California State University, Northridge’s mission and values are the foundation for all programs at the University. The mission of California State University, Northridge (CSUN) is as follows:

California State University, Northridge exists to enable students to realize their educational goals. The University’s first priority is to promote the welfare and intellectual progress of students. To fulfill this mission, we design programs and activities to help students develop the academic competencies, professional skills, critical and creative abilities, and ethical values of learned persons who live in a democratic society, in interdependent world, and a technological age; we seek to foster a rigorous and contemporary understanding of the liberal arts, sciences, and professional disciplines, and we believe in the following values:

Commitment to teaching, scholarship, and active learning.
Commitment to excellence.
Respect for all people.
Alliances with the community; and
Encouragement of innovation, experimentation, and creativity.

(CSUN Catalog, 2004-2006, p. 12)

To meet the University’s mission, the Master of Public Health Program in Health Education mission is:

To successfully promote the development of professional health educators and researchers to enhance the general health and wellbeing of the greater community. It is through such promotion that the graduate student will be prepared to identify and assess the needs of communities; plan, implement and evaluate programs to address those needs; and otherwise assure conditions which protect and promote the health of the community.

The faculty of the MPH Program is committed to the mission and values of the University and to full and active partnerships with the surrounding communities from which it draws its student body.

Following the last accreditation review, the Master of Public Health (MPH) Program faculty in consultation with its newly formed Master of Public Health Advisory Council (MPHAC), Master of Public Health Student Association (MPHSA) and the Master of Public Health Alumni Association (MPHAA) formulated, and set new goals and objectives for the program. These goals and objectives helped the Program faculty to determine the function of each of our courses, and identified Program evaluation data sources to assess student outcomes. The Program goals and objectives are as follows:

Program Goals:

The Program goals and objectives are as follows:

Goal 1: To ensure that MPH students develop a mastery of public health and health education knowledge and skills.

Objective 1.1: MPH graduates will demonstrate a mastery of public health and health education knowledge and skills including community health education program planning, implementation, and evaluation; theories and application of health behavior change assessment and interventions; community organization; curriculum design; administration of health education programs and services; epidemiology, environmental health; research design, and biostatistics.

Objective 1.2: MPH graduates will develop a mastery of skills that are required to use electronic media currently employed in the public health and health education arenas.
Objective 1.3: MPH graduates will demonstrate knowledge and skills associated with multicultural influences and considerations that may impact on the delivery of culturally competent public health and health education interventions.

Goal 2: To ensure that MPH graduate students are prepared to practice public health and health education with a clear understanding of the values and ethics that underline and define the profession.

Objective 2.1: MPH graduates will demonstrate knowledge of the values and ethics that guide the practice of public health and health education.

Goal 3: To ensure that all MPH graduates are prepared to assume leadership roles in a wide variety of public health and health education settings.

Objective 3.1: All MPH graduates will complete a community-based 400 hour internship to gain an understanding of public health service and the role of the health educator within these settings.
Objective 3.2: All MPH graduates will participate in a field training course to share, discuss and process their field training experiences.

Goal 4: To promote an active research agenda among all full-time health education faculty regardless of whether the research agenda is funded or not.

Objective 4.1: All full-time health education faculty will be engaged in an active research agenda whether said research is funded or not.
Objective 4.2: Where possible or appropriate, to involve MPH students in faculty research projects each academic year.

Goal 5: To promote involvement of all full-time health education faculty in community service activities.

Objective 5.1: All full-time health education faculty will be involved in at least one community service activity per academic year.

Goal 6: To conduct continuing education programs for health education professionals either alone or in partnership with other agencies or organizations interested in supporting these activities.

Objective 6.1: To plan, implement, and evaluate at least one continuing education program per year for CHES credit for health education professions in the CSUN service area.

Goal 7: To promote student involvement in the conduct of program evaluation activities, policy setting, and decision-making.

Objective 7.1: At least 75% of MPH graduate students will be active members in the MPH Student Association.
Objective 7.2: A minimum of one MPH graduate student will be involved in the MPH Advisory Committee and Health Education faculty meetings as representatives from the MPH student body.
Objective 7.3: All MPH graduate students will have an opportunity to participate in MPH Program surveys to be conducted every two years.
Objective 7.4: All MPH graduate students will have the opportunity to review and comment on the accreditation self-study document at each accreditation cycle of the program.
Objective 7.5:All MPH graduate students will have the opportunity to meet with CEPH site visit teams to provide input during this evaluation process.

Goal 8: To conduct ongoing evaluations of the effectiveness of the MPH Program to meet its stated mission, goals, and objectives.

Objective 8.1: To conduct a survey of MPH Program alumni and field training supervisors every two years.
Objective 8.2: To conduct Total Quality Assessment (TQE) interviews of all students who have reached the 20 unit mark in their programs and at the time of their graduation.
Objective 8.3: To conduct a yearly strategic planning review and Program modification meeting with Health Education faculty.
Objective 8.4: To form and support an MPH Advisory Committee made up of Program constituencies who can review, revise, and recommend changes needed in all aspects of the MPH Program.
Objective 8.5: To conduct a periodic self-study of the Program consistent with the re-accreditation cycle through CEPH and to share this self-study document with all constituencies of the MPH Program.

Please see Attachment 1 for a listing of the goals, objectives, data sources and evaluation methodologies used to assess program quality and effectiveness in meeting the needs of its various constituencies.

Monitoring and Revising of Program Mission, Goals and Objectives

Following the last site visit in the Spring Semester of 2002, the Program began a very intensive effort to design and implement a comprehensive plan that focused on developing methodologies to ensure that regular review, monitoring and evaluation of all aspects of the Program were carried out in a regular and systemic way. This resulted in the following changes:

The formation of the MPH Advisory Council (MPHAC);
The creation the MPHAC Continuing Education and Curriculum Review subcommittees;
The scheduling of formal and documented health education faculty retreats at the end of each academic year;
The inclusion of MPH student representatives in Program meetings and retreats; and
The documentation and surveying of students, alumni, and field preceptors to ensure that the Program would meet its goals, objectives and the needs of its graduate students.

The MPHAC membership includes community members; current MPH students, alumni, field preceptors, and faculty (see Resource File). The MPHAC has developed its by-laws and operating procedures, established its subcommittees for continuing education and curriculum review, and began meeting regularly as a monitoring and advisement group for the program. Meeting minutes, current membership and associated materials will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit. While the MPHAC was evolving, MPH faculty reviewed and revised Program goals and objectives with input from the MPHAC, MPH students and alumni. Following a final review by the MPHAC, goals and objectives were approved and implemented.

Since the writing of the first submitted draft of this report (May 2005) the MPH Program has undertaken a change in leadership. Early in June of 2005 Dr. Huff requested that the MPH faculty support his desire to devote a greater portion of his professional time to research and writing. By a unanimous decision the MPH faculty set July 1, 2005 as the date by which Dr. Fischbach assumed the Directorship of the MPH and the undergraduate Public Health Education Programs, and Dr. Ebin became the Graduate Program Coordinator. The duties assigned to Dr. Fischbach include:

· Conduct and set the agenda for monthly MPH faculty meetings;

· Plan class schedules;

· Review of provisional, part-time, and advancing faculty performance;

· Represent the MPH Program on the Health Sciences Department’s Advisory Committee;

· Submit yearly budgetary needs to the Chair of the Health Sciences Department; and

· Review the MPH Admission’s Committee’s decisions.

As Graduate Program Coordinator, Dr. Ebin is responsible for the following:

· Coordinate Total Quality Education (TQE) process;

· Oversee the MPH Comprehensive Examination;

· Chair the MPH Admission’s Committee;

· Plan and supervise the MPH Comprehensive Examination;

· Coordinate accreditation activities;

· Interface with the MPH Community Advisory Committee;

· Interface with the MPH Graduate Student Association; and

· Oversee the Self-Monitoring Evaluation Process.

Dr. Winkelman remains the coordinator of the undergraduate Health Science Subject Matter Credential Preparation Program.

