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 carryout field practicum evaluations. Students must complete a culminating experience that includes either a comprehensive examination or a thesis/graduate project. TQE adds another layer to an already comprehensive student outcome assessment process. Although it needs to be strengthened and fully implemented in fall 2005, TQE has the promise of providing the last step in a very strong assessment process.

MPH faculty members have determined that the current procedures do a good job of measuring student acquisition of public health practice competencies. The Program does, however, also recognize that there is a need to track job placement rates for students seeking employment following graduation. Therefore, a partnership with the University Career Center has been established that will formalize a job placement tracking initiative starting this academic year. A meeting with Ann Morey, the Director of the CSUN Career Center has taken place to address these issues. A summary of the outcomes of the meeting will be available to the site team at the time of their visit to CSUN. In addition, survey items were added to the MPHSA Student Survey, MPH Alumni Survey and the TQE Exit Survey to gather data on current employment as well as future health education employment needs. These surveys are currently being implemented and data from them will be included in the resource file.

VI. RESEARCH

Criterion VI.: The program shall pursue an active research program, consistent with it mission, through which its faculty and students contribute to the knowledge base of the community health education discipline, including research directed at improving the practice of public health.

In accordance with Section 600 of the University’s Administrative Manual that specifies criteria necessary for retention, tenure and promotion, all faculty members are expected to be engaged in research and creative activities as a part of their professional responsibilities at California State University, Northridge. This is supported in the University’s Mission Statement which reads in part:

We demonstrate excellence in teaching. We honor and reward high performance in learning, teaching, scholarship, research, service, and creative activity. Because the quality of our academic programs is central to our mission, we encourage intellectual curiosity and protect the multiple expressions of academic freedom (University Catalog, 2004-2006, p.12).

The University has invested significant resources to support faculty research initiatives. The University Office of Research and Sponsored Projects is dedicated to assisting faculty in obtaining research and creative activity support from federal, state, corporate, and foundation sponsored programs. Located on the University Web page (http://www.csun.edu/%7Egripact/index.html) is a four step tutorial that guides faculty to obtaining funding for research interests. Supporting these efforts is a Web published set of instructions that directs the would-be research to such issues as:

Writing your proposal,
Developing your budget, and
Sending your proposal.

Other services offered by this office include:

Forms and policies,
Handling funded award,
Human subjects , and
Research and grants committees.

Indicative of the strong support for research by the University is the Web published policy on faculty sabbaticals. Article 27 of Unit 3 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement contains the following policy statement (The full Article will be available in the resource file during the site visit):

“A sabbatical leave shall be for purposes that provide a benefit to the CSU, such as research, scholarly and creative activity, instructional improvement or faculty retraining.

A full-time faculty unit employee shall be eligible for a sabbatical leave if he/she has served full-time for six (6) years at that campus in the preceding seven (7) year period prior to the leave and at least six (6) years after any previous sabbatical leave or difference in pay leave.”

Demonstrative of the College’s commitment to research are the six research Institute/Centers located within the College of Health and Human Development (HHD), including:

Institute for Health and Human Development,
Center of Achievement for the Physically Disabled,
Center for the Study of Leisure and Play Behavior,
Center for Health Ethics and Policy,
CSUN Aquatic Center, and
Marilyn Magaram Center for Food Science, Nutrition and Dietetics.

Each of these Institute/Centers supports faculty efforts to develop and fund research interests.

Through the Dean’s office opportunities to have research grants buy out teaching time to conduct research is also encouraged. In addition, the Dean as well as others within the University community regularly forward information regarding research and grant opportunities.

At the programmatic level the MPH Program has within its goals and objectives the following goal and objective:

MPH Goal #5:

To promote an active research agenda among all full-time health education faculty regardless of whether that research is funded.

MPH Objective # 5:

All full-time health education faculty members will engage in an active research agenda whether such research is funded or not.

Community-based Research Activities

Since the last site visit in May 2002, MPH faculty members have been engaged in a number of research and creative projects. Figure 9: Current Faculty Research and Creative Activities (2002-Present) below presents the research and creative projects undertaken by Program faculty (both full-time and joint appointment) since the last site visit.

Project/Activity	Formal Agreement	Funding	Faculty Member Involved	MPH Student Involvement
An Evaluation of CSUN Compliance with the 2003 Scooter/Skateboard Helmet Law	CSUN	$5,000	Chu	None
Tends in Hip Fracture Incidence: A Cross-Cultural Assessment	Submitted to Amgen	$90,000	Chu, Young, & Madison	Possible
CSUN Student Alcohol Use Prevention Project	CSUN	$1,000	Ebin	None
Engaged Department Institute Grant	CSUN	$5,000	Ebin, Sheets, & Rubino	None
Cesar Chavez: Community Celebration & Health Fair	State of California	$48,761	Ebin	10
Ventura County Chronic Disease Prevention Project	MOU Ventura City	$10,000	Ebin	1
Julian Beck Grant: Improving Student Writing Skills	CSUN	$5,000	Fischbach	None
Internet Simulation Study (Learning Centered University Grant)	CSUN	$15,000	Fischbach	5
Writing Linkage Study (Learning Centered University Grant)	CSUN	$10,000	Fischbach	3
Book Revision: Promoting Health in Multicultural Populations (2nd Edition)	Sage Publications	$500	Huff & Kline	1
Interdisciplinary Grant: End Childhood Obesity	CSUN	$5,000	Madjzoob	5
Campus Community Partnership-Healthy Kids Fair	CSUN & Albertson's Market	$5,000	Madjzoob	1
Abandoned Infants Adolescent Sexual Abstinence Child Abuse Prevention High‑risk Pregnancy Child‑School Mental Health	Federal Federal State LA County LA City	$475,000* $220,000* $300,000* $100,000* $150,000*	Seliger	None
A Survey to Assess the Willingness of Teaching Credential Candidates to Provide CPR	NA	NA	Winkelman, Fischbach, & Spinello	None
A BSE Longitudinal Investigation	CSUN	$5,000	Young	None
*Funding not processed through CSUN, but available to CSUN MPH students.

Figure 9: Current Faculty Research and Creative Activities (2002-Present)

The above figure demonstrates that the MPH Program faculty members are engaged in a variety of research projects and creative activities. It is important to note that despite the availability of funded research opportunities, few MPH students participate in the above grants. As explained earlier in this document, it has been the culture of the MPH student to vest time in classroom activities while remaining committed to ongoing professional health education responsibilities. The MPH student is part of a growing population of full-time working university students. The MPH students do not perceive involvement in funded research as part of their educational experience. The MPH Program’s new recruitment initiative will address this perception directly. Students will be encouraged to incorporate commitment to participation in funded research as part of their learning experience.

Specifics of these research projects and activities will be shared with the site team at the time of their visit to CSUN. In addition to these projects, students enrolled in HSCI 592 (Advanced Biostatistics), in conjunction with the University Klotz Student Health Center, have been involved for the past three years in an annual research project coordinated by the course instructor, Dr. Ebin. The research has focused on identifying the health needs of CSUN students. The data gathered in this research study is being used to prioritize programs, define resource needs, and plan programs for the CSUN student population. The MPH students involved in the project have developed a survey instrument, implemented the instrument throughout the CSUN campus, inputted and analyzed data, and report the results to Dr. Linda Chassiakas (Medical Director of the Klotz Student Health Center). To date, seventy-one MPH students have taken part in this research project.

In summary the MPH faculty recognizes that only twenty-five MPH students have been involved in funded faculty research and creative activities since 2002. We continue to encourage student involvement whenever possible. We are pleased that so many students have been participating in the Student Health Center project providing a hands-on and an excellent way to apply classroom research discussion to real world research situations. As part of an effort to motivate additional research interests among graduate students, Dr’s Huff, Ebin and Fischbach formerly mentored five MPH students. The students in the Pre-doctoral Program included: Marina Alvarez, Debra Dunn, Rosana Leos, Sara Eve Sarliker, and Lissa Knudsen, . Of these five students, Lissa Knudsen has been accepted to a doctoral program in Health Communications at New Mexico State University. Sara Eve Sarliker and Debra Dunn along with Lissa Knudsen were involved in creating and field testing a nutrition education website designed to promote interest and student activism toward better food choices in the Los Angeles Unified School System. Their research was presented at the SOPHE Conference in San Francisco (2003) and was showcased in the 8^th Annual CSUN Student Research and Creative Works Symposium in April 2004. Sara and Lisa have since graduated with their MPH degrees, and Debra is nearing completion of her degree.

Peer-Reviewed Publications and Book Chapters

Four MPH faculty members have published in peer-reviewed journals since the last site visit. These publications include:

Lawrence Chu

Chu, L.D.; and Kraus, J.F. (2004). Predicting Fatal Assault Among the Elderly using the National Incident-Based Reporting System Crime Data. Homicide Studies, 8:71-95.

Kraus, J.F.; and Chu, L.D. (2004). Book Chapter: Epidemiology of Traumatic Brain Injury. In Silver, J.M.; and McAllister, T.W. (Eds.), Textbook of Traumatic Brain Injury. Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

One additional manuscript has been submitted by Dr. Chu.

Vicki Ebin

Morisky, D.E.; Ebin, V.J.; Malotte, C.K; Coly, A.; and Kominski, G. (2003). Assessment of Tuberculosis Treatment Completion in an Ethnically Diverse Population Using Two Data Sources: Implications for Treatment Interventions. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 26(1): 43-58.

Ronald Fischbach

Fischbach, R. (2005). A Crisis in Higher Education: The Divergence of Enrollment, Retention, and Graduation Policies. National Education Association: Thought and Action.

Fischbach, R. (2005). Assessing the Impact of University Open House Activities. College Student Journal.

Spinello, E.; and Fischbach, R. (2004). Problem-Based Learning in Public Health Instruction: A Pilot Study of an Online Simulation as a Problem-Based Learning Approach. Education for Health: Changes in Learning and Practice (EfH).

