

nt and his staff, the site visit team was pleased to learn that he is

ell aware of the strengths and potential of the UTSPH which, he explained, figure in the school’s plans

s

system level, the UTSPH determines its own admissions policy, curricula, content for academic

programs, and degree requirements.

In the visit with the UTHSC-H preside

w

for development of a number of collaborative projects, such as the Institute of Molecular Medicine (IMM)

and the Institute for Health Policy (IHP).

6

Criterion II.B. Organizational Setting

he school shall provide an organizational setting conducive to teaching and learning, research and service. The organiza disciplinary communication,

ooperation and collaboration and shall foster the development of professional public health

January 2004. The self-study presents

work was designed to improve upon the former matrix model by

ncouraging faculty collaboration within and between disciplines, by fostering interdisciplinary research

units having

ommon faculty affiliation, program focus, and interests: biostatistics, environmental and occupational

tation, the site visit team learned from faculty that the new framework has begun to achieve its

tended aims. Division directors, for example, reported improvements in their ability to mentor new

T

tional setting shall facilitate intercvalues, concepts and ethics, as defined by the school. This criterion is met. The reorganization of the UTSPH from the earlier matrix model to the current model

as completed in May 2003 and became functional in w

organizational frameworks for both models, but the report will focus on the current model as depicted in

Figure 3 on the following page.

The new organizational frame

e

and coursework among students, and by enhancing a collaborative system of governance.

This framework focuses on divisions that combine current discipline, module and center

c

health, epidemiology, health promotion and behavioral sciences, and management and community

health. Each division contains 4 leadership positions: director, curriculum coordinator, practice

coordinator, and center director(s). Each of these leaders also serves on one of 4 councils, each with

clearly defined charges: executive, academic, research, and practice. Council membership includes

administrators and faculty on all councils, and students on the academic and research councils. The

Executive Council is advisory to the dean and assigns issues to the remaining 3 councils. The Academic

Council coordinates academic programs, promotes interdisciplinary activities throughout the school and

within programs, analyzes curriculum issues, and develops school-wide admissions policies. The

Research Council coordinates research-related issues, promotes and facilitates research and research

administration, and oversees research compliance policies. The Practice Council defines public health

practice as it relates to faculty and student research; proposes public health practice content for

academic degree programs; promotes practice-based teaching and practice-based research; and fosters

effective practice activities among the faculty and between the faculty and community organizations. The

Academic, Research, and Practice Councils all serve in advisory capacities to the dean and Executive

Council.

Although the benefits of reorganization may be difficult to evaluate fully at this early stage of

implemen

in

faculty members and to foster professional development throughout the faculty. They also reported more

energy among faculty for discovering projects in the community and designing interdisciplinary courses.

7

igure 3. Organizational Chart for the UTSPH

F

Further complying with this criterion, the UTSPH has defined public health values that underlie the

ission statement: “the pursuit of truth; encouraging learning; benefit to each human being; personal

sponsibility; compassion and community responsibility; stewardship; cooperation; professionalism; and

m

re

equality and justice.” The school operationalizes these through the employment of 2 ethicists (1 by the

8

aims to provide a fair and ethical environment for students, faculty, and staff. Official policies

f the UTHSC-H are contained in the Handbook of Operating Procedures. In addition, a Committee for

Criterion III. Governance

e school administration and faculty shall have clearly defined rights and responsibilities concerning school governance and academic policies. Where appropriate, students shall have

articipatory roles in school governance.

he administrative roles of each position are clearly defined.

d from faculty representatives that although reorganization initially caused

nxiety and a difficult transition for some faculty members, most faculty have begun to see improvements,

riterion IV. Resources

he school shall have resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission and goals, its instructional, research and service objectives.

d state university systems, has experienced significant reductions in

state support over the period since the last accreditation site visit. Specifically, the school’s total annual

university and another by the UTSPH and Medical School), and also through several courses in the

curriculum.

The UTSPH

o

the Protection of Human Subjects reviews and approves all research, demonstration or development

projects, and clinical training grants involving human subjects. The associate dean for academic affairs

addresses academic integrity among students and student grievances against the UTSPH faculty.

Th

p This criterion is met. The dean, executive dean, 5 associate deans, and 5 assistant deans share

dministrative responsibilities of the school. Ta

Faculty share governance responsibilities with administrators on the Executive Council, Practice Council,

Academic Council, and Research Council. In addition, the new Faculty Council replaces the former

Faculty Policy Committee to represent the faculty as a whole regarding teaching, research, and service

obligations within the school. Faculty also constitute the membership of the Committee for Promotion

and Tenure and a Faculty Peer Review Committee; they share administrative responsibilities on the

Admissions Committee, Financial Aid Committee, and Minority Advisory Council. Within the UTSPH,

students hold memberships on the Academic Council, Research Council, Admissions Council, and the

Minority Advisory Council.

The site visit team learne

a

for example, in the development of stronger bonds between the administration and faculty. While

particular issues remain to be addressed, such as governance within and between regional campuses,

faculty see the new structure creating prospects for collaboration in hiring new faculty, in designing

criteria for the award of tenure and promotion, and in developing guidelines for the annual activities report

and the periodic 6-year review of faculty.

C T

This criterion is met. The UTSPH has had a robust funding base since the last review even though the

UTS, like most state universities an

9

ate funding increased from $12.2M in FY 1996-1997 to $17.2M in FY

002-2003; tuition revenues increased from $384,000 in FY 1996-1997 to $629,000 in FY 2002-2003;

e increased since the last accreditation site visit and are uneven across modules, campuses,

nd disciplines. Student/faculty ratios in professional degree programs are high in the modules for

revenues from all sources increased from $49.9M in fiscal year (FY) 1997, to $64.5M in fiscal year 2003

representing a 46.1% increase.

The significant growth in funding experienced by the UTSPH since the last site visit reflects increases in

all major sources of revenue. St

2

indirect cost recoveries increased from $2.6M in FY 1996-1997 to $3.6M in FY 2002-2003, and funds

from direct costs attributed to grants and contracts increased from $32.8M in FY 1996-1997 to $36.3M in

FY 2002-2003. It must, however, be noted that the increase in state funds reflects the school taking on

new regional campus responsibilities in Dallas and Brownsville, also increasing financial liabilities. There

has been a net decrease in state funding when assumed liabilities at these 2 new sites are considered.

The university’s policy for returning indirect costs to the school is in line with the priority of developing and

maintaining significant sponsored research activities. Overall, the UTSPH continues to maintain a strong

financial position due to a historically high base of state funding and a strong sponsored research

portfolio.

School faculty as a group has grown 28% over the past 7 years, and it appeared to the site visit team that

all major areas of faculty research and teaching were generally well-staffed. However, student/faculty

ratios hav

a

community health practice (8.3 to 1) and for international and family health (8.2 to 1), whereas

student/faculty ratios are low across all of the academic degree programs (epidemiology is 3.1 to 1, and

biological sciences is 0.3 to 1). In addition, the student/faculty ratio for the Dallas Regional Campus has

grown from 6.4 to 1 to 9.3 to 1 over the past 2 years.

Table 1. Revenues from all Sources, FY 1998-1999 to FY 2002-2003

Revenues FY 1998- FY 1999- FY 2000- FY 2001- FY 2002-1999 2000 2002 2002 2003

State Appropriations $13,541,796 $14,685,600 $15,328,118 $15,827,350 $17,201,808 Tuition & Fees 572,499 618,342 632,410 744,847 629,495 Indirect Cost Recovery 3,994,651 2,920,840 2,976,873 3,614,965 3,614,965 Prior Year Balance 0 388,044 804,0

25,791,40 24,695,88 39,225,56 35,509,16 36,332,123,215,2 4,416,7 4,958,1 3,696,8 3,892,2

Total Revenues $48,299,088 $55,695,702 $66,290,861 $62,797,632 $64,517,053

nel f1 Includes person2 Funds generate

enefits

3 Funds awarded state and loca ncies to supp onsored proje4 Gifts and endow ds 5 Direct and indi sponsored p s

06 1,562,193 768,042 Designated Funds 1,183,536 1,871,734 2,365,778 1,843,295 2,078,324 Contracts & Grants 1 9 9 4 9 Restricted Funds 06 43 07 18 89

ringe b

d by service providing entities by federal l age ort sp cts ment fun

rect costs on roject

able 2. Y 1998-1999 to FY 2002-2003

T Expenditures by Function, F

10Ex enditures FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000 FY 2001-2002 FY 2001-2002 FY 2002-2003 p

State Funds Instruction Research $10, 636,570 $11,228,267 $12,219,893 $12,406,345 $ 13,230,185 Public Service 1,890,583 2,444,456 1,587,723 1,862,430 1,817,213 Academic Support 23,216 111,185 22,103 66,592 0 Institutional Support 2,179,692 2,377,015