The process of assessing the quality of the MPH Program is one of the principle responsibilities of the MPH Program Director and Graduate Coordinator. During regularly scheduled monthly MPH faculty meetings the Director reports to the faculty data that quantifies the extent to which Program goals and objectives are being achieved. The finding of the MPH faculty is reported by the Director to the MPHAC at their regularly scheduled meetings, and their recommendations are communicated back to the MPH faculty for consideration and action. In an effort to maintain clear and open lines of communication between faculty members, students, and alumni, in addition to the MPH Program Director/Coordinator, the MPH student representative from the MPHSA participates in all MPH faculty and MPHAC meetings (MPHSA meeting minutes will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit).

Another measurement of MPH Program quality is derived from regularly surveying Program constituencies. This includes yearly assessment of students by the MPHSA and every two years an assessment of alumni and field preceptors (surveys and analysis reports will be available in the Resource File and incorporated where appropriate in this Self-Study). The effort to measure the MPH Program’s achievements culminates in a year-end review and evaluation that takes place at the annual health education faculty retreat from which action plans are developed for the next academic year (See Resource File for minutes of these retreats). Information regarding Program changes, updates on Program activities and needs, and other related issues are disseminated through the MPHSA newsletter and Internet News Group; on the MPH Bulletin Board via the MPH website; and via print and oral presentations during MPHAC meetings. More recently the MPHSA has utilized the Internet and classroom announcements as major avenues of disseminating programmatic information.

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met. The Program has a clear mission statement, goals and objectives that reflect those of California State University, Northridge. A process has been developed and implemented to ensure that the Program continues to be responsive to the needs of all of its constituents and reflects the program’s commitment to training skilled and competent public health practitioners.

II. ORGANIZATIONAL SETTING

EXTERNAL

Criterion II.A.: The program shall be an integral part of an accredited institution of higher education.

California State University, Northridge (CSUN) is part of the 23 campus California State University system. It is the only public university located in the San Fernando Valley and is one of the largest higher education institutions in California with an enrollment of over 31,900 students as of the Spring Semester 2004. CSUN is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). Within the State of California, CSUN is accredited by the State Board of Education. The University is comprised of eight colleges:

· Arts, Media, and Communication;

· Business and Economics;

· Michael D. Eisner College of Education;

· Engineering and Computer Science; Humanities;

· Science and Mathematics;

· Social and Behavioral Sciences; and

· Health and Human Development.

CSUN offers sixty-two Bachelor’s degrees, forty-two Master’s degrees and twenty-eight credentials. As of spring 2004, there were approximately 4,000 faculty and staff at CSUN (CSUN Catalog, 2004-2006).

Text Box: Figure 1: California State University, Northridge Administrative Organization

Figure 1: California State University, Northridge Administrative Organization, provides a graphic representation of CSUN’s administrative organization, including key administrative positions. The relationship of the College of Health and Human Development (CHHD) to the other colleges within the University is depicted in Figure 2: Academic Affairs Administration Chart below.

Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Harry Hellenbrend

Figure 3 provides the organizational make up of the College of Health and Human Development.

Text Box: Figure 3: College of Health and Human Development Organizational Chart

Figure 4: Department of Health Sciences Organizational Chart depicts the organizational make up of the Health Sciences Department. Under the administration of the Chair are five programs and a collection of general education and departmental service courses. The programs are headed by directors who receive three units of release time to administer their respective programs. The Chair administers the general education and service courses and coordinates the five programs into a cohesive functioning department.

The University has established policies, procedures and rules that govern all administrative and organizational roles and responsibilities between the programs and the University. These include budgeting matters and resource allocation, personnel recruitment, selection, and advancement, establishment of academic standards and policies, faculty governance, and curriculum matters.

As can be seen in Figure 4, the MPH Program is one of a number of accredited programs at CSUN and is administratively situated in the Department of Health Sciences (one of eight departments that make up the College of Health and Human Development). The MPH Program functions as a specific unit within the Department’s overall Health Education Program which includes an undergraduate program with two tracks (Public Health Education and Health Science Subject Matter Preparation [Single Subject Credential]) and the Master of Public Health Program in Health Education.

The MPH Program is one of a number of distinct academic preparation areas within the Department of Health Sciences including Health Administration (undergraduate and graduate program), RN to BSN Nursing Program, Radiology Technology undergraduate program, and Health Education. There is also a Gerontology Interdisciplinary Minor program located within the Department. Administratively, each program area has a Director who reports to the Acting Department Chair (Dr. Brian Malec) who in turn reports to the Dean of the College of Health and Human Development.

Since the last Self-Study, there have been several changes to the Department of Health Sciences including the appointment of Dr. Brian Malec as Chair and the conversion of two programs formally housed in the Health Sciences Department to separate departments within the College of Health and Human Development. These two new departments are the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health (EOH), and the Department of Physical Therapy. The relationship between the MPH Program and the EOH department continues to be strong. The Department of Environmental and Occupational Health provides a core course, EOH 554 “Seminar: Environmental and Occupational Health Problems” for the MPH Program (see Criterion V).

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met. The MPH Program is considered to be an integral part of the University, College, and Department of Health Sciences. Organizationally, the Program enjoys status and prerogatives comparable to that of the other programs in the Department of Health Sciences, the College of Health and Human Development, and the University. The MPH Program maintains excellent working relationships within all areas of the University.

INTERNAL

Criterion II.B.: The program shall provide a setting conducive to teaching and learning, research and service. The organizational setting shall facilitate interdisciplinary communication, cooperation and collaboration and shall foster the development by the program of professional public health values, concepts and ethics.

The MPH Program is organizationally located within the Department of Health Sciences, one of the larger departments within the College of Health and Human Development (CHHD). As of March of 2004 the Health Sciences Department has a combined enrollment of over 646 graduate and undergraduate students, representing almost 20% of the total enrollment of CHHD. The data for the same period shows the MPH Program having 75 students enrolled either full or part-time. Figure 4 above presents the current organizational chart for the Department of Health Sciences depicting the relationship of the MPH Program to the other departmental programs.

All programs within the Department of Health Sciences have a Program Director who reports to the Chair who in turn reports to the Dean of the College of Health and Human Development. Each program is supported by an administrative staff member who assists the Program Director with admissions processes and other related activities necessary to the effective functioning of the program. Program Directors meet as a body with the Department Chair monthly to discuss budget and resource allocations, University, College and Departmental policy concerns and issues, and any additional concerns that relate to the functioning of the Department and its various programs.

The Director of the Health Education Program is responsible for two sets of duties; they include directing the two undergraduate health education programs and administering the MPH Program. While Dr. Huff was the Director of the Health Education Program he assigned the day-to-day responsibilities of managing the undergraduate Public Health Education Program to Dr. Ronald Fischbach, and the Health Science Single Subject Credential Program to Dr. Jack Winkelman. Dr. Huff assumed the day-to-day responsibilities of the MPH Program as well as the duties of the MPH Coordinator. Dr. Huff relied upon his fellow faculty to make scheduling, curriculum, part-time faculty, and other recommendations to him. Dr. Huff assimilated all of the information provided, reviewed it for efficacy and made all the final recommendations to the Chair of the Health Sciences Department.

The current MPH Program Director, Dr. Fischbach, administers the two undergraduate programs as well as the MPH Program. However, under his direction the day-to-day responsibilities of running the MPH Program are being shared by Dr. Ebin in the role of the MPH Coordinator and Dr. Fischbach as the Program Director. The day-to-day responsibilities of running the undergraduate Public Health Education Program is assigned to Dr. Fischbach. Dr. Winkelman continues to make the day-to-day decisions related to the Health Science Subject Matter Preparation Program leading to a Single Subject Credential. The choice as to which organizational structure has been in place depended largely upon the weight of other duties facing the faculty. Such duties included research, writing, or other assigned responsibilities.