Kathleen Young

Young, K.; and Boling, W. (2004). Improving the Quality of Professional Life: Benefits of Health Education and Promotion Association Membership. California Journal of Health Promotion, 2(1): 39-44.

One additional manuscript has been submitted by Dr. Young and Dr. Fischbach.

In addition to the above publications, six of the seven MPH faculty members have also made presentations to a variety of professional groups. A complete listing of presentations and other creative activities can be found in faculty curriculum vitae’s in the Resource File.

Student Involvement in Research

As was noted above, eighty-eight MPH students have been involved in faculty research projects (including those in the HSCI 592 Course) since the last site visit. This is an area upon which we continue to work. It is important to note that several of the projects identified in Figure 9: Current Faculty Research and Creative Activities (2002-Present) afforded the opportunity for recruitment of MPH students to no avail. The CSUN MPH Program has a student body that includes a great many full or part-time working adults. Consequently, their time spent at the CSUN campus and its related projects is limited. This makes it quite challenging for faculty to recruit and involve graduate students in their research activities. We recognize and value student involvement in research and other community activities and will continue to seek ways to bring MPH students into research and creative activities whenever possible.

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met with commentary. MPH Program Objective # 5 states that all health education faculty members will be engaged in research whether that research is funded or not. As was noted in Figure 9: Current Faculty Research and Creative Activities (2002-Present) above, 100% of the health education program faculty members are engaged in research and creative activities as reported in their annual Faculty Activity Reports (Faculty Activity Reports will be included in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). These reports are collected and reviewed in the annual Health Education Faculty Retreat held in June of each year. Additionally, those eligible faculty members are assessed in the retention, promotion, tenure, and post tenure review processes that occur every academic year. Thus, there are a number of formal processes in place to evaluate faculty involvement in research at the MPH Program, Department, College, and University levels. Student involvement in research has been expanding over the past three years. Faculty members are committed to greater student involvement in research whenever their projects or courses provide an opportunity to do so.

VII. SERVICE

Criterion VII.: The program shall pursue an active service program, consistent with its mission, through which faculty and students contribute to the advancement of health education practice, including continuing education.

Community service is a component of the retention, tenure and promotion process as outlined in Section 600 of the University’s Administrative Manual (see Resource File). It is considered a desirable activity for advancement to Assistant, Associate and Full Professor ranks. In addition, MPH Program Objective #7 states:

All full-time Program faculty members will be involved in at least one community service activity each academic year.

Figure 10 below presents the community service activities of MPH Program faculty over the past three years.

Community Service Activity	Community Group Served	Faculty Involved
Community Needs Assessment	Valley Care Community	Chu
Survey	Consortium
Advisory Board Member	Valley Care Community
	Consortium	Ebin
Advisory Board Member	Providence Hospital Community	Ebin
	Outreach
Health Advisory Board	LACA	Ebin
Member, Board of Directors	Center for Improvement of	Fischbach
	Child Caring
Member, Board of Directors	United Cerebral Palsy	Fischbach
	K.E.N. Project
Coalition Member	Los Angeles Violence	Huff
	Prevention Coalition
Academic Decathlon	Ventura County	Huff
	Superintendent of Schools
	Office
UCLA Alumni Association	UCLA	Madjzoob
Fit Kids Nutrition Workshop	Roscomare Road	Madjzoob
	Elementary School
Accreditation Facilitation	Southern California	Madjzoob
Project	Association for Education
	of Young Children
East L.A./Boyle Heights	El Barrio Bilingual	Madjzoob
Workshops Facilitator	Communications, Inc.
Health Education Consultant	Brookside Elementary	Winkelman
	School
Grant Developer & Volunteer	Valley Care Community	Young
For Mental Health Community	Consortium
Needs Assessment Project

Figure 10: MPH faculty member community service activities for 2002-2005

The above figure demonstrates that 100% of the MPH Program faculty members have been involved in community service activities. The data collected for Figure 10 was drawn from annual Faculty Activity Reports.

Student involvement in community service activities was not captured in 2002-2003, but was found in the MPHSA Student Survey of May 2004. The survey showed that 47% of the surveyed students were involved in community activity. The agencies they were involved with included the following:

· The American Cancer Society

· The American Red Cross

· The California Diabetes Prevention and Control Project

· The Melvin/Winnetka School Healthy Start Program

· The Frontline Foundation to feed the homeless

· The Gay and Lesbian Center

· M.E.N.D.

· The Valley Care Consortium

· The Wonder of Reading Program

· The Venice Family Clinic

· Old Granada Hills Street Fair; and

· The Vinmetca Elementary School Health Fair

Data from the May 2005 MPHSA survey will be available in the Resource File for site team review.

Continuing Education

With the establishment of the MPHAC and its Subcommittee for Continuing Education, the MPH Program has taken an active role in developing and presenting continuing education for health education professionals and other public health professionals in its service area. The MPH Program Objective for continuing education is as follows:

To conduct alone or in collaboration with a partner(s) a minimum of one continuing education program per year for CHES credit for health education professionals in the CSUN service area.

The first CSUN continuing education program was presented April 23, 2004 in the Grand Salon of the University Student Union. The title of this program was: “Foundations of Cultural Assessment for Health Educators” and was approved for 4.0 CHES Continuing Education Units. A total of 67 people attended and completed evaluation assessments of the presentation (See Attachment 12). A second continuing education program was conducted on June 7, 2005 (see Attachment 13) and was titled: “The Art and Skills of Grant Development.” The National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc. authorized 6.0 Category 1 continuing education units for qualified participants.

The MPH Program is fortunate to have the opportunity to work in collaboration with a number of groups and agencies in the development of continuing education programs. These include:

· The MPH Alumni Chapter

· The CSUN Office of Alumni Relations

· USC MPH Program-Keck School of Medicine

· The Southern California Public Health Association

· The MPH Student Association

· The CSUN Health Administration Alumni Chapter

MPH students were involved as participants in the first continuing education program with one of these students involved as a co-presenter. In addition, they worked at registration, room set-up and other tasks necessary to support the workshop. We are now on track with our continuing education efforts and are happy to be working with a very enthusiastic group of collaborators.

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met with commentary. All MPH Program faculty members are engaged in community service activities as documented in their annual Faculty Activity Reports. Thus, MPH Program Objective # 7 is met. Student involvement in community service as demonstrated in the May 2004 MPHSA survey of student community involvement quantifies student commitment to community service. The MPH Program will continue to encourage, support, and monitor this important aspect of our student’s educational experience. At the time of the site visit the spring 2005 MPHSA survey data will be available for the team’s review (please see Resource File).

We were two years in planning for our first continuing education workshop but are now well on track to offering at least one continuing education program for CHES credit each year. We have met our objective for the past two years. Evaluation documentation of the past two continuing education programs, including the NCHEC final report is located in the Resource File.

VIII. FACULTY

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

The faculty of the MPH Program is multidisciplinary and predominantly public health trained. All faculty members within the Program and those who are joint-appointment faculty are experienced practitioners within their areas of expertise. All full-time tenure track faculty and the full-time lecturer have earned doctorates and several, including those who hold joint appointments, have two public health graduate degrees. Figure 11 below provides a listing of full-time faculty members, their gender, ethnicity, and area of research interest. Drs. Cotler and Madison are in the Faculty Early Retirement Program which allows a faculty member to retire but continue to teach no more than four courses per academic year. Both of these professors are teaching two courses per semester and can continue to do this for five years before fully retiring.

Faculty Member	Gender	Ethnicity	Research Interest
Chu	Male	Asian American	Epidemiology of Accidents, Injury and Death
Cotler*	Female	White	Bioethics
Ebin	Female	White	Adolescent TB; Alcohol Use Prevention; Health Promotion
Fischbach	Male	White	Therapeutic Riding & Cerebral Palsy; Problem Based Learning; Writing Skills for the Public Health Professions
Huff	Male	White	Culture and Health Care; Traditional Medicine; Alternative & Complimentary Medicine
Madison*	Female	White	Outcomes Assessment
Madjzoob	Female	Middle Eastern	Early Childhood Obesity; Nutrition; Healthy Child Development
Seliger*	Male	White	Health Care Organization
Young	Female	White	Women’s Health; Cultural Competence
Winkelman	Male	White	School Health Education & CPR

* Indicates Joint Appointment

Figure 11: Selected demographics and research areas of MPH faculty members.

Figure 12 below depicts the distribution of responsibilities among MPH faculty members. MPH student advisement is distributed evenly among all seven MPH faculty members in the Program. Joint appointment faculty are not required to advise in the Program but may serve on thesis/project committees.

Health Ed. Faculty	Teaching	Administration	Admissions	Advisement	Internship	Thesis & Comp Exam
Chu
Cotler
Ebin
Fischbach
Huff
Madison
Madjzoob
Seliger
Young
Winkelman

*Gray area indicates that faculty has assumed the indicated responsibility.

Figure 12: Distribution of MPH faculty responsibilities*

Table 5 provides a detailed analysis of a typical week’s distribution of duties for the MPH faculty. The largest portion of the faculty’s time, forty-five percent, is spent on MPH-course teaching and teaching preparation. With the inclusion of faculty having joint appointments in other University Departments and Programs, approximately thirty-six percent of faculty time is devoted to the teaching and preparing for courses outside of the MPH program. Ten percent of the total MPH faculty’s time is devoted to research. It should be noted that although Dr. Seliger teaches in both the MPH and Health Administration programs, he serves as the Health Sciences Department’s lead research faculty person with approximately nineteen percent of his time devoted to research. Figure 9, located earlier in this report, provides details of the MPH faculty-research efforts. The remaining twenty-five percent of MPH faculty-time is divided between committee responsibilities, program administration, advisement, and thesis/project supervision. Although continuing education efforts currently accounts for less than one percent of the total MPH faculty’s efforts, it is now a growing area of participation for four faculty members.