State Expendituo sn-State Fund tion

Research 21,843,460 25,401,816 28,772,428 28,517,823 29,075,143 Public Service 981,585 557,779 169,748 289,530 178,558 Academic Support 5 6 5 4,246,3602,456 571,028 96,343 32,514 2 Student Services 67,653 77,144 197,262 80,684 161,966 Institutional Support 456,403 465,778 486,513 2,755,184 2.345,141

lar/Fellowships Indirect Costs Earned 4,917,049 6,325,716 6,795,014 7,558,849 7,548,416 Total Non-State Expenditures

30,429,340 35,256,506 39,265,879 42,877,812 46,489,920

Total Expenditures $46 $52 $57 $60 $6,521,745 ,787,131 ,266,277 ,345,535 7,131,251

1 Includes personnel fringe beated by service providing entities

d by federal l agen rt spon endowment fun

and indirect costs on sponsored projects

the Houston campus remains a notable strength. Concerns raised in the previous

port a ssed by relocating to leased space proximate to the UT at

an An being developed for a new building on the Houston campus, which is

ecessary in the light of continued and planned faculty and research growth. Likewise, all of the regional

Criterion V.A. Professional Degrees and Concentrations

health. The school may offer other degrees, professional and academic, and other areas of specialization, if consistent with its mission and resources.

he areas of knowledge basic to public health include:

nefits 2 Funds gener 3 Funds awarde state and loca cies to suppo sored projects 4 Gifts and 5 Direct

ds

2,638,579 3,132,356 3,691,465 Total res 16,092,405 17,530,625 18,000,398 17,467,723 20,641,331

N Instruc 1,541,180 1,557,928 1,964,417 2,991,939 2,787,293

Scho 119,553 299,317 274,154 151,278 147,041

Physical space at

re bout the San Antonio space were addre

S tonio campus. Plans are

n

campuses are adding space as they develop and add new faculty. The self-study documented the

substantial laboratory facilities housed in and operated by the school. There are perceived shortages of

study space for students, and the Brownsville Regional Campus has space needs that will cost about

$2M to ameliorate. It is important to note that the UTSPH benefits enormously from partnerships with and

access to excellent facilities owned and operated by sister institutions in the Texas Medical Center

complex.

Computer and library facilities are more than adequate and remain strong points for supporting the

school’s academic programs.

The school shall offer programs reflecting its stated mission and goals, leading to the Master of Public Health (MPH) or equivalent professional masters degree in at least the five areas of knowledge basic to public

T

1. Biostatistics - collection, storage, retrieval, analysis and interpretation of health data; design and analysis of health-related surveys and experiments; and concepts and practice of statistical data analysis;

11

2. Epidemiology - distributions and determinants of disease, disabilities and death in human

. Environmental health sciences - environmental factors including biological, physical and

4. ization, administration, management, valuation and policy analysis of health programs; and

5. f social and behavioral sciences levant to the identification and the solution of public health problems.

This cri the MPH and the DrPH. The MPH

deg

promoti mily health, and

biostatistics, environmental and occupational health; management, policy, and

ommunity health; health promotion and behavioral sciences; and epidemiology. However, the

degree program. The information in Table 3 is taken from the self-study, but on the following page in the

elf-study, under curricula, it states that “MPH students may also formally enroll in a concentration, which

formal concentration, advisory committees… work with students to develop a course of study which

populations; the characteristics and dynamics of human populations; and the natural history of disease and the biologic basis of health;

3chemical factors which affect the health of a community; Health services administration - planning, organe Social and behavioral sciences - concepts and methods ore

terion is met. The school offers 2 professional degrees,

ree is offered in 6 specializations: community health practice, disease control, health

on/health education, health services organization, international and fa

occupational and environmental health. However, these 6 areas did not, at the time of the site visit,

include all 5 areas of knowledge basic to public health as required in the CEPH accreditation criteria.

Only the MPH degrees in occupational and environmental health, health promotion/health education, and

health services organization, are clearly identifiable with the areas of knowledge specified in this criterion.

Following the site visit, the school developed and began to enroll students in an MPH in biostatistics and

an MPH in epidemiology. For professional and academic degrees offered as of fall 2005, refer to Table 3

on the following page.

The recently adopted organizational structure established divisions in each of the 5 areas of knowledge

basic public health:

c

concentration areas were not articulated along lines that match either the divisions or the CEPH

requirements. The faculty and administrators told the site visit team that a curriculum review is currently

in progress and shared a set of questions that each division must consider and report back to the

Academic Council.

The self-study document is inconsistent regarding the availability of various concentrations for the MPH

s

provides in-depth training in biometry, epidemiology, management and policy sciences, environmental

sciences, behavioral sciences, or biological sciences.” It further explains that “for students who elect a

satisfies the degree and concentration requirements as well as the student’s own goals and objectives…

a list of courses … is suggested.” The distinction, it appears, is that receiving a degree in a discipline

area involves “a required course of study,” while a concentration involves 9-12 credit hours of advanced

courses, based on “suggested courses” and the individual’s own goals and objectives.

12

Table 3. Professional and Academic Degrees in the New Divisional Organization

Professional Degrees Academic Degrees Disciplines and Programs of Study MPH DrPH MS PhD

Behavioral Sciences X Biological Sciences X

Environment Sciences X X pidemiology X* X X

Management and Policies X Community Health Practice X X Disease Control X X Health Promotion/Health Education X X Health Services Organization X X International and Family Health X X Occupational and Environmental Health X X Occupational/Aerospace Medicine X Regional Campuses (generalist) X

Dual Degrees JD/MPH X MSN/MPH X MSW/MPH X MD/MPH X

Fall 2005

ition from th o that of

X Biostatistics X* X X

E

* Beginning in

The trans e matrix organizational model t the division model appeared to account for

however, additional documents provided to the site visit team and

onversations with faculty and administration support the site visit team’s initial observation that no MPH

ees in 4 and 6 areas of concentration, respectively.

imum, shall assure that each student ) develops an understanding of the areas of knowledge which are basic to public health, b)

acquires skill of specialty nowledge to tegration of

t includes the application of public health science and

some of the inconsistency;

c

degrees were offered in 2 of the 5 required areas. It is clear that there are sufficient course offerings in

the various divisions and areas of studies to offer the 5 degrees; but they are not clearly and consistently

articulated.

The school offers the DrPH degree, a professional doctoral degree in 6 disciplinary areas; and the MS

and PhD degr

Criterion V.B. Core Knowledge, Practice and Culminating Experiences Each professional degree program identified in V.A., as a mina

s and experience in the application of basic public health concepts and the solution of community health problems, and c) demonstrates ink

knowledge through a culminating experience. This criterion is met with commentary. Each MPH student is expected to demonstrate competency in

each of the 5 core areas of public health. Students are also are required to a) complete a planned,

upervised, and evaluated practice experience thas

theory; b) enroll in course PH 9997 and submit a “Field Experience Agreement” in order to document the

completion of this requirement; and c) complete a thesis or dissertation that demonstrates their ability to

design and conduct original research for their culminating experience.

13

le for assuring that the student

ompletes all the requirements or waives them, which is referred to as demonstrating “proficiency.” The

ency in

eeting curriculum requirements. Second, there are not clearly specified criteria for waiving coursework

on within each program identified in Criterion V.A., there

hall be clear learning objectives.

his criterion is met with commentary. Learning objectives were provided for all degrees and

fferings was described as occurring “often” and “in most cases” for the MPH degree. The team had

ctives consisted of a combination of objectives and strategies stated in fairly

eneral terms. The site visit team concluded that these should be re-examined and aligned with the

ns to consider the development of new learning objectives

address increasingly important competencies that are emerging in the field.

ffective role in assuring

competence in public health. However, less subjective methods would be more reliable in determining

Student advising and assurance of completion of the requirements occurs through a 2-person advisory

committee constituted upon admission. This committee is responsib

c

advising process emphasizes both achieving competency and attainment of learning objectives.

The site visit team noted a few issues worthy of concern or requiring attention. First, there is

considerable variability between advisory committees and no formalized system to assure consist

m

in a given area (ie, demonstrating proficiency). Third, the percentage of students in environmental

sciences and management and policy sciences taking the 5 core courses, is relatively low, 52.6% and

76.3% respectively. Fourth, the tracking of practicum information does not occur in a timely manner. The

school reported that it is about 3 semesters behind in entering the information into the database. The site

visit team was informed that the evaluation form is being revised to be more closed-ended and therefore

easier to enter into the system; however, it is essential that such information be collected and used to

monitor progress and quality. These matters warrant attention to improve the clarity with which the

school meets this criterion for accreditation.