Interdisciplinary Coordination, Cooperation and Collaboration

The MPH Program continues to enjoy a dynamic blending of interdisciplinary collaboration, coordination, and cooperation within the many disciplines that make up the Health Sciences Department. Public health trained faculty from other programs within the Department of Health Sciences have joint appointments with the MPH Program and teach MPH courses in the areas of biostatistics, epidemiology, health administration, and health care ethics. In addition, public health trained faculty from the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health also teach a core class, EOH 554 “Seminar: Environmental & Occupational Health” in the Program (see Criterion V). MPH faculty members also regularly teach sessions on multicultural health promotion and cultural competence in the RN to BSN and Radiological Sciences Programs.

Professional Public Health Values, Concepts and Ethics

A faculty strongly rooted by their public health training provides the foundation for teaching MPH students the core values, and ethics that underlie public health education practice. Among others, the core values include: voluntary cooperation and choice, respect for people, justice, honesty, cultural sensitivity, professional competence, and reflection and self-evaluation. Examples of some of the ethical principles included in the Program are: informed consent, nonmalificence, and beneficence. The reliance upon “Society for Public Health Education’s Code of Ethics,” and a judicious inclusion of core public health values and concepts forms the basis for student discussion and analysis of public health education in courses such as:

· HSCI 521: Health Care Ethics

· HSCI 531: Health Education Program Planning & Evaluation

· HSCI 536: Cultural Issues in Health Care

· HSCI 533: Advanced Concepts in Health Behavior

· HSCI 537: Communication in Health Education

· HSCI 538: Seminar in Community Health Action

· HSCI 539: Current Issues in Health Education

· HSCI 693A: Supervised Field Training

· HSCI 694: Research Design

· HSCI 698B: Thesis/Graduate Project

These courses communicate to the student the belief that it is critical to the development of a well trained public health educator to understand and commit to the core values, concepts and ethics of public health practice.

Policies that Reflect the MPH Program’s Commitment to Fair and Ethical Practices

The MPH Program supports and subscribes to the policies and procedures on nondiscrimination and student conduct as identified in the University Catalog (see University Catalog 2004-2006, pp 529- 533). A partial listing of some of the important areas covered in University policy includes the following:

· Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment,

· Policy on Sexual Assault and Acquaintance Rape,

· Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age,

· Policy on Sexual Harassment,

· Student Conduct Code,

· Academic Dishonesty,

· Academic Grievances and Grade Appeals, and

· Violence in the Workplace.

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met. The duties of the MPH Program Director require an ongoing review of the policies that underlie the day-to-day operations of the MPH Program. Such policies strongly influence the substance and delivery of the curriculum, coordination of the MPH Admissions Committee, performance of faculty-student advisement, and the contributions of the MPHAC, MPHSA, and alumni to the Program. The MPH Program Director meets regularly with the Chair of the Health Sciences Department and other Program Directors. These monthly meetings are devoted to policy and procedural issues that impact resource allocation, personnel management and procurement, and curriculum standards.

As was noted elsewhere in this Self-Study, the Department of Health Sciences underwent an organizational change when two programs in the Department, Environmental and Occupational Health and Occupational Therapy, left to become separate departments. As a result of this organizational change, the Health Sciences Department and its remaining Programs have come together as a strong and cohesive unit. The Department of Environmental and Occupational Health continues to support the MPH Curriculum by offering EOH 554 (Seminar: Environmental and Occupational Health Problems, formerly HSCI 554) a core class in the Program, and strong ties related to research and mutual collaboration remain with the Physical Therapy Department.

III. GOVERNANCE

Criterion III: The program administration and faculty shall have clearly defined rights and responsibilities concerning program governance and academic policies. Where appropriate, students shall have participatory roles in program governance.

Administrative, Governance and Committee Structure and Processes

The MPH Program functions within the overall administrative structure of the Department of Health Sciences. The Program has autonomy within the department and determines policies and actions relevant to its operation and direction. Decision making for the Program, as well as other programs within the department, is in accordance with the overall policies and procedures of the University, College and Department of Health Sciences. These decisions include matters of budgeting and resource allocation; faculty recruitment, retention, tenure, and promotion; curriculum and academic standards, program quality and assessment; and service and research expectations. Detailed below are other important University, College, Department and Program mechanisms available to MPH Program faculty and students that provide opportunities for intensive involvement in the governance processes.

Standing and Ad Hoc Committees: Membership and Charge

Figure 5: Department, College and University Committee Participation by MPH Faculty below demonstrates MPH Program faculty involvement on committees at all levels of the University. Participation on these committees strategically positions the MPH faculty to have input and decision making roles that directly impact program and departmental governance as well as student involvement.

Committee Position	Membership Selection	MPH Faculty Serving	Committee/Position Function
MPH Program Director	Elected by the Program faculty and appointed by the Chair	Huff/Fischbach	Advises & makes recommendations to the Chair concerning programmatic matters including resource allocations, course scheduling, space allocations, selection of part-time faculty, curriculum, admissions, accreditation, and other related matters
MPH Graduate Coordinator	Appointed by the Chair	Huff/Ebin	Reviews, consults with faculty, and acts upon all administrative matters concerning student affairs within the program Functions as liaison to the University Office of Graduate Studies
MPH Admissions Committee	Appointed by Program faculty	Ebin (Chair) Winkelman Young	Reviews applications for admission to the Program and makes recommendations back to the Program Director for student acceptance/rejection
MPH Student Association	Association Officers elected by MPH students. One student representative acts as liaison to the MPH Program	Ebin (faculty advisor) Sara Tamers (MPH Student Association President and liaison to the program)	Participates in MPH policy making, accreditation self-study activities, MPHAC, new student orientation and other related activities
MPH Program TQE Committee	Appointed by the Program Director	Ebin (Chair)	Conducts mid-point and exit interviews of students with respect to process and outcome evaluations of student progress and experiences in the program
Department Personnel Committee	Elected by the faculty	Highfield, Seliger& Rubino	Acts on all matters related to retention, tenure and promotion of faculty within the Department of Health Sciences
Department Post-Tenure Review Committee	Elected by faculty	Winkelman & Ebin, & Fischbach	Reviews tenured faculty every five years who have not been reviewed for promotion
Department Program Directors Advisory Team	Elected by faculty and appointed by the Chair	Fischbach, Highfield, Reagan Slechta,& Malec (Chair)	Reviews, consults with Program faculty, and acts upon all administrative matters concerning operations of the Department and its various programs
Department Curriculum Committee	Elected by Program faculty	Chu & representatives from the other three programs	Reviews Program curriculum changes, additions and modifications and recommends to the College Personnel Committee
Department Technology Committee	Appointed by the Chair	Young & Chu	Advises the Chair concerning allocation of resources for technology and plans & implements faculty technology training
College Curriculum Committee	Elected by Department level committee	Fischbach (Chair) (2003-2005)	Reviews and approves all undergraduate curriculum from all Departments in the College and recommends to EPC
CSUN Graduate Studies Committee	Elected by University vote of faculty	Huff (Chair)	Reviews and approves all graduate curriculum from all colleges in the University
CSUN Faculty Senate	Elected by a vote of faculty in the College of HHD	Huff, Sheets & Madjzoob	Reviews and approves procedures related to University curriculum, governance, policy and related issues
CSUN Faculty Retreat Committee	Volunteer	Ebin	Plans yearly University-wide learning sessions and workshops
CSUN Alcohol Abuse and Prevention Committee	Appointed by the VP of Student Affairs	Ebin	Prepare University-wide policy statements, student assessments, and prevention programs
MPH Alumni Association Liaison	Appointed by Program Director	Madjzoob	Provides active liaison between the Association and the MPH Program
MPH Advisory Council	Appointed by the officers of the MPHAC	Fischbach, Ebin & Madjzoob	Advisory group to the MPH Program

Figure 5: Department, College and University Committee Participation by MPH Faculty

As can be seen from Figure 5 above, MPH faculty members are involved in a variety of activities that contribute to the governance of the Program. MPH faculty meet monthly to review issues directly related to the Program, and to make decisions as needed for the orderly and systematic operation of the Program. This includes policy level decisions related to curriculum, admissions, resource needs, accreditation, student needs and concerns. In addition decisions and information originating at the College and University levels are disseminated to and discussed by the MPH faculty via these month meetings. These meetings also focus on problem-solving, addressing such issues as student admission criteria, student/faculty performance, academic dishonesty, comprehensive examination revisions, and class scheduling. The opportunity to review the monthly meeting outcomes based on previously agreed upon objectives, and to engage in strategic planning for the upcoming year are afforded by the annual Health Education Faculty Retreat (minutes from all monthly Program faculty meetings and the faculty retreats will be available onsite in the Resource File).