Table 5: Distribution of average weekly duties among MPH faculty

		Chu	Cotler	Ebin	Fischbach	Huff	Madison	Madjzoob	Seliger	Young	Winkelman	Total
Teaching MPH Courses	# of Hrs	12	3	9	0	9	3	3	3	3	0	45
Teaching MPH Courses	%	25%	17%	16%	0%	16%	11%	8%	6%	6%	0%	10%
Prep. MPH Courses	# of Hrs	24	6	18	0	18	6	6	6	6	0	90
Prep. MPH Courses	%	50%	33%	32%	0%	32%	21%	16%	11%	12%	0%	20%
Teaching Non-MPH Courses	# of Hrs	0	3	0	9	3	3	6	9	9	12	54
Teaching Non-MPH Courses	%	0%	17%	0%	17%	5%	11%	16%	17%	18%	22%	12%
Prep. Non-MPH Courses	# of Hrs	0	6	0	18	6	6	12	18	18	24	108
Prep. Non-MPH Courses	%	0%	33%	0%	34%	11%	21%	32%	34%	36%	44%	24%
Committee/ Service	# of Hrs	1	0	3	3	3	3	1	3	2	2	21
Committee/ Service	%	2%	0%	5%	6%	5%	11%	3%	6%	4%	4%	5%
Program Admin.	# of Hrs	0	0	9	12	0	0	0	0	0	9	30
Program Admin.	%	0%	0%	16%	23%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	16%	7%
Student Advisement	# of Hrs	4	0	4	4	4	0	4	4	4	4	32
Student Advisement	%	8%	0%	7%	8%	7%	0%	11%	8%	8%	7%	7%
Thesis /Project /Exam	# of Hrs	2	0	8	2	8	2	2	0	2	2	28
Thesis /Project /Exam	%	4%	0%	14%	4%	14%	7%	5%	0%	4%	4%	6%
Cont. Ed.	# of Hrs	0	0	0.5	0	0.5	0	0.5	0	0.5	0	2
Cont. Ed.	%	0%	0%	1%	0%	1%	0%	1%	0%	1%	0%	0%
Research	# of Hrs	5	0	5	5	5	5	3	10	5	2	45
Research	%	10%	0%	9%	9%	9%	18%	8%	19%	10%	4%	10%
Total	# of Hrs	48	18	56.5	53	56.5	28	37.5	53	49.5	55	455
Total	%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

The MPH faculty members bring a variety of public health perspectives based on their discipline areas as noted in Figure 9: Current Faculty Research and Creative Activities (2002-Present). As can be seen in this figure, all of the core disciplines of public health are represented in this faculty. This mix of professional interests and training brings a richness of educational expertise to the Program that enhances classroom experience and helps to broaden student understanding of the many facets of public health practice (faculty curriculum vitas will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit).

The Department Chairperson, College Dean and Personnel Committees at the Department and College levels review faculty performance as part of the personnel procedures of the University (Section 600/available in the Resource File). All Program faculty members are required to be evaluated by students every fall semester using the Wilson Evaluation Instrument (see the Resource File). This evaluation includes both a quantitative and qualitative assessment. The results of the Wilson Evaluation Instrument are reviewed by the Department Chair, and the Department and College Personnel Committees when a faculty member is up for retention, tenure and promotion considerations.

The MPH Program Director also tracks faculty performance with respect to the program’s mission, goals and objectives. That is, MPH faculty are required to submit an annual faculty activity report in June of each year to identify research, publications, presentations, and service activities that support the Program’s objectives. These activities are described elsewhere in this report and are reviewed and discussed in the annual faculty retreat held in June of each year (Faculty Activity Reports will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). In compliance with the Program objectives, since the last CEPH accreditation site visit all faculty members have been engaged in funded or unfunded research, and have carried out community service (see Criterion X for a summary).

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met. The MPH Program has a full compliment of well qualified multidisciplinary faculty who are teaching in all the core areas of public health and community health education. All faculty members are actively engaged in research, teaching, and community service. They are regularly assessed by the MPH Program, the Department, and College of Health and Human Development to ensure they are meeting Section 600 requirements as well as MPH Program objectives.

Criterion VIII.B.: The program 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.

Faculty Rules and Regulations

University policies and procedures for the recruitment, retention, promotion and tenure of faculty members in all areas of the University are clearly delineated in Section 600 of the University Administrative Manual (included with this Self-Study Report). These policies and procedures are explicitly established at the University, College and Departmental administrative levels and include affirmative action guidelines and procedures as well. An annual review by the University’s Personnel Policies and Review (PP&R) Committee of the Faculty Senate assures the viability of these policies and procedures. In addition to the Section 600 Manual, the Department of Health Sciences has its own Personnel Policies and Procedures for retention, promotion and tenure (RPT) that are reviewed each year by the Department’s Personnel Committee. These policies and procedures are evaluated annually, modified as needed and then reviewed and approved by the College Personnel Committee and PP&R (A copy of these guidelines will be included in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). An important aspect of the RTP process is student evaluations of faculty. The student evaluations (also known as the “Wilson Evaluation Instrument”) were described elsewhere is this document.

Faculty Development

Opportunities for faculty development occur at a number of levels within the University structure. At the University level, the following opportunities are available:

· Student On Line Administrative Resources (SOLAR) provides services for faculty and staff technology training. The website address for SOLAR support is www.csun.edu/itr/solar. Through this website, faculty can select links to training and documentation materials. Training sessions include didactic presentations, hands-on services; online staff paced training, and a quick reference guide.

· The Learning Centered University sponsors symposia that concern the enhancement and improvement of teaching and learning. Dr. Fischbach, a full-time Health Education faculty member, currently serves on the Committee for the Learning Centered University and acts as a liaison for the Department of Health Sciences.

· The California Faculty Association (CFA) sponsors workshops to assist with the personnel procedures at the University. Faculty seeking retention, tenure and promotion can access these workshops to help them to better prepare for this process by receiving help and guidance in organizing their Personal Information File and related issues.

· The University Instructional Development Program is designed to encourage and assist efforts by faculty, departments, and colleges to improve teaching and learning, and to promote faculty research on the teaching and learning processes. This program is supported by the California Lottery Education Fund and includes activities such as: providing travel grants for faculty members to attend off-campus workshops devoted to teaching and learning; hosting on-campus workshops on teaching-related issues; providing release time grants to faculty members for self-designated instructional development and pedagogical research projects; and encouraging colleges and departments to implement ways of improving instruction.

· The Instructional Media Center (IMC) has provided faculty with release time, technical expertise, and numerous support facilities for faculty projects designed to improve the learning processes at CSUN. Through the IMC, faculty members have received training and assistance in such areas as graphics, photography, audio and video production, distance learning and multimedia development.

· The Office of Research and Sponsored Projects provides support to faculty seeking extramural funding for various types of creative projects. This office also sponsors its own internal grant competition. Faculty may apply for mini-grants, three units of release time, or a summer fellowship.

· The Center for Excellence, Learning and Teaching (CELT) brings together faculty for the purpose of improving the overall quality of various instructional programs on campus. Moreover, the BECK Grant has made financial support available for the implementation of programs to improve teaching and learning, such as workshops dealing with instructional technology and interactive television. Two years ago Dr. Fischbach received a BECK Grant to study methods of improving writing instruction for health education majors. Dr. Ebin currently serves on the CELT Advisory Board.

At the College level, the Faculty Development Committee promotes and enhances the faculty classroom skills through seminars, special workshops and conferences relevant to the various teaching areas within the College. The College, has appointed Dr. Seliger, a Health Sciences faculty member, to serve in the position of Grant Writer. This position calls for the coordination and writing of grants that have an interdisciplinary focus and are collaborative in nature. In addition, a part-time faculty member, Dr. Maida, who facilitates the development of interdisciplinary projects that have multi-college focus, holds the position of Special Projects Coordinator.

Faculty Evaluation Procedures

As described elsewhere in this document, procedures for evaluation of faculty competence and performance are described in Section 600 of the University Administrative Manual under Academic Personnel Policies and Procedures. These procedures include the following:

There shall be consultation between the Department Personnel Committee and the Department Chair relevant to matters of faculty evaluation.
There shall be consultation between the College Personnel Committee and the Dean relevant to matters of faculty evaluation.
All final deliberations by the two personnel committees must be completed independent from the Chair and the Dean respectively.
Each Department Personnel Committee shall review all relevant data in light of the criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion and shall submit a recommendation on each candidate.
Prior to submitting their recommendation, the Department Personnel Committee shall invite each faculty member being evaluated to meet with the Committee to elaborate upon materials in their Professional Information File (PIF) and to answer questions they may have about the file.
Each Department Chair shall make an independent evaluation of each faculty member under review.
The Personnel Committee of the College will review Department recommendations and shall submit its own recommendation.
The Dean of each College shall make an independent evaluation of each faculty member.
Evaluations are based upon the faculty member providing a Professional Information File which contains evidence of the following:

· Teaching Effectiveness

· Professional Preparation (qualifications for teaching)

· Contributions to the Field of Study

· Contributions to the University and Community

· Professional and Personal Responsibilities

The Resource File will include the Section 600 Manual as well as Department Manual at the time of the site visit.