Criterion V.C. Learning Objectives

For each program and area of specializatis

T

concentration areas. The development, communication, and use of learning objectives in course

o

further concern with the heavy emphasis on individualized learning objectives, which appeared to replace

established competencies.

Learning objectives for the DrPH degree were developed by the Academic Affairs Committee and the

faculty. These learning obje

g

curricular requirements for the DrPH degree.

The school is conscious of the need to consider the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) most recent report, Who

Will Keep the Public Healthy? and there are pla

to

The self-study reports that the majority of faculty members believe that the procedures for developing

learning objectives are adequate and that learning objectives play an e

14

e legitimacy of the learning objectives. The self-study noted that learning objectives are not centralized

tives and Achievements Form.” The form

sted 14 performance objectives, some of which were fairly complex. This appeared to be a useful tool

but were not quantified or stated with time frames. In contrast, the learning objectives for

pidemiology and biostatistics were presented only as, “guidelines” or strategies.

iostatistics course with

different instructors might lead to different topic coverage (eg, different analysis programs, statistical

jectives and determining readiness for a public health practice r research career, as appropriate to the particular degree.

This criterion is partially ommittee, comprised of

faculty members each, plays a major role in student evaluation, and “reviews, assesses, and

ocedures included a record of committee

th

but are “generally available.” The site visit team could not verify that learning objectives were clearly

available and routinely used to measure student achievement.

The appendices for the self-study presented learning objectives in various sections. One appendix listed

areas of competency but did not provide measurable and/or specific learning objectives. There was also

a background document to accompany a “Performance Objec

li

but was highly dependent on judgments by individual faculty or pairs of faculty (the student’s advisory

committee).

In another section of the appendices, learning objectives for the MPH concentrations were also provided,

but varied in usefulness. In this section, for example, the learning objectives for behavioral sciences were

well written,

e

The site visit team asked students and faculty how well they thought the curriculum contributed to the

achievement of learning objectives and competencies required for the MPH. Some expressed that there

was considerable variability in the educational experience. For example, a basic b

2

methods, etc.). This inconsistency was of concern to the site visit team. Careful review, alignment,

consideration, and implementation of learning objectives and corresponding course content is warranted

before this criterion can be fully met.

Criterion V.D. Assessment of Student Achievement There shall be procedures for assessing and documenting the extent to which each student has attained these specified learning obo

met. According to the self-study, the student’s advisory c

2

documents the student’s achievements in an array of learning experiences and settings.” The data

presented to document the use of assessment and advising pr

formations, meeting schedules, and surveys of students going back over 10 years. Completion of MPH

evaluation forms and comment cards (for pass/fail grades) were documented and had reasonably high

response rates. Grade distribution information showed that about 90% of students received letter grades

of A or B in public health core courses. The school recently changed from a sole reliance on a pass/fail

grading system to a system that uses either letter grades or pass/fail evaluation for different courses;

however, all public health core courses are now letter-graded.

15

rograms. Several explanations for the low

ompletion rates were noted, foremost among them the high percentage of part-time students, course

to be significant variability across faculty regarding quality assurance. The school is strongly

rged to establish such systems and to communicate them to faculty and students. This can be done

ire an understanding of public health problems and a eneric public health education. These curricula shall cover as much basic public health nowledge as is essential for meeting their stated learning objectives.

his criterion is met. UTSPH offers both masters and doctoral level academic degree programs.

o the self-study, “all students,

e students pursuing academic degrees rarely

btain policy and administration course work. In today’s public health reality, environmental researchers

are increasingly called upon to participate in government decision-making, through science advisory

The student degree completion rates were of particular concern to the site visit team. The MPH, the

largest degree program, had a 60.2% completion rate 5 years post-matriculation. It was reported that

there are no time limitations on completion of UTSPH degree p

c

scheduling inconvenient to working students, and the thesis option as the only culminating experience.

Discussions with students and faculty suggested that the most common reason for not graduating is non-

completion of the thesis. While providing alternative options may be helpful, the school should implement

better monitoring and incentives for progress (or disincentives for lack of progress). Most universities

place time limitations on the completion of degree programs, and UTSPH should seriously consider this

policy.

Overall, the site visit team found that systems for quality assurance, monitoring, and continuous quality

improvement were not in place for the professional degree programs. At the time of the site visit there

appeared

u

while retaining a spirit of student-motivated educational goals and faculty participation, values that do not

conflict with consistency in quality assurance.

Criterion V.E. Academic Degrees

If the school also offers curricula for academic degrees, then students pursuing them shall have the opportunity and be encouraged to acqugk

T

Because of the unique needs and challenges in public health, this criterion requires that students

pursuing academic degrees have the opportunity to acquire a broad public health perspective, in addition

to obtaining the depth necessary in their specialized disciplines. According t

irrespective of whether they choose an academic or a practice-oriented program of study, are

encouraged to understand the culture and values of public health and to obtain broad knowledge and

skills.” Students in the MS and PhD programs take courses with MPH and DrPH students gaining

exposure to principle and practice of public health. There are sets of learning objectives for these

programs that must be met, and the student’s advisory committee is responsible for determining that the

student’s “mastery” of public health is appropriately broad.

To encourage students to enhance their research and academic-oriented training, they are required to

elect “minor” tracks outside their core discipline. Epidemiology and biostatistics are often encouraged as

minor tracks. As a result, for example, environmental scienc

o

16

alth policy and law; or

ealth economics. While some students pursue academic careers, graduates were commonly identified

his criterion is met. The UTSPH has a robust doctoral program, offering 12 degrees, including the DrPH

nd the PhD in the full range of public health disciplines. Each division is fully responsible for both their

cademic and professional doctora g-term institutional commitment to

support doctoral-level learning. A quarter of the students are

ompetencies and learning objectives, and to scope and sequence all learning activities for all

egree programs, including those in the regional campuses.” The UTSPH should be applauded for

boards, regulatory decisions, and the applied research needs of public health agencies. Effective

environmental scientists in the public health realm must have fundamental policy and administration

understanding, even if their careers place them in academic or research settings.

The school may want to consider reevaluating several of its academic degree programs and recognize

the need for broader public health exposure. Indeed, several degree programs may be more

appropriately defined as professional degrees. For example, the Division of Management, Policy and

Community Health offers PhD degrees in 3 different tracks: health management; he

h

in state government or non-profit thinktank or policy analysis positions. Recognizing this field’s practice

orientation, the academic degree for some of these tracks may fail to provide students with appropriate

public health exposure.

Criterion V.F. Doctoral Degrees The school shall offer at least one doctoral degree which is relevant to one of the five specified areas of basic public health knowledge. T

a

a l degree programs. There is a lon

high quality doctoral education, with sufficient faculty expertise, adequate advanced-level courses, and

mple and varied research opportunities to a

enrolled at the doctoral level; from 1998 to 2002, 145 DrPH and PhD students graduated from the

UTSPH.

The recent IOM report, Who Will Keep the Public Healthy?, challenged the country’s public health

schools to reassess their curriculum in the context of rapidly evolving demands and needs in public

health. The UTSPH committed in its 2004 strategic plan to “carry out a curriculum review and revision to

develop c

d

taking this national charge by conducting a thorough review of the relevancy and usefulness of the

current areas of specialization for DrPH programs and PhD electives. Currently, the school’s Academic

Council is undertaking this self-evaluation, which includes a review of the specialty degree programs and

the curricula that support them.

Criterion V.G. Joint Degrees

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.

17

his criterion is met. The UTSPH offers 4 dual degree programs: JD/MPH, with the University of

Houston Law Center; MSN/MPH, w /MPH, with the Medical School of

e and by the

discipline areas (unless competencies in an area have been otherwise achieved to justify a written

s must complete a thesis; no more than 6 credits of the required 36 may be fulfilled by

practicum and thesis requirements.

From 1998 to 2003, 7 students had enrolled in the JD/MPH program, 27 students in the MSN/MPH

program, and 2 students in the MD/MPH program; there were no students in the MSW/MPH program,

although 2 students are currently enrolled. In addition, 8 occupational medicine residency students and

18 dietetic internship students are enrolled in joint MPH programs. The number of students enrolling in

and completing these programs may be improved as a consequence of the Academic Council’s drafting

of guidelines for culminating experiences that students in all programs, including both dual degrees and

MPH, may consider as alternatives to the written thesis. The UTSPH plans to offer 2 new dual degree

programs beginning in January 2005: the MS/MPH and PhD/MPH in Health Information Sciences.

Additional dual degree programs are being developed for the regional campuses.

Until recently, dual degree programs could be developed and implemented by faculty and cooperating

schools; currently, however, all program descriptions and agreements require institutional approval.

