Docstoc

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

Document Sample
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT Powered By Docstoc
					                          UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
                           Master of Public Health Program
                          Self-study Report for Accreditation

        Prepared for the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH)
                                November 2007

                                     Self-Study Overview

        This document provides an overview and systematic assessment of the
organization/structure, content, process and consequence of activities by the University of
Connecticut (UConn) in delivering curriculum leading to the Master of Public Health (MPH)
degree. Our assessment, in relation to criteria set forth in June 2006 by the Council on Education
for Public Health (CEPH), afforded opportunity for faculty/staff, students, alumni and
community partners to reflect on our efforts over the past 7 years to train individuals for entry
into, and continuation within, the profession of public health. The self-study was undertaken to:
• Assure the quality of the educational experience by reference to a recognized national
    standard.
• Encourage improvements within our program.
• Provide a framework for strategic planning and program evaluation.
• Affirm the common purpose and collective effort of University and community partners to
    support public health and this self-study report.

Brief history of the MPH Program at UConn
         The Master of Public Health (MPH) Program began modestly in 1976 as a Master of
Science in Community Health program based in the Department of Community Medicine at the
health sciences campus of the University of Connecticut (UConn Health Center or UCHC).
Since its accreditation in October 1984 and the award of its first MPH degrees in August of
1985, the Program has become an integral part of health professions education at the University.
This development took place in four stages: capacity building (late 1970s and early 1980s),
institutional affirmation (late 1980s), program expansion (1990s) and reorganization (mid-
2000s).
         In 1979, the Master of Science program in community health was reoriented, under new
leadership, toward generalist public health education. A federal training grant was obtained to
aid faculty recruitment and curriculum development; School of Medicine funds supported staff;
and tuition revenue returned from the Graduate School secured assets for adjunct faculty and
miscellaneous expenses. A cooperative agreement with the Connecticut Department of Public
Health (CT DPH) also was negotiated to strengthen practice linkages of the Program. These
steps culminated in accreditation by the Council on Education for Public Health in 1984. With
CEPH accreditation in hand, the State Board of Higher Education approved a new Master of
Public Health degree in 1985. To date, more than 600 degrees have been conferred.
         In the early 1990s, education of public health professionals was added to the formal
mission statement of the School of Medicine. Interdisciplinary education options with the
Schools of Medicine, Dental Medicine, Social Work, Law and Nursing were introduced, and a


                                            i
few students in doctoral programs in other University departments, especially Anthropology and
Nutritional Sciences, began to pursue the MPH degree as well. In the 2000s, there has been
increasing interest in the MD/MPH option in particular, as well as in the JD/MPH.
        In 2001, the Vice President of Health Affairs and Medical Dean at UConn Health Center
formed a Strategic Planning Committee to review the public health program and 1) recommend
future directions, 2) clarify relationships between the program and key institutional allies, and 3)
identify the potential for greater cooperation with external agencies and organizations. That
group’s report noted “a vibrant, successful program in public health at the UCHC” and identified
areas of administration and academic organization that would strengthen the existing program.
With growing interest in public health on both campuses, the Executive Vice President for
Health Affairs and the Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Education in 2002 charged a new
Public Health Initiative Committee to:
• Identify University resources engaged in public health.
• Develop strategies to coordinate those resources.
• Develop a proposal to expand and deepen the University’s educational, research and service
    mission in public health.
That committee issued a report that recommended consolidation of resources across the
University campuses. At about the same time, Holger Hansen, the founding program director,
announced his retirement. A national search resulted in the appointment of David Gregorio to
the position in 2003.
        In response to the Strategic Planning Committee’s report, the University elected to
expand its public health mission and in 2004 the University President, the Provost, and the
Executive Vice President for Health Affairs committed the University to expanding teaching,
research and outreach activities in public health by establishing the Center for Public Health and
Health Policy (the Center) as the central organizing and implementing force in public health at
UConn. “The Center enables “the University to speak with one voice to any and all interested
agencies and other constituencies regarding established or new needs in public health education
and research.” In December 2005, the Executive Vice President for Health Affairs designated
the Center as a Signature Program. Signature Programs are Health Center-wide interdisciplinary
programs that provide a locus for collaboration among faculty in many departments in the
Schools of Medicine and Dental Medicine. The program was brought under the aegis of the
Center in January of 2006 and its name changed from “Graduate Program in Public Health” to
“Master of Public Health Program.” The MPH degree continues to be conferred by the Graduate
School of the University.