Student Course Evaluation Procedures

The Student evaluation process has been described elsewhere in this document but will be reviewed again here. During the summer and fall of 2004, a Health Sciences Department committee was organized to review the University Wilson Evaluation Instrument (A copy of this instrument will be included in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). As a result of this review, some of the instrument’s items were modified or deleted and replaced with new items. All full-time faculty members were given an opportunity to provide input on the final instrument to be used during the 2004-05 academic year (A copy of this instrument will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). Students complete the Wilson Evaluation Instrument and the Department Chairperson and Personnel Committee review the results as a part of the University’s personnel procedures. Students evaluate all faculty members (full and part-time) yearly, while probationary and part-time faculty members are evaluated every semester. The Wilson Evaluation Instrument’s results are subsequently reviewed by the College Dean and College Personnel Committee and become part of each faculty member’s Professional Information File. Post tenure review occurs every five years for tenured faculty who are not eligible for promotion. This review is conducted by an elected Departmental Post Tenure Review Committee. The results of this review are then evaluated by the College Dean and those findings are shared with the individual faculty member.

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met. Program faculty members have been and continue to be involved in faculty development programs. Program faculty members have served on the College Faculty Development Committee, the Research and Creative Activities Committee, and Departmental committees devoted to improving teaching and learning. In addition, yearly there is a seamless process for evaluating faculty competence and performance within the Department of Health Sciences and the MPH Program.

Criterion VIII.C.: The program 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.

Faculty Demographics

The MPH faculty represents diverse backgrounds that bring the University a wealth of professional and personal experiences. As Figure 11 demonstrates, the Program has a balance of male and female faculty members with a measure of ethnic diversity.

Policies and Procedures Regarding Equitable Opportunities

All Faculty recruitment activities are reviewed by the Department Affirmative Action Representative and the University Director of Affirmative Action Programs. The MPH Program, through the Department of Health Sciences Search & Screen Process, adheres to all affirmative action policies and regulations of the University (A copy of the Faculty Recruitment manual will be available in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). The policy of California State University, Northridge is to provide equal opportunity in all aspects of employment. The University is committed to a program of Affirmative Action to provide employees and applicants for positions in the University opportunities in all departments and job classifications on campus.

Following the last site visit, the MPH Program conducted a search and screen process to recruit a new faculty member. While we were unable to find a qualified minority candidate we were pleased to recruit a highly talented female candidate, Dr. Kathleen Young. Dr. Young joins the Program’s other two distinguished female faculty members, Dr. Ebin, and Dr. Madjzoob. Dr. Ebin, while not being a member of an ethnic minority, has spent more than ten years living and working in the Middle East. Dr. Madjzoob, a member of the Middle Eastern community as well, brings a wealth of knowledge of the public health issues found in that troubled part of the world. Dr. Lawrence Chu, who teaches biostatistics and epidemiology, was recruited by the Department of Health Sciences and subsequently joined the MPH Program this current academic year.

The MPH Program has always sought to recruit a diverse faculty in compliance with the University’s Affirmative Action policies and procedures. While we have not always been successful in finding ethnically diverse qualified faculty, we recognize that cultural diversity makes for a stronger and richer mix in the teaching and learning process. Thus, this area is included in coursework and targeted in field training opportunities. Field internship preceptors are asked to assess the students’ capacity to demonstrate cultural awareness and sensitivity while conducting their health education responsibilities.

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met. The MPH Program has a gender balance and three faculty members representative of ethnic diversity. The MPH Program adheres to all University Affirmative Action policies and procedures in its search and screening procedures. When opportunities present themselves the MPH Program continues to seek qualified and ethnically diverse faculty members to teach in the Program.

IX. STUDENTS

IX.A. Recruitment of Students

The MPH Program continues to maintain an outstanding reputation for preparing well qualified health education practitioners. This reputation has resulted in inquires from highly competent individuals from within CSUN’s service area as well as from foreign venues such as India, Pakistan, China, Japan, Africa, and other areas across the globe. The MPH website (www.csun.edu/~hchsc006/) provides a convenient way to download important Program information. Those MPH candidates seeking information via the telephone (818-677-2053) are connected to the MPH Graduate Coordinator’s office for responses to questions and timely mailing of requested Program materials and application forms. In addition, candidates can contact the Graduate Coordinator via email at vicki.ebin@csun.edu. The MPH Program has also enthusiastically participated in the University’s yearly outreach and recruitment event, “All Campus Gradfest”, which helps to connect potential students to various graduate programs.

The MPH Program has greatly benefited from the University’s strategic location in the greater Los Angeles area. Being close to the Los Angeles freeway system affords students the opportunity to enroll in the CSUN’s MPH Program from as far away as Ventura and Santa Barbara, California. Students are also drawn to the array public health training opportunities located in the greater Los Angeles area.

Administratively located in the Department of Health Sciences, affords the opportunity for undergraduates from both the Health Education Program and other related undergraduate majors to interface with MPH Program majors. Such exposure draws qualified students from the CSUN undergraduate population into the pool of MPH Program applicants.

Since the CSUN Program graduates date back to the 1970s, they have become an important referral source as well. MPH Program graduates currently occupy key health education positions throughout the Los Angeles area. For example, a recent graduate is currently employed by the Kaiser Permanente Health Education Program in their Panorama City facility. In her role as a health educator, she serves as a mentor to many undergraduate Health Education interns. Similar examples have occurred at local public school sites, Planned Parenthood, and many others.

The Program has been specifically organized for prospective students who work during the day and can only attend classes in the late afternoon and evening. Thus, all classes are scheduled in the afternoon and evening hours (4:00-7:00 and 7:00-10:00pm) four days per week. Occasionally, depending on student demand, a Saturday course may be offered as well. Advisement hours are also scheduled in the late afternoon and evenings to accommodate the working students.

Admissions Policies and Procedures

General admissions policies and procedures for graduate students are outlined in the University Catalog (included with this self-study report). Students are first evaluated by the University to determine their qualifications for admission to graduate school. If meeting or surpassing the minimal requirements (2.50 GPA), the student’s application is forwarded to the Department where an addition review procedure is carried out.

Once the application arrives in the Department, each applicant is directed to complete the MPH Program supplementary application. This supplementary application includes a form that requests letters of recommendation, and a request for transcripts. In addition, a Statement of Purpose form is provided to record the candidate’s motivation to seek the MPH degree. A basic contact information form is also included. Once the applicant has submitted all the above materials to the Department, the application package is forwarded to the Graduate Coordinator/Admissions Coordinator (Dr. Ebin). She completes an application review form and forwards the entire package to a three-person Application Review Committee. This Committee reviews the applicant’s transcripts and undergraduate GPA, work experience, letters of recommendation, and statement of purpose for pursuing an MPH in Health Education. The Committee then makes a recommendation to admit “conditionally”, “fully classified” or to reject the application. Upon coming to this recommendation the application package is then returned to the Graduate Coordinator/Admissions Coordinator for a final review and decision.

Qualified students who are admitted into “conditional status” generally have three possible qualifying requirements to complete. Qualifying requirements generally include one or more of the following:

The University Upper Division Writing Proficiency Examination;
The GRE (if the student’s GPA is under 3.0 overall or 3.2 in their last 60 units);
The HSCI 390/390L (biostatistics) course; and
International graduates are also required to complete the TOEFL as a demonstration of their ability to work in the English language.

In accordance with the University 12 Unit Rule the qualifying requirements must be completed prior to registering in more than 12 units of graduate study. Once “conditionally classified” students complete their qualifying program they are advanced to “fully classified status.” The University Catalog, MPH Program Brochure, and the MPH webpage include information about the admissions requirements noted above.

Applicants and Admissions

Table 6 below lists the number of applicants and admissions to the MPH Program since the last site visit.

Table 6: MPH Program Applications and Admissions for Past Three Years

Academic Year	Number of Applications	Number Admitted*	Number Rejected	Number Enrolled**
2002-2003	52	43	9	62
2003-2004	63	46	13	63
2004-2005	55	41	14	64
Total	170	130	36	189

*Includes students accepted on a qualified program and fully classified basis

**Does not include students who are only enrolled in comprehensive exam preparation class and thesis/project class.

As can be seen in the table above, 130 students were admitted to the Program over the past three years. In 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005 the MPH Program had a total of 63, 70 and 74 students respectively in attendance. Table 7 below presents the number of students who were full or part-time in the Program over the past three years.

Table 7: Number of Full and Part-Time MPH Students over Past Three Years.

	Number of Students			Percent of Students
	In the MPH Program			In the MPH Program
Academic Year	Full-Time	Part-Time	Total	Full-Time	Part-Time
2002-2003	34	29	63	54%	46%
2003-2004	34	36	70	49%	51%
2004-2005	39	35	74	53%	47%
Total	107	100	207

During the past three years there has been a growing trend toward more of our applicants being admitted as full-time students in the Program than ever before. In the past, there were generally a far greater number of part-time students (approximately 62%). We will need to watch these numbers to see if this trend continues since it could have an impact on the way class scheduling is done in the future.

The average GPA for students admitted to the Program over the past three years was 3.10 with a range of 2.59-3.95. The percentage of females to males amongst admitted students has been consistently 85 to 15 percent. The average age of this group has been 26.45 years with a range of 21-37 years.

Each academic year the MPH Program Director reviews incoming student data provided by the University’s Office of Institutional Research and Planning. Outcome assessment measures such as student ethnicity, average number of units completed, and grade point average provide an insight into the effectiveness of the Program’s efforts to recruit a highly qualified and diverse student population.

As a result of the MPH June 2005 faculty retreat a recruitment plan was formulated that contained two major components. First, each member of the MPH faculty will be assigned to identify and contact a likely recruitment venue. Such a venue would contain a plentiful source of qualified MPH Program candidates. According to the draft plan each faculty member would establish a relationship with the venue and during the 2005-2006 academic-year make a presentation that summarizes the virtues of the CSUN MPH Program. Second, a subcommittee of the MPH faculty will identify potential sources of funding for scholarships and stipends to support future graduate students. It is the consensus of the faculty that with the availability of financial support CSUN’s MPH Program will be able to attract a larger number of qualified applicants..