Criterion V.H. Nontraditional Format

must a) be consistent with the mission of the school and within the school’s established area of usly

valuated; 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 which take into consideration and are res eeds of adult learners. If the chool offers nontraditional programs, it must provide needed support for these programs,

l pursue an active research program, consistent with its mission, through which its te to the knowledge base of the public health disciplines, including the practice of public health.

T

ith the School of Nursing; MD

UTHSC; and the MSW/MPH, with the University of Houston Graduate School of Social Work. In addition,

the MPH is required by the residency program in occupational and environmental medicin

dietetic internship.

All dual degree programs require 36 hours in the UTSPH, including 1 course in each of the 5 core

waiver). All student

a

If the school offers degree programs using nontraditional formats or methods, these programs

expertise; b) be guided by clearly articulated student learning outcomes which are rigoroe

ponsive to the characteristics and nsincluding 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. This criterion is not applicable.

Criterion VI. Research

he school shalTfaculty and students contriburesearch directed at improving

18

This criterion is met. The school’s published policies and procedures (ie, Handbook of Operating

rocedures) govern research activities in the school. Research activities are coordinated through the office

n of compliance approvals, and prepares

The UTSPH regularly engages in a wide variety of community-based and community-partnered research

projects that are distributed across all campuses. The faculty has been very successful in securing grants:

a mean of 185 grants per year for the last 3 years, with 51% of the faculty serving as principal investigators.

ince 1999, expenditures have grown 27.5%, and the faculty has received funding for almost 60% of their

proposals. In 2003, 73% of the faculty submitted proposals as principal investigator, an average of 3.2

proposals each. The site visit team learned that research proposals in the current year include budgets 6

Over 54% of active grants involve multi-institutional and interdisciplinary proposals, and 50 to 60% of

proposals have succeeded in gaining funding thus far. In addition, in the previous 4 years, the faculty

experienced an increase of almost 39% in the number of publications placed in peer-reviewed journals.

The UTSPH currently sponsors 9 interdisciplinary research centers developed by the faculty for various

campuses, disciplines, and module affiliations. These centers provide opportunities for the development of

collaborative research, as well as support staff for the administration of awards and for field research

projects. The centers also provide opportunities for students to meet academic research requirements and

to seek employment. The majority (88.8% in 2003) of research awards originated in the centers. The

Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, the Human Genetics Center, and the Coordinating

Center for Clinical Trials have led to new awards for 2003. Other centers include the Center for Biosecurity

and Public Health Preparedness, the Center for Health Policy Studies, the Center for Health Services

Research, the Center for Infectious Diseases, the Center for Society and Population Health, the Human

Genetics Center, the Human Nutrition Center, and the Southwest Center for Occupational and

Environmental Health. The site visit team learned that considerable connections exist among the centers.

Fifty-seven funded local, state, national, and international research collaborations have led the UTSPH to

achieve the seventh-place rank in NIH funding among schools of public health. Internal measures of the

f

proposals submitted for funding, the number of faculty receiving excellence in research and scholarship

awards, and the number of faulty publications in peer reviewed scientific literature.

P

of the associate dean for research, which provides faculty with information on the availability of funding,

assists in the preparation of proposals, facilitates the acquisitio

reports on research activity at the school. This office meets with new faculty individually to encourage

research activities and to support their research agendas by providing competitive start-up funds for

projects. In addition, senior school faculty members serve as mentors to new faculty at all 5 campuses.

S

times larger than those of last year. Moreover, the number of research partnerships has also increased.

school’s success in research activities include the number of faculty who direct projects as principal

investigators, the number of funded projects, the amount of grant and contract funding, the number o

19

nts are invited to present

eir research projects at an annual UTHSC-H research day.

by new faculty, and by seeking training grants

at would allow doctoral students to devote themselves to full-time study.

lic health practice, including ontinuing education.

This criterion is met with commentary. Th community service into the foundation of

nkages and collaborations with public health agencies and organizations to

nd international communities.

Due to past co lty for

Community Service.” In the context of faculty activities, UTSPH considers community service as “voluntary

professional act entally a gift of professional knowledge

nd expertise to the community beyond the university.” Examples include efforts on professional and

level of commitment and participation in community service activities. To encourage greater faculty

to indicate all service efforts, though there are not defined

Students are required to conduct research in all UTSPH degree programs. In preparation for their research

projects, students must complete the NIH human subjects training course; they are also guided through a

review of HIPAA-related issues and assisted with other compliance reviews. Stude

th

The UTSPH aims to increase research opportunities by improving administrative services to faculty, by

working with the UTHSC Development Office to increase funding from private sources, by discovering

resources to provide start-up packages for research projects

th

Criterion VII. Service The school shall pursue an active service program, consistent with its stated mission, through which faculty and students contribute to the advancement of pubc

e UTSPH incorporates

the school from its overarching goals and objectives to its expectations for individual faculty members. The

UTSPH community service goals are:

• Foster lisustain the relevance of our education, research, and service to current practice and to assist practitioners in carrying out their responsibilities.

• Donate the professional expertise of faculty to enhancing the health of those in the local, state, national, a

ncerns about interpreting service, UPSPH created a document, “Guidance to Facu

ivities for the good of the community” and as “fundam

a

community boards and committees, public health lectures, media interviews, professional advising, and

advocacy of legislation to support community health values. Excluded from the service definition are

involvement in university administration or governance, partisan political activities, and professional practice

for fees. Reflecting the embodiment of its value statements, the UTSPH’s “community service” definition, is

more direct and defined than in most institutions.

Unfortunately, despite the school’s philosophical commitment to service, UTSPH has had a highly variable

engagement, the school expects each faculty member to contribute 20% effort to community service.

Faculty members are required on activity reports

means to reward faculty for this work through the appointment or promotion process.

While the school provides community service definition, the self-study identified numerous service efforts

that were contractual or paid activities, for example, the Environmental Health Tracking Project, which is a

20

Brownsville, El Paso

and San Antonio appear to have positive community service programs and engagement, in contrast to the

Dallas campus, which only identified a superficial list of clinical training workshops provided primarily to other

academic institutions and carried out predominately by a handful of faculty.

or Biosecurity and Public Health

Preparedness, Southwest Center for Occupational and Environmental Health and the Texas Prevention

Research Center (TRPC). TRPC, for example conducts needs assessments to identify training needs of the

community partners, which, in turn, informs the education programs developed and offered. The center has

agencies to health care providers to schools, faith groups and minority organizations. These 3 centers

provide the lion share of continuing education activities for the entire school.

ximately one-third of its entire

budget to community service. Students are actively encouraged to engage in community-based service

ctivities, including outreach programs in local schools on food safety, sex education and violence

terdisciplinary mix of over 200 students from the medical schools of Baylor College of Medicine

nd UTHSC-H as well as from the UTSPH and University of Houston College of Pharmacy. Student

The site visit team suggests that the UTSPH more formally coordinate and structure their community

partnerships. Reconstituting the school-wide community advisory group is a start, which could allow the

community to participate in the work of the school, from assessing the relevance of curricula, to

participating in teaching, and evaluating the effectiveness of the school. While UTSPH has steadily

improved its service and practice efforts since the last site visit, service still remains the goal that is

Criterion VIII.A. Faculty Qualifications

subcontract with the City of Houston’s grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Further, the service variability appeared to be even greater on the regional campuses.

The UTSPH does not have a formal set of policies, procedures and practices which support continuing

education. Rather, there is an uncoordinated and highly variable set of continuing education efforts

scattered through the school’s disciplines and centers. Of note, there are several UTSPH centers that

provide outstanding continuing education programs, including the Center f

a community advisory group that draws a wide range of community interests, from state and local health

Student opportunities, involvement and commitment to service are noteworthy. A major service effort is

embodied in the student practicum, which is primarily designed as an educational requirement but generates

community service by students. The Student Association (SA) devotes appro

a

prevention.

One outstanding example of student-driven service work is the HOMES project – Houston Outreach

Medicine, Education, and Social Services – which is a student project providing quality, accessible,

culturally-sensitive healthcare to all homeless Houston residents. This student-run free clinic program brings

together an in

a

volunteers from the UTSPH have been involved in the leadership of the clinic.

sought the most vigorously.

21

This criterion is met. The faculty breadth to support the school’s

search and teaching programs. Approximately two-thirds of the faculty members are tenured/tenure-track,

of new positions being fairly equally split between

nure-track and non-tenure-track. Hence, the non-tenure track portion of the faculty body is growing

ng.

he school in the years ahead as the demand and need for

ublic health professionals continues to grow.

This criterion is met with comm ing recruitment, promotion and

valuation are set forth in the UT Board of Regents' Rules and Regulations and the UTHSC-H Handbook of

he school has an extensive system of faculty evaluation mechanisms. There are 5 separate but related

n opportunities to anonymously

valuate both the teaching and advising activities of the faculty members.