Program accomplishments since the last self-study (2000)
Program-focused change
• Administration of the program moves from the School of Medicine’s Department of
   Community Medicine to the University’s Center for Public Health and Health Policy.
• The program establishes time and effort profiles for its faculty.
• The program recognizes “Applied Practice” as the concentration of study for all students.
• The CT DPH and the MPH Program sign a Memorandum of Agreement to establish a formal
   student internship program.
• The options for the capstone experience expand to include an independent service-learning
   project.



                                             ii
•  A course on Public Health Research Methods replaces the Introduction to Public Health
   course as a core requirement.
• The program restructures its governance to add a standing committee to address
   interdisciplinary education options and 2 subcommittees of the Advisory Committee to foster
   community-campus partnerships and student governance.
• Student participation on all program committees/subcommittees increases.
• The program defines and operationalizes outcomes-based measures to assess program
   performance.
• The program succeeds in markedly reducing time to completion of degree requirements.
Student-focused change
• The structuring of core course offerings changes to develop a student cohort, as well as
   improve time to completion.
• The program integrates Epidemiology and Biostatistics core course material within a year-
   long course sequence.
• The program initiates a group practicum for all second year students.
• Applied practice opportunities for students expand substantially.
• A graduate student organization forms and the organization and program administration
   establish formal links.
• The program implements an awards program to recognize exemplary student performance
   and achievements in applied public health practice.
• The program defines core competencies to assess student preparedness for work in practice
   settings and implements evaluation procedures.




                                          iii
                         Summary of 2007 Self-study Assessment

Criterion                                                          Assessment
1.1 Mission                                                             Met
1.2 Evaluation and Planning                                             Met
1.3 Institutional Environment                                           Met
1.4 Organization and Administration                              Substantially Met
1.5 Governance                                                          Met
1.6 Resources                                                           Met
2.1 Master of Public Health Degree                                      Met
2.2 Program Length                                                      Met
2.3 Public Health Core Knowledge                                        Met
2.4 Practical Skills                                                    Met
2.5 Culminating Experience                                              Met
2.6 Required Competencies                                        Substantially met
2.7 Assessment Procedures                                        Substantially met
2.8 Academic Degrees                                              Not applicable
2.9 Doctoral Degrees                                              Not applicable
2.10 Joint Degrees                                                      Met
2.11 Distance Education/Executive Degree Programs                 Not applicable
3.1 Research                                                            Met
3.2 Service                                                             Met
3.3 Workforce Development                                               Met
4.1 Faculty Qualifications                                       Substantially met
4.2 Faculty Policies and Procedures                                     Met
4.3 Faculty and Staff Diversity                                    Partially met
4.4 Student Recruitment and Admissions                                  Met
4.5 Student Diversity                                                   Met
4.6 Advising and Career Counseling                               Substantially met




                                        iv
                         List of Abbreviations

CADH    Connecticut Association of Directors of Health
CEPH    Council on Education for Public Health
CPHA    Connecticut Public Health Association
CT      Connecticut
DPH     CT State Department of Public Health
MPH     Master of Public Health
ODE     Office of Diversity and Equity
UCHC    University of Connecticut Health Center (Farmington)
UConn   University of Connecticut (Storrs)




                                v
                                      Table of Contents


Self study Overview                                             i
Summary of Self-study Assessment                               iv
List of Abbreviations                                           v
List of Tables, Figures & Appendices                          vii
Criterion 1.1 Mission                                           1
Criterion 1.2 Evaluation and Planning                           5
Criterion 1.3 Institutional Environment                        15
Criterion 1.4 Organization and Administration                  20
Criterion 1.5 Governance                                       24
Criterion 1.6 Resources                                        31
Criterion 2.1 Master of Public Health Degree                   45
Criterion 2.2 Program Length                                   47
Criterion 2.3 Public Health Core Knowledge                     51
Criterion 2.4 Practical Skills                                 53
Criterion 2.5 Culminating Experience                           59
Criterion 2.6 Required Competencies                            62
Criterion 2.7 Assessment Procedures                            66
Criterion 2.8 Academic Degrees                                 74
Criterion 2.9 Doctoral Degrees                                 75
Criterion 2.10 Joint Degrees                                   76
Criterion 2.11 Distance Education/Executive Degree Programs    83
Criterion 3.1 Research                                         84
Criterion 3.2 Service                                          90
Criterion 3.3 Workforce Development                            94
Criterion 4.1 Faculty Qualifications                           99
Criterion 4.2 Faculty Policies and Procedures                 105
Criterion 4.3 Faculty and Staff Diversity                     108
Criterion 4.4 Student Recruitment and Admissions              112
Criterion 4.5 Student Diversity                               116
Criterion 4.6 Advising and Career Counseling                  119