Since the last accreditation visit, the MPH Program organized an advisory committee, the MPH Advisory Council (MPHAC), whose major function is to participate in the governance of the MPH Program. The MPHAC shares the governance of the Program by meeting with the MPH Program Director during their monthly meetings and reviewing data presented during the Director’s report. Membership on the Council is determined Council bylaws and includes representatives from the health education practice community, lay community members, MPH Program faculty, and students representing the MPH Student Association. The Council has two subcommittees that are devoted to program curriculum review and continuing education activities (see Resource File for By-Laws and Council membership).

The MPH Student Association (MPHSA) also plays an important role in the governance of the Program. The MPHSA elects one or more liaison representatives to participate in Health Education faculty meetings, the MPHAC monthly meetings, the MPHAC subcommittee meetings, and in the annual faculty retreat. In addition, the MPHSA administers an annual student satisfaction survey and presents their findings for discussion at the annual faculty retreat (survey data and instruments will be available onsite in the Resource File). The MPHSA also coordinates an annual new student orientation, a hooding ceremony at the end of the academic year, an MPH student email list, a job notification service via the MPHSA@yahoogroups.com email site, and a Student E-newsletter (MPHSA meeting minutes and related materials will be available onsite in the Resource File).

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met. The activities related to Program governance have been substantially strengthened since the last site visit. Governance of the MPH Program includes: regular meetings of the MPH faculty; meetings of the MPHAC and its subcommittees; active and regular participation from the MPHSA; and faculty participation in committee work at all levels of the University. The breadth and depth of the various governance activities presented above have contributed to greatly improved Program management.

IV. RESOURCES

Criterion IV: The Program shall have resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission and goals, and its instructional, research and service objectives.

Budget

The allocation of financial resources is a complex bureaucratic/political process in the California State University (CSU) system. Nonetheless, the MPH Program has been adequately supported throughout its history. The process begins politically in the state legislature and the governor’s office as an item in the state budget. Funds are allocated by the state to the CSU system through the Chancellor’s office, which in turn allocates funds to each of the 23 CSU campuses. Each campus further allocates funds to its various academic colleges, and the deans then allocate to departments. No portion of the student tuition fee flows directly to the individual campuses, Colleges or Departments. At the departmental level, the final allocation of funds is the responsibility of the department chairs. In the Department of Health Sciences at CSUN, in consultation with the Program Directors, the Department Chair determines how funding will be allocated to each of the program areas. Thus, the actual budgeting process stops at the departmental level. As a consequence of cost sharing that takes place across Programs within the Health Sciences Department it is impossible to put a hard dollar value to the amount of funds directly flowing to the MPH Program. Employing the ratio of semester units taught in the MPH Program to total semester units taught in the Health Sciences Department results in approximately 15% (57/373) of the funds expended on the MPH Program.

Programs within the Department of Health Sciences at CSUN do not have individual budgets or authority over their financial future. Programs make recommendations and requests for funding to the Department Chair. Thus, for the MPH Program, such requests are passed from the MPH Program Director to the Chair of Health Sciences. The extent to which funding is granted for staffing and other programmatic needs (i.e., such as equipment) is a product of two factors: the overall availability of funds and the degree to which the needs of the program coincide with the mission of the University. Since equipment allocations are necessarily limited, the Department Chair, in consultation with the Program Directors, makes final determination regarding new equipment. Table 1 presents the Department of Health Science’s allocations and expenditures for the academic years 2002-03 through 2004-05.

Table 1: MPH Program budget allocations for 02/03, 03/04 and 04/05 academic fiscal years.

Category	AFY 02/03	AFY 03/04	AFY 04/05
Category	Expenditures	Expenditures	Expenditures
Salaries
Full-Time Faculty	$333,235	$398,112	$400,275
Part-Time Faculty	$60,000	$89,625	$65,477
Staff Support	$6,000	$6,000	$6,441
Fringe Benefits	$95,971	$160,513	$151,998
Student Assistant Wages	$2,500	$2,800	$3,000
Travel	$1,000	$2,500	$2,600
General Supplies	$300	$300	$350
Printing/Copy Costs	$3,800	$4,000	$4,000
Telecommunications	$100	$100	$150
Recruitment Fees: APHA	$865	$0	$0
Accreditation Related Expenses
MPH Dues to CEPH	$2,503	$2,578	$2,707
CEPH Travel Reimbursement	$2,278	$0	$0
MPH Program Dues	$250	$250	$250
Total	$508,802	$666,779	$637,249

Occasionally, research grants obtained by faculty members will contain indirect costs that will result in funds awarded to the Department. During the 2004-2005 academic year approximately $2,600 was earned by the Health Sciences Department as a result of indirect costs identified in research grants.

Faculty Resources

There are currently seven full-time faculty members in the Health Education Program. Six of these faculty members are in tenure track positions and one is a full-time lecturer. Five of these seven faculty members routinely teach MPH required or elective courses (see Table 2 below). The other two faculty members are assigned to undergraduate courses in health education though both participate in the comprehensive examination and serve as thesis/graduate project chairs and/or committee members. Two faculty members from the Health Administration Program and one from the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health hold joint appointments and teach core courses in the MPH Program. A specific listing of all faculty members teaching in the Program can be found in Section VIII of this self-study report. Table 2 below shows the full-time equivalent-student (FTES) values, the full-time equivalent-faculty (FTEF) values, and the student-faculty ratios (SFR) for MPH courses. This table excludes HSCI 698B Thesis/Graduate Project and HSCI 699A-C Independent Studies as these courses do not count toward the faculty teaching loads. They do, however, contribute significantly to student learning.

Table 2: MPH FTES, FTEF, and SFR by semester, course, faculty teaching the course and student credit units per course for Academic Years 2002-2005.

		Student			FTE
Semester	Professor	Credit			V/A
& Course	of Record	Units	FTES	FTEF	Faculty	SFR
*Fall 2002*
HSCI 521	Cotler	102	6.80	NA	0.25
HSCI 531	Young	75	5.00	0.25	NA
HSCI 535	Madjzoob	78	5.20	0.25	NA
HSCI 539	Fischbach	7	0.47	0.25	NA
EOH 554	Kelly	60	4.00	NA	0.25
HSCI 587	Madison	84	5.60	NA	0.25
HSCI 693A	Ebin	14	0.93	0.25	NA
HSCI 694	Ebin	57	3.80	0.25	NA
HSCI 697	Huff	21	1.40	0.25	NA
Total		498	33.20	1.50	0.75	14.76

*Spring 2003*
HSCI 521	Cotler	117	7.80	NA	0.25
HSCI 533	Huff	78	5.20	0.25	NA
HSCI 537	Huff	36	2.40	0.25	NA
HSCI 538	Ebin	60	4.00	0.25	NA
HSCI 541	Seliger	93	6.20	NA	0.25
HSCI 592	Ebin	78	5.20	0.25	NA
HSCI 693A	Ebin	32	2.13	0.25	NA
HSCI 697	Huff	21	1.40	0.25	NA
Total		515	34.33	1.50	0.50	17.17

		Student			FTE
Semester	Professor	Credit			V/A
& Course	of Record	Units	FTES	FTEF	Faculty	SFR
*Fall 2003*
HSCI 521	Cotler	99	6.60	NA	0.25
HSCI 531	Young	69	4.60	0.25	NA
HSCI 535	Madjzoob	63	4.20	0.25	NA
HSCI 536	Vicensio	7	0.47	NA	0.25
HSCI 539	Fischbach	15	1.00	0.25	NA
EOH 554	Kelly	84	5.60	NA	0.25
HSCI 587	Madison	60	4.00	NA	0.25
HSCI 693A	Ebin	24	1.60	0.25	NA
HSCI 694	Ebin	69	4.60	0.25	NA
HSCI 697	Huff	21	1.40	0.25	NA
Total		511	34.07	1.50	1.00	13.63