The school shall have a clearly defined faculty which, by virtue of its size, multidisciplinary nature, educational preparation, research and teaching competence, and practice experience, is able to fully support the school’s mission, goals and objectives.

complement is appropriate in depth and

re

and the remaining one-third are in non-tenure track positions. There has been an overall increase in the

number of faculty since the last review, with the number

te

proportionately larger. These changes almost certainly reflect growth in and a priority for sponsored

research funding. The self-study document mentions concerns about practice links among full-time faculty,

and steps are being taken to address those.

The school maintains an appropriately large and diverse body of more than 200 adjunct faculty who provide

important practice and research links for faculty and students. Adjunct faculty serve on thesis committees,

provide consultation to the school and its programs, mentor students, provide opportunities for research and

practice experiences, and participate in teachi

An area of concern is the depth and breadth of faculty located at regional campus sites. The school has

taken active and appropriate steps to address these concerns, and uses interactive television instruction to

expand the reach of its total faculty complement. The continued development and expansion of the faculty

at the regional sites will likely remain an issue for t

p

Criterion VIII.B. Faculty Development The school shall have well defined policies and procedures to recruit, appoint and promote qualified faculty, to evaluate competence and performance of faculty and to support the professional development and advancement of faculty.

entary. Policies and procedures regard

e

Operating Procedures. The school follows these policies and procedures.

T

activities: the annual activities report for all faculty; annual peer review for all faculty; the annual performance

review for assistant professors, both tenure track and non-tenure track; the 6 year review for faculty of all

ranks; and the promotion and/or tenure review. Also, students are give

e

Faculty members appear to understand and value the evaluation mechanisms in place, though the site visit

team did note some cynicism about the annual peer review system. There appeared to be some support for

22

ore ambiguous than they are for

search and teaching.

the rank of associate professor. A high percentage of faculty were promoted to

ssociate professor but did not progress to the rank of professor in a timely manner. For example, rough

his criterion is met. The school has been successful in recruiting an increasingly diverse faculty body. The

percent of female faculty has increa to 42.6% in 2003, the percent of

frican American faculty has grown from 2.4% to 4.1%, and the percent of faculty identified as Hispanic has

een progress, the school has a long way to go toward achieving a faculty complement that is

locate and select qualified individuals capable of taking advantage of the school's various learning m to develop competence for a career in public health.

is criterion is met. The UTSPH is a state school wi an obligation to recruit students from Texas in order

to help meet the public he ublic health practice and

have been set aside for 33 of the most promising applicants to the school. The scholarships cover the first

refining this system as the school moves into a new divisional structure. In addition, as is true at many of the

UTSPH peer institutions, incentives and expectations for service are m

re

Although the site visit team found the university and school to have well developed systems for faculty

development and evaluation, it also noted that the actual outcomes have not been as effective as they

should be in promoting faculty development. Specifically, a disproportionately large percentage of the

school’s faculty are at

a

calculations based on data in the self-study suggest that nearly one-half of the faculty who received their

terminal degree more than 15 years ago are at the rank of assistant or associate professor. It appears to

the site visit team, based on conversations with a spectrum of faculty, that the school’s previous matrix

structure did not provide an adequate framework for faculty development and accountability. This situation

must be rectified in the new divisional structure.

Criterion VIII.C. Faculty Diversity The school shall recruit, retain and promote a diverse faculty, and shall offer equitable opportunities to qualified individuals regardless of age, sex, race, disability, religion or national origin.

T

sed from 37.3% of all faculty in 1998

A

grown from 7.1% to 8.8%. However, it is important that the school not grow complacent. While there has

b

representative of the state’s population.

Criterion IX.A. Student Recruitment and Admission

The school shall have student recruitment and admissions policies and procedures designed to

activities which will enable each of the

Th th

alth needs of the state. Many applicants are engaged in p

others work within the Texas Medical Center. Recently, however, the school has increased its efforts to

recruit students from outside Texas, who contribute to geographical diversity and pay higher out-of-state

uition. t

The school participates in the “Texas Swing,” a series of graduate and professional school fairs within the

state. Special attention is also given to recruiting at the Historically Black College and Universities. Funds

23

ity and Prairie View A&M University, faculty and undergraduate students learn more about public

ealth and UTSPH increases its minority pipeline. It is expected that some of these students will select

ns Committee and Academic

ouncil. Students are admitted for fall and spring semesters. Faculty in appropriate divisions or

bers and the committee votes on applicants’ admissibility.

21 of 36 required credits. Also, through collaborative research and community projects with Texas Southern

Univers

h

public health as a career and pursue their academic interests at the UTSPH.

The number of applicants continues to increase and there has been an 8% rise in applications in the last 6

years, as shown in Table 4.

Admissions requirements for the 4 programs appear in the school catalog and on the school’s website.

Changes to requirements and procedures are reviewed by the Admissio

C

specializations review the applications and make recommendations to the Admissions Committee. The files

are presented by faculty mem

Table 4. Applicants, Accepted and Enrolled Students, 1998-1999 to 2003-2004

Applications 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Received 1053 1316 1138 1211 1215 1153 Accepted 564 611 482 553 570 574 New Enrolled 334 338 553 314 312 294

MS 31 18 14 33 33 MPH 232 259 206 220 200 172

34 DrPH 18 20 15 16 12 10 PhD 25 22 27 23 25 28 Special 28 19 38 22

• Prior aca perfo shou nstrat adem de (u ate GPA > 3.0 is desirable).

• P th e is a

• ns sso yers rs s luat for suc

42 50

The following factors are considered in an admission decision:

demic rmance ld demo e high ac ic aptitu ndergradu

rior public heal xperience n asset.

Recommendatio from profe rs, emplo and othe hould eva e potential cess.

• Career goals should be appropriate for the degree program sought. Goal statements may nic, and cultural backgrounds and

• other scholarly works demonstrate research potential writing

•

st that any applicant submit GRE scores. A score of 1000 or more enhances

• of the TOEFL exam are required for students who did not graduate from a

and a score of 225 or better is required on the exam taken by computer.

also provide information about applicants’ social, ethvalues.

Publications, theses andability, and critical thinking.

Scores on the Graduate Record Examination are required by some modules and disciplines, and, after review of other application material, the Admissions Committee may requethe application of masters degree applicants; doctoral applicants should score above 1200 on the GRE.

Results school that uses English as the language of instruction. A score of 565 or above is required on the paper exam

24

The ma

Tabl

jority of the applicants enroll in the MPH program. Enrollment by degree is depicted in Table 5.

e 5. Enrolled Students by Program, Fall 1999-2000 to Fall 2002-2003

Fall 1999-2000 Fall 2000-2001 Fall 2001- 2002 Fall 2001-2002 Fall 2002-20Total 922

03

Enrollment 100% 910 100% 890 100% 888 100% 908 100%

Degree MPH 556 60.3 556 61.1 555 62.3 555 62.6 529 58.3 MS 83 9.0 62 6.8 69 7.8 83 9.3 82 9.0 DrPH 109 11.8 105 11.5 87 9.8 84 9.5 89 9.8 PhD 138 15.0 143 15.7 143 16.1

time 338 36.7 310 34.1 273 39.8 293 33.0 277 30.5

art-time

Total FTE 556 535 507 554 562

Criterion IX.B. Student Diversity Stated application, admission, and degree-granti ts s ied equitably to individual applicants and students regardless of age, sex, race, disability, religion or national origin. This criterion is met. The UTSPH has taken steps to increase diversity and many of these activities have

been successful. A diversity office w ctor recently appointed. This office

ill work to increase the number of enrolled underrepresented minorities and to improve the graduation rate of

bers at these campuses are bilingual, which is expected to increase the number of Hispanic

The number of minority and female applications increased over the past 3 years. The percentage of minority

applicants who were admitted also increased from 47% in 2001 to 52% in 2003. The percentage of admitted

enrolled at UTSPH for the past 3 years has remained fairly constant at between 8% and 9%; Hispanic

students comprise 15% of all admissions. The percentage of enrolled female students has remained steady

Table 6. Distribution and Disposition of Minority Applications, Fall 2001 to Fall 2003

ng requiremen and regulation shall be appl

138 15.5 148 16.3 Special 36 3.9 44 4.8 36 4.0 28 3.1 60 6.6

Status Full-P 584 63.3 600 65.9 617 60.2 594 67.0

631 69.5

as established at the school and a dire

w

these students. The Brownsville and El Paso regional campuses are located in Hispanic communities and

many faculty mem

students. Other activities, such as increasing the minority pipeline, will take longer to bring about change.