                                         vi
                                        List of Tables & Figures
Tables                                                                                        Page
1.2.c.1  Performance Measures, Data Sources, and Assessment                                    11-12
1.2.e.1  Summary of 2000 CEPH Accreditation Report and Program Response                           13
1.3.a.1  Accreditation Status of UConn, School of Medicine and MPH program                        15
1.5.a.1  MPH Executive Committee Membership                                                       25
1.5.c.1  Advisory Committee Membership                                                            26
1.5.c.2  Curriculum Committee Membership                                                          26
1.5.c.3  Admissions Committee Membership                                                          27
1.5.c.4  Interdisciplinary Programs Committee Membership                                          27
1.5.c.5  Community Partnership Subcommittee Membership                                            28
1.5.c.6  Student Affairs Subcommittee Membership                                                  28
1.6.b.1  Program Revenues and Expenditures by Major Categories, 2000-01 to 2006-07                33
1.6.d.1  Estimated time/effort Commitments (in FTE units) by Primary Program Faculty           35-36
1.6.d.2  Estimated time/effort Commitments (in FTE units) by Secondary Program Faculty            37
1.6.d.3  UConn Affiliated Faculty Providing Academic Support to the MPH program                   38
1.6.d.4  Adjunct MPH Program Faculty, 2003-07                                                     39
1.6.e.1  Student Enrollment, MPH Program Faculty and Student-to-Faculty Ratios                    40
1.6.f.1  Program Staff, 2003-07                                                                   41
2.1.a.1  UConn Public Health Program Instructional Matrix                                         45
2.2.b.1  Typical Curriculum for MPH students                                                      47
2.2.c.1  MPH Program Graduates by Year and Credit Hours Completed                                 48
2.2.c.2  Summary of Reasons for Completing Less Than 42 Credits: 2004-07 Graduates                49
2.3.a.1  PUBH course numbers and Titles of Electives for MPH Students Concentrating in Applied
         Public Health Practice                                                                   51
2.4.a.1. Student Enrollment in Practicum Course by Format                                         54
2.4.d.1 Medical Residents and Practicum Sites 2003-07                                             57
2.5.a.1  Students selecting thesis or applied practice options for their capstone experience      60
2.6.a.1  Selected Core Public Health Competencies                                              62-63
2.7.b.1  Credits Earned by Matriculating Students, 2004-06                                        67
2.7.c.1  Graduation Rates for MPH Students                                                        68
2.7.c.2  Matriculation of MPH Students by Year of Program Entry                                   68
2.7.d.1  Destination of MPH Program Graduates, 2003-07                                            69
2.7.f.1  Assessment of MPH Program Features, Alumni Survey, 2006                                  71
2.10.a.1 MPH Graduates of Interdisciplinary Education Programs 2004-06                            76
2.10.a.2 MD/MPH Advanced Standing Documentation                                                   77
3.1.b.1  Examples of Community-based Research by Program Faculty, 2006                            85
3.1.c.1  Extramural Grant/contract Awards and Amounts (in $1,000) by the Program Faculty          86
3.1.e.1  Examples of Student Involvement in Faculty Research                                      87
3.3.b.1  Non-degree Registration in MPH courses: 2004-06                                          95
4.1.a.1  Characteristics of MPH Program Primary Faculty                                       99-100
4.1.b.1  Characteristics of MPH Program Secondary Faculty                                    101-102
4.3.a.1  Summary Demographic Data for Current Primary and Secondary Faculty                      108
4.3.b.1  Summary Demographic Data for Program Staff                                              109
4.4.d.1  Acceptance and Enrollment Rates, 2003-2006                                              113
4.4.e.1  Accepted and Enrolled Students, 2003-07114
4.4.e.2  Students and FTE Students, 2003-07        96                                            114
4.5.c.1  Characteristics of Applicant, Accepted and Enrolled Students, 2003-06117
4.5.c.2  Female Applicants, Acceptances and Enrollments, 2003-06                                 117




                                             vii
Figures                                        Page
1.3.b.1   UConn Senior Administration            15
1.4.a.1   MPH Program Administration             19




                                        viii
Criterion 1.1 Mission. The program shall have a clearly formulated and publicly stated mission with
supporting goals and objectives. The program shall foster development of professional public health
values, concepts and ethical practice.