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met. Applications and admissions procedures meet University and Departmental requirements that are clearly outlined in the University Catalog and MPH Program Brochure. Program faculty have been in discussion this past year regarding need to engage in an active outreach recruitment effort. These exploratory discussions have resulted in the above mentioned candidate recruitment plan. Results of the plan will be reported in a future accreditation report.

Criterion IX.B.: Stated application, admission, and degree-granting requirements and regulations shall be applied equitably to individual applicants and students regardless of age, sex, race, disability, religion or national origin.

California State University, Northridge does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, disability or veteran’s status in the provision of educational opportunities or employment opportunities and benefits. Such discrimination is prohibited under Title IX of the Educational Amendment of 1972 (Public Law 92-318) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-112). This policy extends to both employment and admission to the University and the MPH Program. Inquiries concerning charges of violation of these policies are directed to the Coordinator of Student Affirmative Action.

MPH Student Characteristics

Table 8 below presents the ethnic/cultural student-data for the MPH Program during the 2002 to 2005 period.

Table 8: Ethnic/Cultural Characteristics of MPH Students in Past Three Years.

Ethnic/Cultural Characteristics	2002-2003		2003-2004		2004-2005		Totals 2002-2005
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Mexican-American	8	12.7%	9	12.9%	7	9.5%	24	11.6%
Latino	5	7.9%	5	7.1%	6	8.1%	16	7.7%
White	26	41.3%	34	48.6%	36	48.6%	96	46.4%
African-American	3	4.8%	7	10.0%	5	6.8%	15	7.2%
Asian-American	5	7.9%	4	5.7%	4	5.4%	13	6.3%
Filipino	4	6.3%	3	4.3%	5	6.8%	12	5.8%
International Students	5	7.9%	5	7.1%	4	5.4%	14	6.8%
Others*	7	11.1%	3	4.3%	7	9.5%	17	8.2%
Total	63	100.0%	70	100.0%	74	100.0%	207	100.0%

*Other means that cultural/ethnic characteristics were not specified.

The above table reveals that for the academic years 2002 through 2005, 45.4% of the students attending the MPH Program were from culturally diverse population groups. The figure could be higher were we able to break out the “Other” category.

Assessment Measures to Evaluate Student Diversity

The MPH Program has not engaged in any active student recruitment processes beyond those described elsewhere in this report. According to recent data the CSUN service area has a population consisting of slightly more than 50% minorities.[1] A CNN Internet news article[2] states that the American Council on Education found that only 40 percent of African-Americans and 34 percent of Hispanics attend college, compared to 46 percent of whites. Consequently, CSUN ethnically diverse student population is well within an expected range given the community make up. The Program expects to maintain its attraction to a diverse student group, and unless we note significant changes in student diversity, there are no plans to develop a formal recruitment program.

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met with commentary. While there is no formal recruitment program in place to attract ethnically/culturally diverse students to the MPH Program, we continue to have a strong ethnically/culturally diverse student population seeking admission and attending the MPH Program.

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

At the beginning of each academic year, all entering and returning students are invited to attend a New Academic Year Orientation session. During this orientation, students are introduced to the MPH faculty each of who welcome the students, and provide an overview of the courses they teach and their current research interests. Upon completion of the more formal presentations, students are encouraged to talk informally with the faculty members and returning fellow students about the program. The MPH Program Director and Graduate Coordinator make presentations during this orientation session to outline Program requirements and critical milestones each student will encounter as they matriculate through the program. Reviews of advisement procedures, moving from conditional to fully classified status, the formal program each student must take, internship expectations, the culminating experience options, and the TQE process are discussed. Students are encouraged to become involved in the Master of Public Health Student Association (MPHSA) and its various activities. An officer of the MPHSA presents each student with a packet of handouts that include Program forms and other information to make the new student’s transition into the Program as smooth as possible (A copy of this packet will be included in the Resource File at the time of the site visit).

Upon entry to the Program, students are assigned a faculty advisor in accordance with the first letter of their last name. Figure 13 below identifies the current advisement schedule for the MPH faculty.

Students’ Names Starting With:	Faculty Advisor
A – D	Ronald Fischbach
E – H	Vicki Ebin
I – L	Gretta Madjzoob
M – P	Kathleen Young
Q – T	Robert Huff
U – W	Lawrence Chu
X – Z	Jack Winkelman

Figure 13: MPH faculty member advisement schedule

In general, new students meet with Dr. Ebin for their preliminary advisement to the MPH Program including discussion of qualifying program expectations (if necessary). They are then provided with contact information for their assigned advisor and encouraged to meet with them at least once per semester while they are moving through the Program. Students may also be advised via email once they have met with their assigned advisor and a Program plan has been developed. As in a face to face meeting, this type of advisement can be used to identify or change electives, and address other programmatic issues the student may have. Once engaged in the Program, students also participate in the TQE process as described elsewhere in this report. During their Mid-Point TQE (at the 20 unit mark), students’ records are formally reviewed and advisement provided on an as needed basis. Most commonly, this process uncovers a failure to complete a qualifying program, or a need to apply for classified status. In either of these cases, students are referred to their primary advisor or the Graduate Coordinator to address these matters.

In addition to advisement and counseling through the MPH Program, students have access to a variety of other services including the following:

University Counseling & Testing Center (www.csun.edu/counseling) which provides a variety of services including crisis counseling, personal counseling, public speaking, test taking anxiety counseling, testing services that include a wide variety of tests (national, CSU and local academic testing programs (www.csun.edu/~tc2020)).
The Career Center (www.csun.edu/career) which aids students in career counseling and employment opportunities; vocational testing; and individual and group career counseling. Their Career Library provides computerized assistance to students seeking information about internship opportunities, career trends, salary information, and job listings (available via www.MosterTrac.com).

Student Satisfaction with Advisement and Counseling

A survey of MPH students conducted in the spring of 2004 (See Resource File) indicates that the vast majority of students were satisfied with the advisement and counseling services available to them. Four questions were asked of students about advising. Table 9 below identifies these items and student responses.

Table 9: Student Responses to Advisement Items on the MPH Student Survey by Item and Likert-Scaled Response.

Academic Advising Item	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
My academic advisor is knowledgeable about Program requirements.	59%	27%	14%	0.0%
Degree requirements were communicated clearly	38%	51%	11%	0.0%
Timely completion of Program requirements is encouraged	22%	57%	19%	3%
My academic advisor is accessible	32%	51%	16%	0.0%

N=37

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met with commentary. Students are provided with formal and informal opportunities for advisement and counseling when needed. The TQE protocol, initiated in the fall of 1998, has provided additional opportunities for students to obtain important advisement services and information. Responses to the spring 2004 MPHSA Student Survey indicate strong satisfaction with the advisement process. The spring 2005 MPHSA Student Survey has recently been completed and the results will be available at the time of the CEPH site visit (please see the Resource File). Career and placement counseling opportunities are available to students interested in exploring or seeking employment opportunities, although formal tracking of the outcomes of those opportunities has not been conducted to this point in time. As indicated earlier in this report, a formal tracking process is being developed with the University Career Center. The results of those efforts will be provided to the site team and will be found in the Resource File.

Criterion IX.D.: Students shall, where appropriate, have participatory roles in conduct of program evaluation procedures, policy-setting and decision-making.

As described in Criterion III above, the MPH Student Association assigns one to two MPH students to function as liaisons to the MPH Program. These students attend health education faculty meetings and the June faculty retreat to exchange information, opinions, concerns and needs related to the Program governance. In addition, liaisons from the MPHSA also participate on the MPHAC and its subcommittees and have full voting and decision-making rights. MPH students have been consulted as part of the self-study process. They will also have opportunities to review and comment on the self-study report that will be available in hard copy or via the MPH Program website. Student comments will be available for the site team to review. The site team will also have the opportunity to meet with students to discuss the self-study process.

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met. The MPH Program has worked hard since the last site visit to involve students at a number of governance levels. Coupled with the MPHSA students have been afforded considerable opportunity to be very involved in Programmatic decision making and overall governance during the past three years. We expect that this participation will continue and faculty will continue to support students who wish to be involved in this most important activity.

X. EVALUATION AND PLANNING

Criterion X.A.: The program shall have an explicit process for evaluating and monitoring its overall efforts against its mission, goals and objectives; for assessing the program’s effectiveness in serving its various constituencies; and for planning to achieve its mission in the future.

The seven step process we are now using has made a major difference in our evaluation and planning capabilities. After the last site visit, a major effort was implemented to identify and implement a more systematic process of monitoring and assessing the program’s outcomes, and then to feed that information back into the Program’s planning process. The current evaluation and planning process consists of seven major components:

Independent and External Data Collection
Internal Data Collection
Data Analysis;
Strategic Planning;
Assessment and Modification of Program Goals and Objectives;
University Curricular Process;
Modification of Program Policies & Procedures

1. Independent and External Data Collection

As noted in the Interim Report (August 16, 2004), the MPH Program established a Master of Public Health Advisory Committee (MPHAC) in the fall of 2002 to act in part as an ongoing external and independent data collection group. Their responsibilities have been to assist the Program in collecting data on the effectiveness of the Program Curriculum. Article VII. Subcommittees, Section 1. Curriculum Review (see Resource File) states: “Course curriculum shall be reviewed to assure currency in standards, best practice, and practical application.” Assisting the MPHAC, is the Master of Public Health Student Association (MPHSA), who reviews the external data in light of the existing Program goals and objectives. Since the last CEPH site visit a new Master of Public Health Alumni Chapter has been organized and chartered. Subsequent to the formation of the chapter a survey of the MPH alumni was conducted to survey current perceptions of their graduate training, and other areas of concern to them (a record of their activities and the survey they conducted will be included in the Resource File at the time of the site visit). A second survey is currently being conducted and will include items regarding employment after graduation, perceptions of the quality of the MPH training at CSUN, and other related issues. These results will be included in the self-study Resource File as well.