The school has been aggressive and successful in its diversity efforts but it is important that it continue to

develop new strategies and try new activities.

female applicants increased from 49% in 2001 to 54% in 2003. The percentage of African Americans who

at 69% for the past 3 years.

Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Applications 228 100 242 100 261 100

Denied 64 28 63 26 59 23 Admitted 107 47 112 46 137 52

25

No Action 57 25 64 26 65 25 Deferred 0 0 3 1

measure of his a are by sc the th ume n f a ittedm or tudity s

and Na

past years s 2 200 rcen

0 0

The achievement in t used hool is ber o d min ents.

The number of enrolled African American, Hispanic tive Americans students has increased slowly over

the , and wa 44 in fall 1. The pe tage of these students in the total enrolled student

population decreased slightly in 2002 and almost reached the 2001 level again in 2003.

agues in a setting in

hich faculty and students work together to achieve the academic goals of the student within the structure of

a stimulating and challeng ible for his/her academic

he program with a specific career

s the “statement of academic goals,” which is part of the MPH objectives and

chievements. These forms become part of the student’s academic record. Supervision of the MS, DrPH

Criterion IX.C. Advising and Career Counseling

There shall be available a clearly explained and accessible academic advising system for students, as well as readily available career and placement advice.

This criterion is partially met. According to the self-study, faculty view students as “colle

w

ing academic environment.” The student is respons

program and the faculty and student services are a resource provided by the school. This may work well for

students who are already working in public health and/or those who enter t

in mind. However, students and alumni who met with the site visit team had differing experiences with the

advising system. Several had faculty advisors who were excellent mentors and were involved in the student’s

academic choices and sometimes in their choice of careers; some of these mentoring relationships continued

after graduation. Others, however, found themselves very much on their own. Unfamiliar with the curriculum,

practicum opportunities, the culminating experience, and career choices, the students depended on friends

and fellow students and colleagues for advice. They said they would have appreciated a proactive advising

system and a more supportive and nurturing academic environment. Although working students are mature

and motivated, they are also juggling work and school and are appreciative of efforts to provide academic and

perhaps career guidance.

The Office of Student Affairs coordinates the orientation for new students where students meet the deans,

faculty, staff and current students. The UTSPH policies and procedures are presented to students and many

subjects of interest to new students are reviewed. Orientation is evaluated by students and these evaluations

are consistently high.

The MPH student’s advisory committee meets with the student in the fall and spring to review the student’s

academic progress toward degree completion. Students are encouraged to meet with their advisory

committee at least once each semester to stimulate faculty/student interaction. According to the self-study,

the committee review

a

and PhD students varies according to the module and discipline. Again, the students reported a variety of

experiences and the MS students reported receiving very little guidance in course selection.

26

system, faculty

ccess class rosters, student advisory committees, transcripts and comments regarding the students they

be expected to replace the

tudent’s advisory committee. Students are also encouraged to use this web-based system to track

Students are provided with a variety of career services, although the Student Affairs Office does not

job listings, and career development activities.

ent advising and student’s satisfaction with their degree program. The results from

e 2001 student exit survey indicated that “88.5% of UTSPH students were satisfied with the quality of

the curriculum, and 89.9% were satisfied with the quality of teaching… 80.5% of UTSPH students were

satisfied with the quality of faculty advising.”

ed faculty as very positive/superior ranking on teaching

ffectiveness.

Criterion IX.D. Student Roles in Governance

evaluation procedures, policy-setting and decision-making.

variety of ways and to become involved in school governance activities. However,

tudents are more likely to be involved in evaluation, which is done primarily through surveys, than to be

active in program governanc d other responsibilities, and

ecome involved in faculty committees at

all.

The advisory or dissertation committee determines if the student has completed the degree requirements

successfully. A copy of the thesis or dissertation is made available to the dean for his review and signature

and the document is bound and placed in the library for public review and use.

Since fall 2003, a new web-based system, Faculty.Net, has been in use. Through this

a

are advising. A related system, Student.Net, was also put in place, which enables students to view their

transcripts and advisory committee comments. Hopefully, this system will make it easier for the advisor

and student to track the student’s academic progress, but it should not

s

interaction with their advisors. Since the system is still new, it remains to be seen if this will improve

advising outcomes.

provide “student placement.” The services provided include a career fair, paid internship opportunities,

Students critique their experiences at the UTSPH through a student exit survey on such topics as the

effectiveness of stud

th

Each semester students complete a course evaluation following the completion of courses. The forms are

submitted to the Student Affairs Office for tabulation. The evaluations include open ended questions,

which encourage student comments, and the information is submitted to the Peer Review Committee.

The most recent questionnaires indicated that 66.1% of students ranked the overall quality of the course

as very positive/superior, and 72.5% rank

e

Students shall, where appropriate, have participatory roles in conduct of school and program

This criterion is met with commentary. Students are encouraged to participate in evaluating courses and

programs in a

s

e. Many students work full-time, have families an

may not make time for more involvement with the school. Those involved with the student association

contribute to the school in a variety of ways, but many do not b

27

nal campus. In the new divisional organization, students serve on the Academic Affairs,

dmissions, and Financial Aid Committees and the UTHSC-H Student InterCouncil. Students have

lso have input into teaching and several students serve as teaching assistants each year.

he school shall have an explicit process for evaluating and monitoring its overall efforts against s mission, goals and objectives; for assessing the school’s effectiveness in serving its various

gic

irection 1999-2005,” which integrated the schools ission and goals and set priorities for the short and

long term.

roposed, ranging from faculty

and surveys are conducted annually as described in Criterion IX. The school relies on these

erception surveys rather than the routine collection of actual outcome data. Routine information from

In addition to the course evaluations discussed earlier, advisors are evaluated by their advisees annually.

Students may also comment on orientation, mentoring and other student services. Graduating students

complete a survey and the data is made available to faculty as an annual report. An analysis of the

information is used for planning activities. Alumni are also surveyed 1, 5, and 10 years after graduation.

The UTSPH Student Association is comprised of 14 elected students from the Houston campus and each

regio

A

voting rights on most of these committees. The director of student affairs is the administration’s liaison

with the Student Association and solicits student participation in a variety of committees, task forces, and

school activities. Recently, the Student Association helped in the review of the MPH culminating

experience. As participants in the self-study process, they helped develop a student survey. Students

a

Perhaps because of the part-time status of most students, there is poor participation in the student

association and limited involvement in the school administration. Students that met with the site visit

team complained about changes that were instituted by the administration without their prior knowledge.

This might not have occurred if more students were actively involved in the governance of the school.

Criterion X.A. Ongoing Evaluation Titconstituencies; and for planning to achieve its mission in the future. This criterion is met with commentary. The UTSPH implemented a number of routine planning and

evaluation processes, including a strategic planning process synchronized with UTHSC-H that serves

both institutions oversight needs. As discussed in Criterion I, in 1998 the school produced, “Strate

D m

The school produces an annual report which serves as the tool for tracking goals, objectives and

accomplishments for the prior fiscal year and parallels the targets set in the strategic plan. As part of the

school’s reorganization, numerous planning activities are underway or p

recruitment plans to curriculum reviews. Overall, the planning process is well linked to the school’s

management needs.

In contrast, the UTSPH evaluation mechanisms are less developed. To assist in data collection, a series

of reviews

p

alumni and from key communities or resources, such as public health agencies, is not collected. In other

instances, data is gathered but not rapidly tabulated or analyzed, resulting in a loss of important

28

ader evaluation purposes. Instead, the school conducted an analysis of a random

ample of 1 year of faculty activity reports. The school reported that this cohort was engaged in 185

helpful to the site visit team. The process was organized and inclusive and the self-study provided a

he reaccreditation self-study process began in September 2002 with the appointment of a faculty

ember and an administration rep tor who coordinated the previous

with the

a group of students to work on the student questionnaire and to draft the

nal survey instrument. Collaboration on the self-study was important and many faculty and staff were

general faculty meeting was held in Houston in December of 2003 with faculty from the 5 campuses

evaluative opportunities. For instance, CEPH requires evaluation data regarding the school's service

performance over the last 3 years. This could not be provided since the faculty activity reports have not

been tabulated for bro

s

different community service activities, but the limited analysis did not provide relevant information on the

percent of faculty that were active in service, whether the activities met the school’s definition of

community service, and how many of the faculty met the 20% service activity goal.

Criterion X.B. Self-Study Process For purposes of seeking accreditation by CEPH, the school shall conduct an analytical self-evaluation and prepare a self-study document that responds to all criteria in this manual. This criterion is met. The final document was well written, clear, and appropriate in length. The criteria

were addressed with a minimum of redundancy and overlap of material. Tables and appendices were

valuable basis for the site visit.