*Spring 2004*
HSCI 521	Cotler	75	5.00	NA	0.25
HSCI 533	Huff (2 Sec)	87	5.80	0.50	NA
HSCI 538	Ebin	60	4.00	0.25	NA
HSCI 541	Seliger	81	5.40	NA	0.25
HSCI 592	Ebin	75	5.00	0.25	NA
HSCI 693A	Ebin	30	2.00	0.25	NA
HSCI 697	Huff	21	1.40	0.25	NA
Total		429	28.60	1.50	0.50	14.30

*Fall 2004*
HSCI 521	Cotler	123	8.20	NA	0.25
HSCI 531	Young	54	3.60	0.25	NA
HSCI 535	Madjzoob	84	5.60	0.25	NA
HSCI 537	Huff	63	4.20	0.25	NA
EOH 554	Kelly	60	4.00	NA	0.25
HSCI 587	Madison	75	5.00	NA	0.25
HSCI 588	Chu	21	1.40	0.25	NA
HSCI 693A	Ebin	30	2.00	0.25	NA
HSCI 694	Ebin	69	4.60	0.25	NA
HSCI 697	Huff	27	1.80	0.25	NA
Total		606	40.40	1.75	0.75	16.16

		Student			FTE
Semester	Professor	Credit			V/A
& Course	of Record	Units	FTES	FTEF	Faculty	SFR
*Spring 2005*
HSCI 521	Cotler	63	4.20	NA	0.25
HSCI 533	Huff (2 Sec)	99	6.60	0.50	NA
HSCI 536	Visencio	54	3.60	NA	0.25
HSCI 538	Ebin	63	4.20	0.25	NA
HSCI 541	Seliger	75	5.00	NA	0.25
HSCI 589	Madison	33	2.20	NA	0.25
HSCI 592	Ebin	66	4.40	0.25	NA
HSCI 693A	Young	18	1.20	0.25	NA
HSCI 697	Huff	27	1.80	0.25	NA
Total		498	33.20	1.50	1.00	13.28

As Table 2 above demonstrates, between the Fall 2002 and Spring 2005, the MPH Program generated 203.8 FTES (based on a 15 unit teaching load). The average student/faculty ratio for the MPH Program was 14.88.

Administration and Staff Resources

The Health Sciences Department has been allocated a 12-month Chair’s position with ¾ time spent in administrative duties and ¼ time spent in teaching. In addition, the Health Education Program is assigned a ¼ time nine month Program Director position that has responsibility for both the undergraduate and graduate Health Education Programs. As of the Fall 2005 semester the MPH Program has been allocated an additional ¼ time position for the MPH Coordinator’s duties. The Health Sciences Department currently has 2 ½ staff support positions and two student assistants. Under the current staffing plan, all staff members have assigned duties by function. These individuals provide support in the areas of application processing, ordering of books and supplies, admissions inquiries, student support, advisement, travel, and related items.

Space Availability

The MPH Program and the Department of Health Sciences are permanently located in what has been newly named “Jacaranda Hall” (formally the “Engineering and Computer Sciences Building”). Figure 6 provides map of the CSUN campus and the location of Jacaranda Hall.

Figure 6: Map of CSUN campus and location of Jacaranda Hall

This space includes approximately 21,000 square feet of classrooms, laboratories, meeting rooms and faculty offices. Jacaranda Hall has been undergoing a multiphase renovation. The renovation has resulted in a reconfiguration of the classrooms, faculty offices, as well as the Department office space. Currently, the MPH Program is assigned and/or has its share of the use of approximately 3,390 square feet of space.

Table 3: Space allocation to the MPH Program

In addition to a major cosmetic make-over, the classrooms are to be fully equipped as “smart classrooms” (equipment being installed during the Fall 2005 semester). Each classroom will have a compliment of multimedia equipment and Internet access. All faculty members have been issued new office furniture as well.

Renovations of Jacaranda Hall will result in upgraded faculty offices including new furniture, computers, printers, and other upgrades to enhance their appearance and function. Classrooms will also be upgraded and made ready to become “smart classrooms” with wiring for ceiling projectors along with general enhancements to their appearance and usability. Classrooms are currently wired for Ethernet and include TV monitors connected to the University Instructional Media Center where audio/video programs can be networked directly into the classroom. The Health Sciences Department also makes available portable VCRs that can be directly connected to the monitors enabling faculty to play instructional video tapes. There will be changes in the way the nursing lab and radiology labs are configured resulting in a loss of the office space assigned to the MPHSA and other student associations. In an effort to address the loss of student meeting space, faculty members have decided to designate the department conference room as a part-time meeting space for students. That is, it will be used as a conference room by reservation but will also serve as a student association meeting room and graduate student study room when not otherwise reserved. The specific protocols for how this will all be worked out will be designed once the department is back in their newly renovated spaces.

Information Technology Resources

All MPH faculty members have a computer on their desk fitted with an Ethernet connection to the University mainframe computing facility. This technology provides all MPH faculty members with personal email accounts and the ability to create and manage home pages on the internet as well as to have access to a variety of computerized databases and library research facilities. Wireless Ethernet is also available throughout Jacaranda Hall and in most other locations on campus affording the opportunity for portable and laptop connectivity. The Department of Health Sciences Technology Committee is working with faculty members interested in establishing and maintaining home pages where class information, course syllabi, and other related items can be made available to students in the various programs within and outside the department.

The University’s Information Technology Resources (ITR) Department provides access to centralized computing resources using state of the art equipment to support computing needs of students, faculty and staff. “ITR is dedicated to supporting the campus community with high-quality and state-of-the-art IT infrastructure, innovative services, and technological support” (University Catalog, 2004-2006, p. 41). Major components of ITR include Application Development, Computer and Technology Systems, Network Engineering and Operations, and User Support Services.

A variety of desktop computer labs are available to students, faculty and staff. These labs are located in a number of sites around the University including Jacaranda Hall, Redwood Hall, Monterey Hall, and the Oviatt Library. Specific locations for computer labs will be available to the site team at the time of their site visit to the campus. In addition to the above computers, the College of Health and Human Development has 20 wireless Internet-capable laptop computers on a portable cart. These computers have been used to support courses such as the MPH Program’s Advanced Biostatistics course. In the MPHSA Student Survey conducted in May 2004, 55% of the students responding to a question about computer access indicated that they were generally satisfied with this resource on the campus (See Resource File). Availability of student computing facilities is limited by the availability of trained supervisory staff. It is Health Sciences Department policy to not permit student use of computer equipment without the presence of a trained supervisor.

Library Resources

The Delmar T. Oviatt Library (see University Catalog pages 42-44) houses approximately 1.3 million printed volumes; more than 3.1 million microforms; a significant number of videos and sound recordings, periodicals, electronic books, and journals; and a wide variety of electronic databases. Access to the Library’s catalog is available through any Internet enabled computer (http://library.csun.edu). Additional information about library resources will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit.

Field Experience Sites

The Tri-county areas of Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties provide a plethora of real and potential internship opportunities for MPH students. A listing of these sites is presented in the response to Criterion V elsewhere in this report.

Adequacy of Resources

Table 1, found earlier in this section, contains a three-year budget allocation for the MPH Program. For comparison purposes a department budget is included in Attachment 7 of this report.

The MPH Program faculty views the 2004-2005 MPH Program budget allocation of $637,249 as adequate (please see Table 1 in the beginning of this section). Given the California State budgetary crisis, the University has managed to maintain sufficient budgetary resources for the program. Over the past two years we have added two tenure tract faculty positions and one non-tenure tract position to the Program. While there has also been a slight reduction in part-time dollars as a result of the fall of 2002 hire the net result has been quite positive.