2. Internal Data Collection

In tandem with the external data collection is a two part internal data collection process. The Total Quality Education (TQE) assessment program provides key data collection points through which the Program faculty obtains measurements of student performance outcomes. Figure 14 below presents the MPH Program Objectives, evaluation indicators, and criterion assessment for the past three years. Items 1 and 12 of Figure 14 depict how TQE plays a role in the internal data collection process. The data obtained from the Wilson Student Survey serves to provide important information about teaching effectiveness (see Resource File). This survey of teaching effectiveness is conducted at a minimum of once a year for all tenured faculty members and twice year for non-tenured and part-time faculty members.

Objective	Evaluation Indicator	2003	2005	2005	Criterion Assessment *
1. Mastery of public health and health education skills.	Course GPA’s, TQE, field training evaluations, student self-assessments, student and alumni surveys, comp exam pass rates.	Data from CSUN Institutional Research, surveys, preceptor evaluations, TQE, and comp exam reviewed in monthly faculty meetings and faculty retreats.	Data from CSUN Institutional Research, surveys, preceptor evaluations, TQE, and comp exam reviewed monthly in faculty meetings and faculty retreats.	Data from CSUN Institutional Research, surveys, preceptor evaluations, TQE, and comp exam reviewed monthly in faculty meetings and faculty retreats.	Met with commentary. Surveys were not conducted in 2002-2003.
2. Knowledge of multicultural influences.	Course outlines, performance in field training, and performance on comp exam.	Review of course outlines yearly, data reviewed from field training evaluations, pass rates on comp exam related to this area.	Review of course outlines, data reviewed from field training evaluations, pass rates on comp exam related to this area.	Review of course outlines, data reviewed from field training evaluations, pass rates on comp exam related to this area.	Met. Reviews conducted in faculty meetings & faculty retreats and from field preceptor evaluation reports to Internship Coordinator.
3. Values and Ethics	Same as #1 & 2 above.	Same as #1 & 2 above.	Same as #1 & 2 above.	Same as #1 & 2 above.	Met. Reviews conducted in faculty meetings & faculty retreats.
4. Students complete 400 hour internships.	Field training logs, preceptor evaluations, affiliation agreements.	Review of data collected by the field training coordinator from logs, evaluation reports, and affiliation agreements.	Review of data collected by the field training coordinator from logs, evaluation reports, and affiliation agreements.	Review of data collected by the field training coordinator from logs, evaluation reports, and affiliation agreements.	Met. Reviews conducted at the end of each semester by the field training coordinator and reported in faculty meetings and the faculty retreats.
5. Faculty research & creative activities.	Faculty Activity Reports.	Reports collected and reviewed annually by the Program Director.	Reports collected and reviewed annually by the Program Director.	Reports collected and reviewed annually by the Program Director.	Met. 100% of the faculty have been engaged in these activities each year.
6. Student involvement in faculty research.	Faculty Activity Reports & Research Design Instructor report.	Reports collected annually and report from Research Design Instructor each year (41.2% of MPH students were involved in research).	Reports collected annually and report from Research Design Instructor each year (34.8% of MPH students were involved in research).	Reports collected annually and report from Research Design Instructor each year (51.4% of MPH students were involved in research).	Met. Reports reviewed in faculty retreat each year.
7. Community Service.	Faculty Activity Reports & MPHSA student survey.	Reports collected annually from faculty. Data from students not collected this year.	Reports collected annually from faculty and from MPHSA student survey.	Reports collected annually from faculty and student survey currently underway.	Met with commentary. 100% of MPH faculty members were involved in community service activities each year. Student data on community service was not collected in 2002-03. For 2003-04, 47% of the students responding to the MPHSA survey reported community service activities. Data on 2004-2005 is currently being collected in the MPHSA survey for 2005.
8. Continuing education.	Evaluation report to NCHEC	No continuing education done.	One continuing education program completed.	One continuing education program planned for June 7, 2005.	Met with commentary. By the time of the next site visit two continuing education programs will have been completed.
9. MPH student involvement in governance.	MPHAC membership roster; meeting minutes from the MPHAC & subcommittees; and minutes from health education faculty meetings and retreats.	Review of meeting minutes.	Review of meeting minutes.	Review of meeting minutes.	Met with commentary. Meeting minutes reflect active student involvement until the spring semester of 2005 where involvement decreased in faculty meetings but continued in the MPHAC.
10. MPH student survey involvement.	MPH student survey instrument.	No survey done in 2002-03.	Student survey results.	Student survey results.	Not Met. No surveys were done in 2002-03 and only 57% of the students in the Program responded in 2003-04. Efforts to reach the 80% mark for the 2004-05 survey have yet to be reached as the survey has yet to be administered
11. Surveys of MPH Alumni and Field Preceptors.	Alumni Survey and Field Trainer Survey Instruments.	No survey done in 2002-03.	Alumni survey done but no Field Trainer survey done.	Alumni survey to be done and Field Trainer survey done.	Not Met. This is an area that needs more attention.
12. TQE	TQE Reports	TQE mid-point done in spring with 11 students. No exit interviews done.	TQE mid-point done in Spring with 12 students. No exit interviews done.	TQE mid-point not done; 13 exit interviews completed.	Not Met. The TQE process needs to be revisited. The process is labor intensive and until 2004-05 the Program faculty complement was not fully adequate to carry out all TQE activities.
13. CHES	NCHEC Test Report	No report received.	Report received. Two MPH students took and passed the CHES Exam.	No report issued from NCHEC but five students report having taken and passed the exam.	Met with commentary. Need to connect with NCHEC to ensure test reports are sent and to continue to encourage MPH students to sit for the exam.
14. Student employment	Employment reports on Alumni Survey	Not tracked	Not tracked	An employment question will be included on the upcoming Alumni Survey Instrument.	Not Met. The MPH Program has not included this as an objective. It is now a new objective and will be tracked from spring 2005 onward.
15. Faculty Retreats.	Retreat minutes.	Retreat minutes on file.	Retreat minutes on file.	Retreat to be held in June as all past retreats have.	Met.
16. Self-Study	Self-Study Report and/or Interim Report.	Not required this year.	Interim Report filed August 2004.	Self-Study written and in the mail as required May 17, 2005.	Met.

Figure 14: MPH Program objectives assessment grid for 2003-2005

3. Data Analysis

The ongoing carry through of the decisions made at the annual Health Education Faculty Retreat is discussed and modified during monthly Program faculty meetings. It had been pointed out during the last site visit that faculty meeting minutes were not being systematically recorded and catalogued. A procedure to capture these meeting minutes has since been established (these meeting minutes will be available in the Resource File at the time of the next site visit). As previously mentioned the MPH Student Association has also been very involved in the assessment and monitoring process. Their participation has included attendance at the annual faculty retreat, participation in the monthly faculty meetings, serving on the MPHAC and its subcommittees, and developing and administering the MPH student survey.

4. Strategic Planning

In June 2003, The Annual Health Education Faculty Retreat was established to review and make modifications towards meeting our mission, goals and objectives (see the Resource File for the minutes of these retreats). The annual Health Education Faculty Retreat has provided the Program with a process for strategic planning and review. While not fully implemented, the annual charge to this body includes:

A formal SWOT analysis (an assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) (implementation scheduled for 2005-2006 academic year);

A review of the Program’s plan of action to take us from where we are with respect to our goals and objective to where we would like to be at the end of the academic year (implemented in the 2003-2004 academic year);
An analysis of how Programmatic decisions have met the needs of our targeted student and community markets(implemented in the 2003-2004 academic year); and
An evaluation of the extent to which the Program continues to support the University, College, and Departmental missions (implemented in the 2003-2004 academic year).

5. University Curricular Process

The Graduate Studies Committee (GSC) recommends graduate curriculum policy and standards to the Faculty Senate. As such the GSC sets the standard for graduate curriculum at California State University, Northridge. All curricular proposals (both modifications to existing programs and courses, as well as new initiatives) must proceed through three levels of review, they include: Departmental, College, and University. The Graduate Studies Committee (GSC) at the University level sets the standards for the College and University levels. These standards are:

Completeness: The extent to which all necessary parts of the proposal are included to communicate the objective(s) of the document;
Redundancy within a discipline: The degree to which substantial overlap of course content occurs between the proposal and existing courses within the discipline;
Proliferation of department’s curriculum: The extent to which added course offerings can be justified;
Need for additional resources (facilities, equipment, faculty, staff support, etc.): The amount of additional resources needed to support the curricular change and possible sources for those additional resources; and
Learning Outcomes and Methods of Assessment: The inclusion of student learning outcomes and the methods of measurement;

Once the author of the curriculum proposal includes GSC modifications to the proposals the altered proposal is routed back to the appropriate Associate Dean for review and approval. The revised proposal is then resubmitted to GSC.

The MPH Program, through its Health Education Program representative, submits all curricular issues to the Health Sciences Department Curriculum Committee. This Committee carefully reviews all MPH initiatives, makes recommendations, and ultimately rules to pass the initiative on to the Health and Human Development College Curriculum Committee or to reject the proposal.

The Chair of the Health Sciences Department Curriculum Committee is a member of the College Curriculum Committee. It is through the Department’s representative to the College Curriculum Committee that curriculum initiatives get passed on to the next level of review. At the College level the proposals are once again scrutinized against the eight above criteria. The College committee can choose to reject, send back for additional modification or pass on to the University’s GSC.

Membership on the GSC is attained through and election process within the College. Each initiative that is passed on to the GSC is presented by its author to a meeting of the Committee. The GSC can either rule to accept the proposal, or reject it.

6. Modification of Program Policies and Procedures

Program policies and procedures are reviewed and considered for modification during monthly meetings of the MPH Program faculty. Individual members of the faculty present a proposed change with supportive information derived from the previous five Evaluation and Planning Process steps. A simple majority vote of the faculty is sufficient to codify the change. Should the change be judged as having an impact on the Program goals and objectives, a joint committee of the MPHAC, Program faculty, and the MPHSA will be charged with the task of rewriting a portion of the goals and objectives in step 7 of this process.