T

m resentative, as well as the administra

self-study. Plans for the self-study were developed with input from the faculty officers and the dean’s

ffice. The Faculty Affairs, Academic Affairs, and Faculty Policy Committees were very involvedo

self-study document.

Questionnaires were developed to survey faculty, student, alumni, and employers. The Student

Association president recruited

fi

involved in its development. Drafts of the document were posted on the school’s website. Faculty

members were recruited to compile the data and write sections of the self-study and the final draft was

presented to the entire faculty. The regional campus faculty were also involved with the self-study and

meetings to discuss the content were held on their campuses.

A

participating. Faculty were encouraged to read the entire document and the text was eventually reduced

from 300 pages to 150 pages. In March of 2004, the newest version of the self-study was shared with

faculty on all campuses. The preliminary self-study was sent to CEPH and additional changes were

made in response to the comments of the readers.

29

30

SITE TEAM OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ON THE

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AT HOUSTON

COUNCIL ON EDUCATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH SITE VISIT DATES: October 5 to 7, 2004 SITE VISIT TEAM: Shelley A. Hearne, DrPH, Chair Mark P. Becker, PhD Karen Glantz, PhD, MPH Edmund A. Napieralski, PhD SITE VISIT COORDINATOR: Louisa Reynolds, MPM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SITE VISIT TEAM OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Strengths 1

Concerns 2

Development of MPH Concentrations and Learning Objectives 2

Assessment of Student Achievement 3

Academic and Career Advising 3

Agenda 5

Site Visit Team Observations and Recommendations

The major task of a site visit team from the Council on (CEPH) is to evaluate the

performance of an educational institution against a set of established evaluation criteria and make a

recommendation regarding an appropriate accreditation decision. At the time of a site visit, however, there

are also opportunities to offer advice that is more consultative in nature. Assessment of the University of

Texas School of Public Health (UTSPH) at Houston against the accreditation standards is presented in the

first part of this report. That assessment, which is endorsed by the CEPH governing body and becomes the

official report to the university, relates to d evel of performance in the areas defined

by the accreditation criteria. In many cases, however, the accreditation process provides an unusual

opportunity to addre the criteria or that

relate to optimum levels of performance rather than meeting minimum standards. In this sense, the

in this

s and

e report, hich is either formally

nce to

trengths The site visit team observed several strengths of the school of public health. Among the notable

strengths were the following:

1. The UTSPH has a robust funding base with revenues from all sources totaling $64.5M in fiscal year

2003, in spite of a significant reduction in state support.

2. The faculty engages in a wide variety of community-based and community partnered research. The

faculty are very successful in securing external grants, with almost 60% of their proposals receiving

funding.

3. The school’s 9 sponsored interdisciplinary research centers provide opportunities for collaborative

research and 88.8% of the research awards in 2003 originated in these centers.

4. The school has taken steps to increase the diversity of its student body resulting in an increase in the

number of admitted Hispanic, African American, and Native American Students. Some of the

increase in Hispanic students has occurred through the regional campus system.

5. The UTHSC-H leadership is strong and visionary and supportive of the SPH and the changes in

organizational structure and curriculum that are taking place.

6. The new Institute of Health Policy has been located in the UTSPH by the University of Texas Health

Science Center at Houston (UTHSC-H) administration. Clearly this institute is a major focus of the

top UTHSC-H administration and provides opportunities for growth and additional collaboration for

the school.

Education for Public Health

emonstrating a minimum l

ss issues that may be outside the concerns that are prescribed by

accreditation review process can contribute to quality enhancement of an educational program. It is

framework that the site visit team that reviewed the UTSPH offers these additional observation

occasional recommendations. It is hoped that this second section of th w n

adopted by the CEPH governing body nor submitted to university officials, may provide helpful guida

school officials.

S

Concerns

and that improvement in this area could improve the overall educational experience.

3. Opportunities have been uneven for faculty development under the previous matrix organizational

model with fewer assistant and associate faculty rising to the rank of full professor than would be

4. The academic requirements of the various concentrations are not clearly articulated. Some of this

may be the result of the recent organizational and curriculum restructuring which has yet to create

concentrations in all 5 basic areas of public health.

5. There is limited breadth of public health exposure, core courses and practicum in the academic

degrees.

6. s of the students attend part-time, reflecting the interest of practitioners and the

attractiveness of this program for individuals in the field, but more needs to be done to directly

address their needs.

7. The satellite programs have inadequate faculty resources and are under-funded. The UT has

established a public health task force to look at the state’s public health training needs and to

ascertain if the regional campus model should be continued.

Dev

The reorganization of the faculty into 5 divisions that represent the 5 basic areas of public health has

taken place. It will now be easier to establish concentrations in all 5 core areas for the MPH. Three of

the areas are already functioning: occupational and environmental health, health education/health

7. The new restructuring of school governance and the accompanying changes to the curriculum

provide opportunities for the creation of new and innovative models for curriculum.

8. School faculty are seriously considering recommendations presented in the IOM’s report Who Will

Keep the Public Healthy? in terms of how academic programs may need to be structured to address

current workforce needs and development.

As would be expected, concerns were identified by the team, as well. These include the following:

1. The school has a rich and robust history of public health education yet currently there is a plateau of

student enrollment which needs to be addressed.

2. The faculty is not as student oriented as the students and alumni would like. Although some students

received excellent advice and mentoring, all agreed that it was not consistent across student

experiences

expected.

Two-third

elopment of MPH Concentrations and Learning Objectives

2

prom

biostatistics need to be instituted. The current concentrations in community health practice, disease

be ntrations. All the

concentration areas will need to have clearly defined learning objectives, in addition to learning objectives

t

dev

repr

t of Student Achievement

been

stablished, it will be necessary to link the measurement of student achievement to the students’

eva as demonstrations of the ability to link knowledge

The the

achievement of the existing learning objectives however, the low completion rates indicate that the

information is not being used to address the problem. There are no time limits imposed on students to

complete the program and once they have completed their coursework, and need to complete the thesis,

they fail to do so. There has been discussion within the school about the possibility of alternative

imp

Opt n project that would be presented to a group of

analysis of the results obtained. It is important that there be disincentives for those who do not complete

the degree it in a timely manner. This could include the requirement that the student remain enrolled and

pay for 3 thesis credits each term after completion of course work; a formal reinstatement into the

program to obtain the degree if the degree is not completed in a predetermined amount of time; and the

requirement of additional course work before the degree could be obtained after a certain period of time.

Aca

The experiences of students and alumni with the current advising system varied. Several students spoke of

advisors and mentors who helped shaped their academic program and have served as valued and respected

advice of other students with regard to

ourse selection. This was particularly apparent in the academic degree programs where students reported

otion, and health services administration. Concentrations in the missing areas of epidemiology and

control, international and family health and the generalist program offered at the regional campuses can

retained as they currently exist or brought into line with 1 of the 5 required conce

for he core and courses required for the concentration areas. The learning objectives for the core can be

eloped by the faculty in the appropriate areas but should have approval of the Academic Council who

esent the faculty in all divisions.

Assessmen

Once the concentrations are developed and the learning objectives for those concentrations have

e

demonstration of the learning objectives. This cannot depend entirely on grades but must also include

luation of the practicum and culminating experience

gained in the classroom to experiences in the world of practice.

self-study demonstrated that the school currently has procedures for assessing and documenting

culminating experiences as a way to alleviate the problem. This should be further investigated and

lemented since part-time students often find a thesis difficult to complete while working full-time.

ions might include a comprehensive exam; a writte

faculty and students; or a project such as the development of a survey for an organization and the

demic and Career Advising

mentors after program completion. Others spoke of depending on the

c

3

little guidance in designing a program to meet their career goals. Part-time students are not likely to be on

campus at traditional times to meet with an advisor. Special accommodations may need to be made for such

students by the advisors or creative uses of technology implemented so that students receive guidance from

the faculty. Some programs have used peer advisors or staff advisors to supplement faculty, particularly at

the beginning of the program when there may not be a lot of choices to be made regarding course selection.

However, these advisors do not take the place of faculty in helping students develop an academic program

that will meet their career goals. The faculty committees that guide students through the curricula are

extremely valuable when they actively engage in the student’s academic career. The system should be

strengthened to ensure that all students have the opportunity to receive such guidance.