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met. The MPH Program receives a fair, adequate, and equitable share of departmental resources. The Program Director meets regularly with the Department Chair and other Program Directors to provide input into the decisions related to resource allocations within the Health Sciences Department. The MPH Program faculty members have access to a variety of other University resources to support teaching and learning including computer labs, the Library, and the Internet. It is the consensus of the MPH faculty that there is adequate space, faculty, support personnel, equipment, and other resources to meet the mission, goals and objectives of the program.

V. INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS

Criterion V.A.: The Program shall offer instructional programs reflecting its stated mission and goals, leading to the Master of Public Health (MPH) or equivalent professional master’s degree in community health education. The program may offer other degrees, professional and academic, if consistent with its stated mission and resources.

The CSUN Master of Public Health curriculum contains 41-42 units, including 30 units of core courses, nine units of elective courses, and a two to three unit culminating experience that can either be a Comprehensive Examination or a Thesis/Graduate Project. Those students not having an upper division statistics course prior to entering the Program are required to complete HSCI 390/390L, an upper division undergraduate biostatistics class, or an equivalent course in another department or college. Within the electives, with advisor approval, students can group their elective courses in such areas as health administration, environmental and occupational health, epidemiology, gerontology, or other public health areas of interest to them. Where courses do not exist within the Department or University, students may enroll in up to nine units of elective coursework outside the University. For those students seeking a broader breadth of general experience in advanced public health study courses such as Health Care Ethics, Communications in Health Education, and Cultural Issues in Health Care may qualify for completion of the elective portion of the curriculum.

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met. The MPH Program offers a 41-42 unit course of study that comprises all of the basic public health areas including epidemiology, environmental health, health education, health administration, biostatistics, and social and behavioral sciences (see Criterion V.B for a listing of courses in the MPH Program). Students are also required to complete a 400 hour internship and a culminating experience that can either be a comprehensive examination, thesis or graduate project (Examples of all three of these experiences as well as the Program information brochure will be in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). The curriculum is taught by trained Public Health and joint appointment faculty from the Health Administration Program, the Epidemiology area, and the Environmental and Occupational Health Department. These linkages to other programs and areas within the Department as well as to other departments in the College are considered to be one of the major strengths of the MPH Program.

Criterion V.B.: Each professional degree program identified in V.A., as a minimum, shall assure that each student a) develops an understanding of the areas of knowledge that are basic to public health, b) acquires skills and experience in the application of basic community health education concepts and knowledge to the solution of community health problems, and c) demonstrates integration of knowledge through a culminating experience.

The Curriculum

All MPH students are required to complete the basic 30 unit core of Health Education courses as noted in the University Catalog and outlined below in Figure 7. It is the Program faculty’s belief that our curriculum offers a comprehensive approach to the preparation and training of MPH graduate students. As noted in the previous section, students can group their nine units of electives. Traditionally students in the Program have grouped their electives in such areas as health administration; environmental and occupational health; epidemiology; and gerontology. Developing a broad breadth of knowledge in a variety of advanced public health areas is another option for completion of the elective course requirement.

The internship experience provides students with an opportunity to put into practice the didactic information and skills acquired in the classroom. Prior to starting the internship experience students must have successfully completed 20 units of MPH core course work. In order for a site to qualify to be part of the MPH field training experience it must conform to the MPH Field Training Manual guidelines (Manual will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). At the outset of the field training experience students are required to complete a “self-assessment” questionnaire (See Manual), and develop a learning contract that reflects their strengths as well as their weaknesses.

Assessment of the internship experience is a cooperative venture between the Program and the agency providing the internship experience. The internship assessment looks at three areas including theoretical preparation, professional skills, and personal attributes as outlined in the Internship Evaluation Form included in the Field Training Manual. In addition to the completion of evaluation questionnaires, students meet regularly in a field training class to discuss experiences, problem solve, and learn to think of themselves as “reflective practitioners” through readings and journaling experiences. The Field Training Coordinator also makes site visits and/or calls to the field training sites to review the student’s progress in the field training experience. On average, students are engaged in the field training experience one day per week, and take approximately two semesters or a semester and a summer to complete this aspect of their education.

Qualifying Program
Course #	Course Title	Units
HSCI 390	Biostatistics	3
HSCI 390L	Biostatistics Lab	1
	Qualifying Program Total	4
MPH Core
HSCI 531	Sem: Health Education Program Planning	3
	and Evaluation
HSCI 533	Advanced Concepts in Health Behavior	3
HSCI 535	Curriculum development in Health Education	3
HSCI 538	Sem: Community Health Action	3
HSCI 541	Administration, Supervision & Consultation	3
EOH 554	Sem: Environmental & Occupational Health	3
HSCI 587	Sem: Epidemiology	3
HSCI 592	Advanced Biostatistics for the Health Sciences	3
HSCI 693A	Supervised Field Training	2
HSCI 694	Research Design in the Health Sciences	4
	MPH Core Total	30
Electives

A minimum of nine units with advisor approval		9

Culminating Experience
HSCI 697	Directed Comprehensive Studies	3
HSCI 698B	Thesis/Graduate Project	or 2
	Total Units for the MPH Program	41/42

Figure 7: MPH Program Curriculum

Field Placement Experiences

Beyond the experiential opportunities and performance assessments (exams and papers) routinely used in the classroom setting, MPH students are also required to complete a 400 hour internship as described previously in this section. As the MPH Field Training Manual indicates, for a site to qualify as a preceptor agency, it must:

· Have an MPH trained health educator;

· Have sufficient resources and interest to support an MPH student;

· Sign an affiliation agreement with the University Field Training Supervisors;

· Submit Curriculum Vitae to verify their qualifications to manage students; and

· Meet with the Field Training Coordinator as needed to assure that students are meeting the objectives of their learning contracts, and the standards as outlined in the Field Training Manual.

It should be noted that many students also identify their thesis or graduate project topics during their field training experiences.

The MPH Program has been very successful in recruiting field training sites over the years. Figure 8 below lists the sites that have provided internship experiences.

Community Agency	Location	Preceptor
1. American Cancer Society-San Fernando Valley Unit	Sherman Oaks	Nadia Hurtado, Jill Arnstein
2. Blue Cross of California Corporate Offices	Woodland Hills	Evin Friedlander
3. Ventura County Public Health Services	Ventura	Linda Bays, Diane Visencio
4. Blue Shield	Camarillo Woodland Hills	Janet Kohlmeier Alan Percy
5. Cedars Sinai Medical Center	Los Angeles	Unknown at this time
6. Charles Drew Medical School	Los Angeles	Unknown at this time
7. CSUN Student Health Center	Northridge	Susan Cohen
8. Health Care Services-Santa Barbara	Santa Barbara	Jayne Brechwald
9. UC Santa Barbara-Student Health Center	Santa Barbara	Unknown at this time
10. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital	Valencia	Unknown at this time
11. Juvenile Court Services of L.A. County	Los Angeles	Unknown at this time
12. Kaiser Permanente Medical Group	Panorama City and Woodland Hills	My-Ling Swartz, Karen Alvarado
13. Los Angeles County WIC Program	Los Angeles	Unknown at this time
14. March of Dimes	Burbank	Unknown at this time
15. Northeast Valley Health Corporation	San Fernando	Debbie Rosen
16. Northridge Hospital Medical Center	Northridge	Laura Mendez
17. Oxnard Community College-Student Health Center	Oxnard	Unknown at this time
18. Santa Barbara City College-Student Health Center	Santa Barbara	Unknown at this time
19. Santa Monica City College-Student Health Center	Santa Monica	Unknown at this time
20. St. John’s Regional Medical Center	Oxnard	Gloria Chinea
21. USC Student Health Center	Los Angeles	Unknown at this time
22. West L.A. Veterans Medical Center	West Los Angeles	With Sepulveda VA
23. Sepulveda V.A. Medical Center	Sepulveda	Paul West
24. Venice Family Clinic	Venice	Ann Staunton
25. L.A. County Dept. of Public Health	Los Angeles	Eleanor Long
26. Pasadena Public Health Department	Pasadena	Joy Guihama, Hoa Su
27. Kaiser Permanente Corporate Office	Downey	Phyllis Spear
28. UCLA Medical Center	Westwood	Sara Connor
29. Tarzana Trauma Center	Tarzana	Jose Salazar
30. American Cancer Society	Los Angeles	Deb Weintraub

Figure 8: Field Training Sites Utilized by the CSUN MPH Program

A review of Figure 8 demonstrates that the MPH Program has a variety of training sites for its graduate students. In addition to these sites, over the past few years students have been placed at the World Health Organization in Geneva, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and in other locations across the country. The placement of students in a field placement site can begin in one of two ways, either the Field Training Coordinator recommends a placement site to the student, or the student brings information from a site to the Field Training Coordinator who reviews the information with the student to determine if the site meets the requirements of the MPH Program.