7. Assessment and Modification of Program Goals and Objectives

From year to year, in response to the collected data in Steps 1 through 6, a joint committee of the MPHAC, Program faculty, and the MPHSA transforms the existing Program goals and objectives into an updated set of Program goals, objectives. The joint committee also recommends new student outcome measures and assessment tools (see Attachment 1 which contains the original draft of these objectives) to measure student performance. The Program goals and objectives found in Criterion I of this self-study document are a direct reflection of this process.

As can be seen in Figure 14 above, 12 of the 16 Program objectives have been met or met with commentary. Several of the objectives have only just been added so data has yet to be collected (pending alumni survey and MPH student survey will provide this data).

Criterion I through IX. have been addressed in this self-study with supporting data from: CSUN Institutional Research Reports (these will be included in the Resource File at the time of the site visit); survey data from students, alumni and field trainers; minutes from health education faculty meetings, faculty retreats, alumni meetings, and meetings of the MPHAC and its subcommittees; and annual health education faculty activity reports.

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met with commentary. New MPH Program objectives were developed after the last site visit along with data needs and outcome assessments as noted above. Our Interim Report submitted in August 2004 identified areas of deficiency and steps that had been taken to correct these short falls. We are continuing to work to improve our efforts in every one of the CEPH criterion areas. We recognize that there are still some areas that need to be addressed (as noted in Figure 14 above), but we are moving on these with due diligence. We feel strongly that we have come a great distance in our monitoring and self-assessment activities and are doing well in achieving our mission as well as the mission, goals and objectives of California State University, Northridge.

Criterion X.B.: For purposes of seeking accreditation by CEPH, the program shall conduct an analytical self-evaluation and prepare a self-study document that responds to all criteria in this manual.

Since the last site visit, the Program has undergone a major transformation in the way it conducts its assessment and monitoring activities. This includes establishment of new Program objectives, creating advisory groups, conducting surveys to track programmatic, student, and community needs, meeting regularly as a faculty to discuss and monitor Program activities, and writing a two-year interim report that addressed the deficiencies identified during the last site visit. We have provided documentation, either in this document or in attachments to this document, and will have additional supplementary documentation available in a Resource File when the site team comes to CSUN in October 2005.

Description of the Self-Study Process

Since the site visit in 2002, the MPH Program has been continuously involved in the self-study process. With the establishment of new Program objectives, the Program Director and the faculty began collecting data appropriate to the objectives that had been developed (see Criterion I), and that supported Criterion II through X as described elsewhere in this document. We submitted an Interim Two-Year Report in August 2004 and then continued self-study process in September of 2004 leading to the submission of this document. The self-study process was conducted under the supervision of the MPH Program Director, Dr. Robert Huff. He met with his Program faculty to discuss the requirements for the self-study, and coordinated his efforts with the MPHAC, the MPHSA and the MPH Alumni Chapter to carry out designated components of the process. Once assignments were distributed to the above mentioned groups, the faculty were assigned specific criterion to be addressed. Figure 15 below identifies the self-study assignments given to the MPH faculty.

__________________________________________________

Criterion Faculty Member Assigned

__________________________________________________

I Robert Huff

II Robert Huff

III Vicki Ebin

IV Kathleen Young

V Ronald Fischbach

VI Vicki Ebin

VII Gretta Madjzoob

VIII Jack Winkelman

IX Vicki Ebin

X Robert Huff

__________________________________________________

Figure 15: MPH faculty self-study assignments

Dr. Chu joined the MPH faculty in the fall semester of 2004 and was not given an assignment. However, he has been involved in reviewing and commenting on the self-study document and will be fully involved when the site visit takes place in October of 2005. The MPH Advisory Council was involved from their inception in the fall of 2002, and continues to be instrumental in our evaluation and monitoring activities. The Program Director has delivered an accreditation progress report to all of the Council meetings, and has received feedback from Council members as to possible Program changes. In addition the Council has provided help with our continuing education program and curriculum review activities. They will be assisting with support services for the October site team visit. They will meet with the site team to share their insights and observations about the Program as well. Their meeting minutes and other supporting documents will be available in the Resource File for review by the site team.

The MPH Student Association leadership has helped the Program better understand the needs and concerns of its students through their thoughtful participation in faculty meetings and retreats. In addition, they have conducted two MPH student surveys. Data from these surveys has been very useful in answering questions about student satisfaction with the curriculum, pedagogy, academic advisement, and their general experiences as students in the program. By helping to sponsor and implement two continuing education MPH workshop the MPH Student Association has earned the respect of their faculty and the local health education community.

The MPH Alumni Chapter has been very involved in crafting and conducting two alumni surveys. These surveys have made available valuable data quantifying alumni satisfaction with their training in the program, success in obtaining desired employment, and other related information. Along with the University Alumni Relations Office, the MPH Alumni Chapter will remain committed to co-sponsor the next continuing education workshop.

The current self-study document has been reviewed by MPH faculty, students, alumni, field trainers, the MPHAC, and University administrators prior to the submission of the final version of this document in the fall of 2005. In addition, the document will be uploaded to the MPH Program Website and announcements will be sent out to all MPH students and others who have requested to receive notification about issues pertaining to the Program.

Responses to Concerns and Recommendations since the Last Accreditation Visit

At the last site visit in the spring of 2002, six major concerns were expressed by the site team in their final report to the Program. These included the following:

The Program must demonstrate that committees specific to the MPH Program are operational (Criterion III).
The University should provide support for faculty to be actively engaged in scholarly activity, especially that which is judged in peer-reviewed processes (Criterion VI).
The Program has not initiated a program of continuing education, either as a National Commission for Health Education Credentialing single/multiple event provider or through other appropriate venues (Criterion VII).
The Program does not have a sufficient number of qualified faculty members to support the program’s mission, goals and objectives (Criterion VIII.A.).
The Program has not implemented an explicit process for monitoring and evaluating the Program against its mission, goals and objectives, including the identification and analysis of data related to its established outcome measures (Criterion X.A.); and
The Program has failed to have a timetable for conducting its next self-study, assuring that the process is broadly participatory, is based on data and documentation, is analytical, and is timely (Criterion X.B.).

Each of these issues was addressed in the Two-Year Interim Report that was submitted in August 2004. The CEPH Board of Counselors reviewed the Interim Report and noted that we had come into compliance with four of the six deficiencies noted in the 2002 site visit. The two areas that continued to concern them were those related to research (Criterion VI), and Criterion X.A. related to an explicit process of self-monitoring and evaluation.

With respect to Criterion VI, we have sought to demonstrate in this self-study document that there is strong University support for research and creative work through a number of venues that help faculty develop proposals for funded research, and provide opportunities for faculty to buy out time to conduct research within or outside the University (Please see Criterion VI for a more detailed explanation of what has taken place over the past three years). Research is an expectation for retention, tenure and promotion as outlined in Section 600 of the University’s Administrative Manual (included with supporting documentation to this self-study), and is encouraged and supported at all levels of the University. All members of the MPH faculty are engaged in research or creative activities and have been for the past three years. Several of the faculty have funded research and have bought out time from teaching to carry out their research activities. We believe that we have addressed CEPH’s concerns about research activities in the program.

Based upon the CEPH’s response to the Interim Report the Program failed to establish an explicit, and seamless self-monitoring evaluation process. In an effort to address this shortcoming, the MPH Program Director attended the November 2004 Site Visitor Training Workshop at the APHA convention in Washington, D.C. The opportunity to network with the Executive Director and a number of other attendees provided the Program Director with a much more comprehensive understanding of how to formulate a state of the art evaluation process. Since the APHA convention we have talked with other MPH Program leaders in an effort to better understand what is expected of us in Criterion X.A. and B. We hope that we have demonstrated some understanding of what is expected by explaining Our current system for evaluation and monitoring consists of periodic data collection, data analysis, strategic planning based upon the data analysis, program modifications via the University curricular process, Programmatic policy and procedure changes, and ultimately alterations of the Program’s goals and objectives (See Figure 16 below).

Text Box: Program Instruction and Delivery

Figure 16: MPH Program self-monitoring evaluation process

Our self-monitoring evaluative process includes:

· Data analysis and review at monthly Health Education faculty meetings (meeting minutes are located in the Resource File);

· External data review and discussion of emerging issues during bi-monthly MPHAC meetings;

· Reports by the MPH Program Director are presented and then discussed by the members of the MPHAC with recommendation back to the Program Director (meeting minutes are located in the Resource File);

· Strategic planning by faculty members at the MPH Faculty Retreats every June to review, discuss and make recommendations for Program modifications (These recommendations are based on: student, field preceptor, and alumni surveys; and CSUN Institutional Research data on admissions, gender and ethnicity of MPH students attending the program, attendance rates, GPA’s, graduation rates, and other related data used as indicators of the Program meeting its stated mission, goals and objectives);

· Wilson Student Evaluation ratings of courses;

· Comprehensive Examination rates following each administration of the test; and

· TQE to capture data about student satisfaction, needs, interests, and experience’s in the program.

The Program has successful created an ongoing and regular flow of data from a variety of independent sources that supports a well integrated review and self-evaluative decision making process. The outcome of this process is a Program that is responsive to the needs of the students as well as the community they will serve. The last section of this report summarizes our successes and the areas that we have identified as needing further improvement (see Strengths and Weaknesses below)

Program Strengths and Weaknesses

The MPH Program continues to be in a dynamic state of improvement as it seeks better ways to serve the students and the professional field of public health. The strengths and weaknesses of the Program are reviewed below using CEPH’s evaluation criterion.

Criterion I: This criterion is met.