4

Accreditation Site Visit

School of Public Health at Houston

Tuesd 8:00

AGENDA

Council on Education for Public Health

October 5 to 7, 2004 University of Texas

ay, October 5, 2004

am Meeting with Self-Study Coordinator Palmer Beasley, MD, Dean

Guy Parcel, PhD, Dean Elect Lemuel Moyé, MD, PhD, Self-Study Chair

Cynthia L. Chappell, PhD, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

am Meeting with School Administration

8:30

David Carnahan, MBA, Associate Dean for Management Cynthia Chappell, PhD, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Sue Day, PhD, Associate Dean for Research Hardy Loe, MD, Associate Dean for Community Health Gene Schroder, PhD, Associate Dean for Outreach

Guy Parcel, PhD, Dean Elect

Andrew Brown, Director of Planning 10:30 am Break 10:45 am Meeting with Self-Study Core Committee

Lemuel Moyé, MD, PhD, Self-Study Chair Cynthia L. Chappell, PhD, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Frank Moore, PhD, Chair of the Faculty

Benjamin Amick, PhD, Associate Professor of Behavioral Sciences 12:00 am Lunch with Students

Sayed Abdul-Kader, MPH Program (Health Promotion/Health Education), Student Association Officer Bena Ellickalputhenpura, MS Program (Biostatistics) Kentya C. Ford, DrPH Program (Health Promotion/Health Education) Christian Gutierrez, MPH Program (Community Health), Student Association Officer Brian Howard, MPH Program Kymberle Landrum Sterling, DrPH Program (Health Promotion/Health Education) Rachael Ledet, MPH Program (Health Promotion/Health Education) Cammie Chaumont Menendez, PhD Program (Epidemiology) Amanda Navarro, DrPH Program (Management, Policy and Community Health) Jessica Tullar, MPH Program (Occupational and Environmental Health)

Jennifer Woodward, MPH Program (Disease Control) Lisa Kennedy, PhD, (Epidemiology) 1:30 pm Meeting with Division Directors and Assistant Deans (Regional Campuses)

Barry Davis, MD, PhD, Director, Division of Biostatistics Sally Vernon, PhD, Director, Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences Lawrence Whitehead, PhD, Director, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Eric Boerwinkle, PhD, Director, Division of Epidemiology Michael Swint, PhD, Director, Division of Management, Policy and Community Health Joseph McCormick, MD, Assistant Dean, Brownsville Regional Campus Raul Caetano, MD, PhD, Assistant Dean, Dallas Regional Campus Hector Balcazar, PhD, Assistant Dean, El Paso Regional Campus Stephanie McFall, PhD, Interim Assistant Dean, San Antonio Regional Campus

2:45 pm Break 3:00 pm Meeting with Curriculum Coordinators and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

Cynthia Chappell, PhD, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Co-Chair of Academic Council Kay Bartholomew, EdD, Curriculum Coordinator, Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences and Co-chair of Academic Council Sarah Baraniuk, PhD, Curriculum Coordinator, Division of Biostatistics Elaine Symanski, PhD, Curriculum Coordinator, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Steven Kelder, PhD, Curriculum Coordinator, Division of Epidemiology Virginia Kennedy, PhD, Curriculum Coordinator, Division of Management, Policy and Community Health

Hector Balcazar, PhD, Assistant Dean, El Paso Regional Campus

5

4:15 pm Meeting with Practice Coordinators, Associate Dean for Community Health, and IHP Director

Hardy Loe, MD, Asso Practice Council Arch “Chip” Carson, MD, PhD, D Occupational Health and Co-chair of Practice Council Ralph Frankowski, PhD, Division Belinda Reininger, DrPH al Sciences Stephen Linder, PhD, InBeth Quill, MPH, Division of Management, Policy and Community Health

aureen Sanderson, PhD, Division of Epidemiology nie McFall, PhD, Interim Assistant Dean, San Antonio Regional Campus

5:15 pm tive Session of Team

Wednesday, October 6, 2

with University Administration

ciate Dean for Community Health and Co-chair ofivision of Environmental and

of Biostatistics , Division of Health Promotion and Behaviorterim Director, Institut for Health Policy e

MStepha

Adjourn to Dinner and Execu

004 8:00 am Meeting

Executive Vice President and Operating Officer mic Affairs

h 9:00 am

James Willerson, MD, President Michael McKinney, MD, SeniorMaximillian Buja, MD, Executive Vice President for AcadePeter Davies, MD, PhD, Executive Vice President for Researc

Transportation to UTSPH Resource Files9:30 am

10:30 am Break 10:45 am

Meeting with Center Directors and Associat

Sue Day, PhD, Associate Dean for Researce Dean for Research h

search

l a Environmental Health Non-Center Research R

12:00 pm

Charles Begley, PhD, Co-Director, Center for Health Services ReLu Whang, Center for Infectious Diseases

Felknor, PhD, Co-Director, Southwest Ce ona ndSarah nter for Occupatiepresentative Richard Grimes, PhD,

Craig Hanis, PhD, Representative, Human Genetics Center otion and Prevention Research Steven Kelder, PhD, Director, Centers for Health Prom

Joseph McCormick, MD, Director, Hispanic Health Research Center Frank Moore, PhD, Director, Center for Health Policy Studies

esentative, Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials Lemuel Moyé, MD, PhD, ReprRaul Caetano, MD, PhD, Assistant Dean, Dallas Regional Campus Scott Lillibridge, MD, Center for Public Health Preparedness Frank Velesquez Stephen Linder, Interim Director, Institute of Health Policy

Lunch with Alumni y, Director of Stud y Management, ‘92 /Physician, ‘84

mmunity Affairs,’79

pervisor, ’87, ‘91

1:30 pm

Lina Asmar, MPH, PhD, US Oncologllen S Baker, MD, NASA, AstronautE

W. Bryant Boutwell,MPH, DrPH, UT Medical School, Associate Dean for CoMary desVignes-Kendrick, MD, UTSPH, Professor . ‘88 Anita Deswal, MPH, VA Medical Center, Faculty, ‘03 David E. Garcia, AIDS Foundation Houston, Education Coordinator, ‘04

, Faculty Edward Graviss, MPH, DrPH, Baylor College of MedicinePaul E. Grunenwald, Jr., DVM, MPH, Harris County, Zoonosis Veterinarian, ‘04

Barbara Kimmel, MS, Methodist Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, ‘96n SuMary L. Wear, MPPD, PhD, Wyle Laboratories, Epidemiology Sectio

Karen Williams, Southern University

Council Meeting with FacultyMoore, PhD, C Frank hair of the Faculty Moyé, MD, PhD Chair Elect of the Facu

ce Whitehead, PhD, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health

Lemuel lty Wenyaw Chan, PhD, Division of Biostatistics Patrick Tarwater, PhD, Division of Biostatistics Ann Coker, PhD, Division of Epidemiology

lth Promotion and Behavioral Sciences Theresa Byrd, DrPH, Division of HeaMelchor Ortiz, PhD, Representative El Paso Regional Campus Jimmy Perkins, PhD, Representative of San Antonio Regional Campus Arnold Schecter, MD, Representative of Dallas Regional Campus Michael Smolensky, PhD, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Lowell Sever, PhD, Division of Epidemiology Lawren

6

2:15 pm

Break 2:30 pm r Academic Affairs, Student Services, and Diversity Officer

Meeting with Assistant Dean fo

ions

aria Fernandez, PhD, Diversity Officer

3:15 pm Meeting with Community Representatives

Mary Ann Smith, PhD, Assistant Dean for AdmissDerek Drawhorn, Director of Informational Technology Stephanie Tamborello, Director of Student Affairs Helena Von Ville, Director of Library Services, MPH student Henry Fung, Director of Educational Media Services Deborah Bollom, Practicum Coordinator M

y Loe, MD, Associate Dean for Community Health Raouf Arafat, Bureau Chief of Epidemiology, H ston Department of Health and Human Services

Texas Legislature le Community Health Center

Pruski, Acting Assistant Director, San Antonio Metropolitan Health District Sage Associates

Martha Stowe, Director, Greater Dallas Injury Prevention Center Medical Consultant, Hewlett Packard and President, IMS

Tijerina, Family Services of Greater HoMD, , Regional Director, Texas Department of State Health Services

Thursday, October 7, 200 8:00 am

Hardou

Garnet Coleman, State Representative,Paula Gomez, Director, BrownsvilCindy Kilborn, Chief Epidemiologist, Harris County Health Department Joan Miller, Executive Director, Health Collaborative Jane Peranteau, St. Luke’s Episcopal Health Charities CharlesDeborah Scott, President and CEO,

Robert Teague, Alfredo uston James Zoretic, MPH

4:30 pm Adjourn to Dinner and Executive Session of Team

4

Special Meetings as Requested by Team

11:30 am

Working Lunch in Executive Session

2:00 pm

Exit interview

r Research

Hardy Loe, MD, Associate Dean for Community Health or of Planning

Guy Parcel, PhD, Dean Elect Lemuel Moyé, MD, PhD, Self-Study Chair

David Carnahan, MBA, Associate Dean for Management Cynthia Chappell, PhD, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Sue Day, PhD, Associate Dean fo Gene Schroder, PhD, Associate Dean for Outreach

Andrew Brown, Direct

7