Culminating Experience

In addition to the field placement experience, students are required to complete one of two culminating experiences, a comprehensive examination, or a thesis/graduate project. Students opting for the comprehensive examination enroll in a review course the semester prior to, or the semester of, the sitting for the examination. This review course may be formal or informal depending on the number of students preparing for the examination. That is, if there are enough students to carry a formal class (a minimum of eight is required by the University for a graduate level course) then a formal course is taught. Otherwise, students meet individually with the Comprehensive Examination Coordinator and Program faculty to prepare for the examination.

The exam is a time-limited take-home written examination in which students have 48 hours to respond to the test items (a copy of the examination will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). The examination covers the basic public health education competency areas. The examination is graded blindly by randomly selected two-member faculty teams. The faculty teams follow a prescribed protocol that guides their review and scoring of the examinations (a copy of the scoring protocol will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). For students who fall short of passing the examination, they are asked to sit for a one-hour oral follow-up exam. The purpose of the follow-up exam is to provide the student with one additional opportunity to elaborate or clarify some aspect of their written response. The pass rate has been fairly consistent at 60-70% passing on first administration. In compliance with University policy (a copy of the policy will be available in the Resource File during the site visit), students who fail the examination are given one more opportunity to pass. Those students who do not pass the examination on the second administration are dismissed from the University without the awarding of the MPH degree.

A student selecting the thesis or graduate project option identifies a faculty member to chair a thesis or project committee, and in consultation with the chair, two other individuals to serve as committee members (one of which can be from outside the University). Upon selection of a committee, the student develops a written proposal which must be approved by the total committee. The proposal is then submitted to the University’s Human Subjects Committee for review prior to commencing the thesis or graduate project. The committee chair and other committee members provide guidance and mentoring through the research and writing process. All committee members must provide final approval of the work before it is submitted to Graduate Studies to complete the degree requirements (copies of recent thesis/graduate projects will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit).

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met with commentary. The current 41-42 unit curriculum addresses all of the basic public health areas including Epidemiology, Biostatistics, Environmental and Occupational Health, Health Education, Health Administration and Social and Behavioral Sciences, and a field training practicum. Assessment methods used to determine student competencies include written examinations, papers, evaluation assessments from field training, and successful completion of a comprehensive examination or a thesis or graduate project. Alumni and Field Preceptor Surveys are also used to determine health education competencies of our graduates once they leave the Program (see Criterion X).

In addition to the assessment methods identified above, the Program initiated a Total Quality Education (TQE) process that began in the fall of 1988. This process is coordinated by Dr. Vicki Ebin and involves formal interviews between students and the TQE committee. Students who have completed 20 units in the Program are required to prepare a portfolio containing a self-assessment of their perceived competencies using a questionnaire as well as copies of written papers they have completed during their coursework. The Coordinator provides copies of the student’s coursework and grades for review at the meeting with each student. The purpose of these meetings (known as the mid-point assessments) is:

To review the student’s progress including real or potential problems they may be having;
To identify any need for the processing of official paperwork (i.e., requests for classified status, course substitutions, petitions, formal program graduation checks, etc.);
To review student writing samples; and
To discuss student perceptions of their programmatic experiences to that point.

The TQE process is activated again at the time the student graduates from the program. This is in the form of an exit interview which may be either face-to-face or via a written survey. The purpose is to gather information about the students experiences in the Program and their suggestions for Program modifications. Feedback from the mid-point assessment and exit interviews are utilized along with other data (see Criterion X) to review and modify the Program as may be needed (TQE reports, exit interview notes and surveys, and other assessment data will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit).

Criterion V.C.: For each program and area of specialization within each program identified in Criterion V.A., there shall be clear learning objectives.

All course descriptions, student learning objectives and course syllabi will be available to the site team in the Resource File at the time of the site visit. Development of course student learning objectives are the responsibility of the faculty member teaching the class and are based on current best public health education practice. Course syllabi containing student learning objectives and their methods of assessment are given to each student during the first class meeting. These student learning objectives parallel the MPH Program goals and objectives as described in Criterion I.

When an MPH faculty member wants to revise, modify or create a new course he or she must follow a formal curricular change process. This process begins with the formulation of a curriculum proposal. Such a proposal must have the support of the Program faculty, and be based on an assessment of data showing a need for the proposal. This assessment may be the result of formal surveys; and/or discussions with students, faculty, alumni, University personnel, accrediting representatives, or other persons who express a need for change.

Once the curriculum proposal has gained the support of the MPH faculty, it is presented to other academic departments within the University to ensure there are no conflicts and to gain support for the change. This is followed by submission to the Department Curriculum Committee for review and ultimate approval. The Chairperson of the Department Curriculum Committee places the proposal on the College of Health and Human Development’s Curriculum Committee’s colander for further scrutiny and support. Once approved by the College curriculum committee the Chairperson passes the proposal on the University Graduate Studies Committee for final review and approval (details of this process will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). The curricular change becomes official once it is entered into the University catalogue. The entire process requires approximately one academic year to complete.

Approximately three years ago the University Academic Senate approved a fundamental change in the above process. The change required that all curriculum proposals and current course syllabi include student learning objectives (SLO’s) and SLO assessment measures. Several forces were driving the University toward outcomes assessment of student learning. The

CSU system has joined the Western Association of Schools and Colleges requiring outcomes assessment as a part of the accrediting process. Each academic department was given a five year window in which to bring all current courses into compliance. The MPH Program has submitted its proposed method for developing SLO’s for its current course offerings (a copy of proposed method will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit).

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met. Learner objectives are stated in measurable terms for each course in the MPH Program along with assessment measures to determine achievement of these objectives. Formal and informal curricular review processes are in place. That is, students, faculty and other interested parties may identify a need for a curriculum change, and once identified, these proposals must be taken through the Department, College, and University curricular review processes. Program faculty regularly reviews the need for curriculum revisions at their monthly faculty meetings; annual retreats; and in response to five year University Program Reviews, and outside accrediting body review. In addition, The MPH Advisory Council (MPHAC) Subcommittee for Curriculum Review routinely reviews all courses in the Program to ensure that they are in compliance with stated objectives and practice standards as identified by the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc., Society for Public Health Education (SOPHE), and the Council on Education for Public Health (meeting minutes from this Subcommittee will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit).

The extent to which student expectations were met by the curriculum was assessed by the Master of Public Health Student Survey in the May 2004 (See Resource File). With the exception of HSCI 541 (Administration, Supervision & Consultation in Health Education), students felt that their expectations were being met. HSCI 541 was reviewed by the MPH faculty in their spring 2004 Retreat and a plan was developed and implemented for improving this course. This involved meeting with the course instructor (a Joint-Appointment Faculty Member), discussing the issues with him, finding a new text, and making modifications to improve the course. The results of the 2005 survey will be available prior to CEPH site team (results will be placed in the Resource file).

Criterion V.D.: There shall be procedures for assessing and documenting the extent to which each student has attained these specified learning objectives and determining the readiness for a community health education career.

The MPH Program currently utilizes a four level process for evaluating student progress and preparation for assuming the role of professional health educator. Each of these steps is discussed below.