The Program has a mission, goals and objectives that are consistent with those of the University. Program objectives are measurable and include data sources and timely evaluation methodologies that provide feedback on Program quality and effectiveness in meeting the needs of all the constituencies that it serves.

Criterion II.A. This criterion is met.

The Program is an integral part of an institution of higher education that is accredited by the California State Board of Education and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

Criterion II.B.: This criterion is met.

The Program provides a setting conducive to teaching, learning, research and service. The Program is well integrated into the Department of Health Sciences with clear and strong channels of communication to units within and without the Department. It has adequate resources to carry out its mission, goals, objectives, and policies. Administrative procedures have been established that support cooperation and collaboration. The MPH Program encourages and awareness among its students of the importance of professional public health values, concepts and ethics..

Criterion III: This criterion is met.

Activities related to Program governance have been substantially improved since the last site visit. This includes regular and documented faculty meetings and retreats; student involvement in faculty meetings, retreats, as well as programmatic administration. Students are now engaged in the analysis and reporting of surveys conducted by their MPH Student Association. The Program is able to obtain far more credible evidence regarding Program satisfaction. The MPH Advisory Council and Subcommittees for Continuing Education and Curriculum Review share in the duties that were once either not done or the sole responsibility of the faculty.

Criterion IV: This criterion is met.

The Program has an adequate number of faculty members, space and resources to meet its stated mission, goals and objectives.

Criterion V.A.: This criterion is met.

The Program offers a 41- 42 unit course of study that includes all core areas of public health and health education practice. The Program has a strong and professionally diverse public health trained faculty to carry out its stated mission, goals and objectives.

Criterion V.B.: This criterion is met with commentary.

The course of study offered by the Program addresses all of the basic core areas of public health and health education including Epidemiology, Biostatistics, Environmental and Occupational Health, Health Administration, and Social and Behavioral Sciences. Assessment measures are in place to determine student competencies in each of the core areas including a choice of culminating experiences. Alumni, field preceptor, and student surveys are used to help determine practice competencies and needs of students who graduated from the program.

An area of weakness in the Program continues to be the full implementation of the Total Quality Education (TQE) assessment component. The Program first implemented this process in 1998 with varying degrees of success. That is, while the process was being carried out, not all eligible students were included. This has continued to be problematic for the Program. The process is labor intensive as it involves an initial one-on-one meeting with students, committee meetings between each student and a faculty committee at the mid-point of the student’s educational program, and then an exit interview when the student graduates from the program. Despite the faculty’s best effort to find a solution, no resolution was available until the Summer of 2005 when an additional three units of administrative resources were provided which enabled us to implement the full TQE process. TQE was a major agenda item on the June 2005 faculty retreat and the process was reviewed, modified, and a timeline with faculty member assignments were established. This plan will be included in the Resource File for the site team’s review.

Criterion V.C.: This criterion is met.

Student learner objectives are stated in measurable terms for all courses in the Program along with stated assessment measures to determine achievement of these objectives. In addition, curriculum review processes are in place and operational at a number of levels including MPH Program, Department of Health Sciences, the College of Health and Human Development, and the University. The MPHAC Subcommittee for Curriculum Review continues to meet to review and make curricular recommendations. The MPHSA student surveys provide important data on student-satisfaction with courses they are taking in the Program. Data from these are reviewed and acted upon during the annual faculty retreats or sooner depending upon the issue at hand.

Criterion V.D.: This criterion is met with commentary.

There is a systematic process for assessing student attainment of specified learning objectives. As noted in Criterion V.B. above, TQE continues to be a concern for the Program but steps are being initiated to address this issue and to fully implement the TQE process during the fall 2005 semester.

Criterion VI: This criterion is met with commentary.

All faculty members in the MPH Program are involved in research or other creative activities although not all of these are funded. It is significant to note that since the last accreditation report the trend toward funded research has been greatly accelerated. The University, College of Health and Human Development, and Department of Health Sciences strongly support research and creative activities. As mentioned earlier in this document, it is a requirement for retention, tenure and promotion as described in Section 600 of the University’s Administrative Manual. The Department of Health Sciences Personnel Policies and Procedures Guidelines also makes research a requirement for retention, tenure and promotion.. MPH students in increasing numbers are involved in faculty research activities and will continue to be encouraged to do so wherever these opportunities present themselves.

Criterion VII: This criterion is met with commentary.

All MPH Program faculty members are engaged in community service activities. A large number of MPH students have also reported in the May 2004 student survey that they are involved in community service work.

The first continuing education program for CHES credit was held on April 2004 and a second on June 7, 2005. We did not conduct a continuing education program in 2002-2003, but are well on the way to fully meeting this criterion requirement. We have successfully partnered with the University of Southern California-Keck School of Medicine, and the Southern California Public Health Association in continuing education activities. It is our expectation that conducting continuing education programs will be an ongoing activity of the MPH Program.

Criterion VIII.A.: This criterion is met.

The MPH Program has seven full-time faculty members who are well qualified and public health trained. Faculty teach in all core areas of public health and health education and are regularly assessed as described in Section 600 of the University’s Administrative Manual and the Department of Health Sciences Personnel Policies and Procedures Guidelines.

Criterion VIII.B.: This criterion is met.

There are adequate faculty development opportunities within the University. Systems are in place and operational to evaluate faculty competence and performance yearly. The University has a strong and active agenda for student learning outcomes measurement and assessment.

Criterion VIII.C.: This criterion is met.

Two new faculty members have joined the MPH Program since the last site visit bringing the total complement to seven. Two of these faculty members represent diverse ethnic/cultural populations served by the Program. The University has an Affirmative Action Program in place with policies and procedures to ensure equal opportunity in all aspects of employment, retention, tenure and promotion. These policies and procedures are carefully followed by search and screen committees, personnel committees and others concerned with this area.

Criterion IX.A.: This criterion is met.

Application and admissions procedures follow University and Department of Health Science guidelines and are clearly stated in the University Catalog, MPH Program materials, and the MPH Program website.

At the present time, the Program does not have an active outreach student recruitment effort in place. The Program receives an adequate number of well qualified student applications each year without actively seeking out new students for the program. However, the Program faculty has been discussing the advantages of a more active role in student recruitment. This issue has been discussed during the June 2005 Faculty Retreat. The outcome of this discussion will be reported to the site team via the Resource File.

Criterion IX.B.: This criterion is met with commentary.

As noted in the response to Criterion IX.A. above, there is no formal recruitment process in place in the Program beyond maintaining a webpage with information about the program, providing materials to special University graduate student events, and word of mouth about the Program from alumni and students currently enrolled in the program. To this point in time we have had an adequate number of well qualified student applicants for the program, but we have made the decision to look more closely at this issue.

Criterion IX.C.: This criterion is met with commentary.

Formal and informal advisement processes are in place and data regarding student satisfaction with advisement indicates that the Program is doing a good job. Career and employment placement services are available to students through the University Career Counseling and the Placement Center. This past summer the Program has begun to take a more active role in this area. Efforts are underway to look at such items as length of time to find employment in health education, how well the Career Center is being utilized by MPH students and graduates, and other related information via alumni and MPH student surveys currently being undertaken. As a consequence of a meeting held between the MPH Director and the Career Center Director and her staff, a liaison has been designated by the Career Center for the MPH Program. A plan has been proposed that MPH students will be required to attend at least one individual career counseling session during their terminal year in the Program. Meetings are planned to discuss specific data to be collected by the Center. Additional information will be available in the Resource File.

CriterionIX.D.: This criterion is met.

There is active student involvement in Program governance via attendance and participation in monthly health education faculty meetings, the June faculty retreat, the MPHAC and its subcommittees, continuing education activities and in Program self-assessment activities. The MPHSA maintains regular communication with its constituencies via their internet site at mphsa@yahoogroups.com. One MPH faculty member functions as the advisor to the MPHSA to ensure that there is a strong connection between the students and the Program. MPH students will have an opportunity to review and comment on the self-study document via the MPH Program website, by reviewing a hardcopy provided to the MPHSA, or by stopping by the Health Sciences Office or Health Education faculty office where copies will also be available. MPH student-comments will be available in the Resource File.

Criterion X.A.: This criterion is met with commentary.

Since the last site visit in May 2002, the Program has established governance committees and procedures; new Program objectives with associated outcome assessment measures; submitted a Two-Year Interim Report in August 2004; and has been working diligently to correct deficiencies identified by CEPH in the last site visit and response to the Interim Report. We have expended and enhanced our self-monitoring and assessment activities and will continue to do so in the coming years.

Criterion X.B.: This criterion is met with commentary.

The MPH Program has been in a continuous self-study process since the last site visit. An Interim Two-Year Report was submitted in August 2004 and all Program faculty members have been involved in the self-study process. In addition to faculty member input, valuable and thoughtful insights have been provided by the MPHAC and MPHSA. This self-study document has been made widely available to the rest of the program’s constituencies over the summer and fall of 2005. Feedback from these constituencies will be included in the Resource File for CEPH review.

Criterion Assessment

This criterion is met with commentary. As noted above in the strengths and weaknesses discussion, the Program has made great strides in its self-monitoring and outcomes assessment processes. We have implemented a number of new governance procedures and committees, have instituted documentation procedures for all meetings of the MPH Program, facilitated and/or supported regular survey assessments of our Program constituencies and sought to strengthen areas of concern raised by CEPH since our last site visit. We also recognize that we have more to do in such areas as TQE, student recruitment, employment and placement of Program graduates, and ongoing monitoring and assessment of our mission, goals and objectives. We are proud of how far we have come in improving the Program and look forward to having the opportunity to share our progress with the site visitation team.

[1]Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley, 2002, found on August 24, 2005 at valleyofthestars.net

[2] CNN.Com./Education. Numbers of Minorities in College Doubles, 2005, found on August 24, 2005 at http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/10/09/colleges.race.ap/