MPH Academic Coursework

All MPH students must complete a program of study including an internship and final culminating experience (the latter two will be considered separately in the four level assessments). During formal coursework, students are assessed based upon examinations, class presentations, participation and experiential and research-oriented papers and reports. Specific assessment methods can be found within each course syllabus (Course syllabi will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). Grades are assigned for each course in the Program and students must maintain a minimum 3.0 GPA overall to remain in good standing in the Program. A student who fails to maintain a 3.0 GPA is placed on probation and has one semester to bring their GPA up to the required level. If unable to do so, a student is placed in Academic Disqualification and may not continue in the Program without the approval of the Graduate Coordinator and the Graduate Studies Office. It is the Graduate Studies Office that has the final decision on such matters. Two years ago the MPH Program Director put into place a new procedure by which a Disqualification Review Committee assists the Graduate Coordinator in reviewing and making decisions about re-admittance after disqualification. This committee has had to meet only once since the time it was formed.

MPH Field Training

All students are required to complete a 400 hour internship experience as discussed elsewhere in this report (see Field Training Experience Section above). The Field Training Coordinator is responsible for tracking these experiences and assuring that students are meeting the objectives of their learning contracts, and other internship commitments. It is also the Field Training Coordinator’s responsibility to bring forward to the Program faculty any unresolved student-related problems that may occur in the field training experience. The procedure for resolving student-related problems includes:

Meeting with the student and the Field Preceptor to seek a resolution to the problem;
Assigning of additional field training hours (if needed);
Transferring of the student to a new field training site, (or another outcome as may be necessary); and
When the Field Training Coordinator feels that the issue needs faculty input, bringing the issue to the faculty during the monthly meetings for discussion and suggestions for resolution.

MPH Culminating Experience

Students have the option of selecting either a comprehensive examination or a thesis/graduate project as their culminating experience (see Criterion V.B. for a discussion of all of these options). For the comprehensive examination, the pass rate has been approximately sixty to seventy percent on the first sitting. During the 2003-2004 academic-year the MPH faculty sought to address the thirty to forty percent failure rate. The exam prior to 2003 required students to sit at a computer for as much as four-hour as they responded to a 16-item essay exam. The current assessment tool is a 48-hour take-home exam with a one hour oral follow-up exam if needed. Since this new examination was put in place, the pass rate has risen to 81.9% on the first administration. Only three students in the past three years have not passed on the second administration of the examination. The examination covers the following competency areas:

· Community health education program planning and evaluation,

· Health behavior concepts, theories and practice issues,

· Curriculum design in health education,

· Community organization theory and practice,

· Administration, supervision and consultation in health education,

· Communication in health education,

· Epidemiology,

· Biostatistics, and

· Research design.

Depending upon the characteristics of the case study employed in the exam, other areas often included are ethical issues, cultural competence, and social marketing. The choice between the comprehensive exam and the thesis/project is largely based upon the strengths of the individual student. Each student is encouraged to meet with their academic advisor to contemplate and assess which of the two categories of culminating experience would work best.

The thesis/graduate project option has also been discussed elsewhere in this section of the self-study report. In order to provide the most effective guidance to the student, faculty members are encouraged to carry no more than one or two thesis/projects per year. Students are directed to pursue the type of culminating experience that best suits their interests and skills. For those students who have demonstrated their best performance under pressure the comprehensive exam has been the method of choice. The students who enjoy a more contemplative and writing-intensive experience the thesis/project offers the best opportunity to demonstrate their strengths. Current formal guidelines for the thesis/graduate project will be available on site along with numerous examples of completed thesis/graduate projects.

Total Quality Education Assessment

In addition to the assessment procedures discussed above, the MPH Program employs a Total Quality Education (TQE) process, which includes measurable performance objectives and a two-step process for assessing student-performance. The first step occurs at the completion of 20 units of course work. At this point the TQE faculty identifies and intervenes with students who may be experiencing problems successfully completing their academic program. At this step, faculty uncover students who are having difficulties performing at or above Program standards in their course work as indicated by one or more of the following: written reports, research papers, examinations or other required performance criteria. Once identified, the student is contacted by the Coordinator and Committee. They may elect to meet with the student formally or informally to resolve the student’s deficits. Students are required to develop a portfolio for presentation and discussion with the TQE Committee. This portfolio includes a listing of grades earned over the 20 units taken in the Program, a selection of papers written during their MPH course of study, a Program Satisfaction Survey, and a completed Health Education Self-Assessment Instrument (see Resource File for the TQE Protocol and assessment instruments). The students meet with the TQE Committee to formally discuss their academic progress, including strengths, weaknesses and needs for professional growth and development. In addition, if students need to file official documents such as a Request for Classification, MPH Program Form, Change of Classification Form, various petitions, or other documents, they are initiated during this meeting or shortly thereafter. Where problems are identified, the Committee will help students find solutions to resolve these challenges.

The second step of the TQE Assessment occurs during the exit interview between the student and the TQE Coordinator. At this step students should have completed all degree requirements. In order to obtain student-impressions of the MPH Program a survey focused on their experiences and recommendations for Program modifications is completed. Alternatively, some students meet formally with the TQE Coordinator to share their experiences, observations and overall assessment.

Since the last site visit, twenty-three students have participated in the first step, and thirteen in the second step of the TQE process (reports of these activities will be included in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). The recent division of the MPH Program Director’s role into two positions that of the Program Director and Graduate Coordinator has served to acknowledge the extent to which unrealistic expectations have been placed upon past Program Directors. In addition, the procurement of three additional units of release time for the Graduate Coordinator will enable the Program to more systematically process students through the TQE process. As Graduate Coordinator, Dr. Ebin has completed a plan of action to process students through TQE in a timely fashion (please see the Resource File for the current TQE schedule).

Table 4 below presents the number of students who have graduated from the program since the last site visit.

Table 4: Number of graduates by year

Year	Culminating Experience		Total
of	Comprehensive	Graduate	Number of
Graduation	Exam	Project	Graduates
2002/2003	8	5	13
2003/2004	18	2	20
2004/2005	14	7	21
Total	40	14	54

The 54 students who completed the Program over the past six semesters have been responsive to our efforts to encourage utilization of the comprehensive exam over the graduate project or thesis. Between 2002 and 2005 the time to complete the degree requirements has remained approximately six to eight semesters for part-time students and five semesters for full-time students. As noted in the comprehensive examination discussion above, only three students have failed to pass the examination on the second try and efforts are underway to improve the pass rate on first try from 66% to 80%. The average GPA across the Program for the past three years has been 3.53 indicating that students are successfully meeting course requirements.

The majority of students who graduate from the Program are employed in a variety of professional areas including hospitals, public health departments, HMO’s, Universities, and other health education practice settings. For those who are not employed at the time of graduation, the Program supports four resources to assist in obtaining employment:

A Health Sciences Department health education Job Board that identifies currently available positions in health education and public health (as a result of the renovation of Jacaranda Hall the Job Board has been temporarily removed) ;
The University Career Center’s job inventory that helps graduates find employment;
The MPH Student Association’s email Yahoo Group that regularly sends out email notifications of positions open in the local area; and
The MPH Program’s Internet home page that includes a link to the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory where a national database of health education professional positions is maintained.

The Program does not track job placement rates at this time, and recognizes the need to establish a system for capturing that information. In an effort to track job placements, the Director of the Program has begun discussions with the University Career Center focused upon the Center formerly meeting with each MPH student three times. During those meetings students will be assisted in their efforts to secure employment. Records of the meetings and their outcomes will be maintained by the Center and shared with the MPH Program. However until that initiative is in place the MPH Program will continue to regularly assess students, alumni, and field trainers as to the Program’s success in meeting the community’s needs for well trained professional health educators. This data is used to ascertain whether our students and graduates are adequately prepared for the practice setting (survey instruments and data analysis will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit).

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met with commentary. MPH students are assessed regularly during their formal course work via examinations, written reports, class projects, class presentations, and participation in class activities. In addition, Field Training Preceptors and the Field Training Coordinator car