Required documentation:
a. A clear and concise mission statement for the program as a whole.
b. One or more goal statements for each major function by which the program intends to attain its
   mission.
c. Measurable objectives related to each major function through which the program intends to achieve
   its goals.
d. Description of the manner in which mission, goals and objectives are developed, monitored and
   periodically revised.
e. A statement of values that guide the program.
f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

1.1.a. Program mission statement
       The University of Connecticut MPH Program prepares public health professionals to
achieve high standards of leadership through exemplary scholarship in teaching, application,
discovery and integration1 of public health knowledge in order to benefit the well-being of
Connecticut residents and others through organized, comprehensive, effective and just action.

1.1.b. Program goals
        Scholarship of teaching (Education Goal) The scholarship of teaching is our program’s
fundamental priority. Relevant activities include the development and application of innovative
teaching practices, evaluation of instructional and learning tools and methodologies, and
dissemination of effective teaching methods. Our education goals seek to develop, provide and
assess an exemplary generalist education experience for students that will lead to competence in
the core areas of public health necessary for careers in public health practice. Furthermore, we
seek to develop, provide and assess exemplary continuing education experiences for the public
health workforce, community stakeholders and citizens at-large that will advance their
knowledge and appreciation of core public health disciplines and practice within the field. Our
program identifies 7 educational objectives related to the above goals.
        Scholarship of application (Service Goal) The scholarship of application builds upon and
reflects our program’s educational priorities. Relevant activities include advocacy and policy
development to improve social conditions and public health practice, participation with
community-partners to address immediate threats to the public’s health, participation in program
planning and evaluation, and development and dissemination of methodological tools and
strategies for effective community health action. Through collaborative service learning among
students, faculty and community partners, our service goal seeks to foster applied learning
experiences that validate knowledge acquired through the curriculum and expand the social
capital available within our community. Our program identifies 1 service objective related to
this goal.

1
 These dimensions of scholarship are drawn from concepts developed by Ernest L. Boyer, Scholarship
Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, October
1997.



                                                   1
        Scholarship of discovery and integration (Research Goal) The scholarship of discovery
and knowledge integration assures that pure and practical knowledge of social, behavioral,
physical and biological factors that underlie population health and health service delivery is
developed and conveyed to academic and professional partners. Our research goal is to develop
materials and methods as aides to the discovery process and bring disparate knowledge and
practices together in fuller understanding of the causes and control of disease, injury, illness and
mortality within populations. Our program identifies 3 research objectives related to this goal.
The relationship among these goals is illustrated below.

                                       Scholarship of Discovery & Integration
                                   • Theory and methods-based research
                                   • Community-based, collaborative projects
                                   • Ethical inquiry, dissemination and follow-up
                                              Scholarship of Application
            • Public health practice concentration                 • Practice-based capstone option
            • Multiple service-learning experiences                • Extensive campus-community partner
            • Competency-based assessment of practice ability         network for collaborative problem-
            • Connecticut health issues focus                         solving
                                                Scholarship of Teaching
• Population-based focus                                           • Interdisciplinary study options
• Attention to established and emerging health issues              • Continuing education opportunities
• Diverse students and faculty                                     • Resourced learning environment
• Competency-based performance standards                           • Academic and career advisement
• Cross-cultural experiences                                       • Commitment to social justice, interpersonal
                                                                     respect and civic engagement

1.1.c. Measurable program objectives
       In support of our mission and goals, the program has adopted the following objectives:
Educational Objectives:
1: Design, implement and evaluate a competency-based core curriculum.
2: Assure graduates are competent practitioners of public health.
3: Nurture diversity of experience and interest among faculty, students and program staff.
4: Offer continuing and interdisciplinary education opportunities.
5: Improve student retention and matriculation.
6: Secure necessary institutional and extramural support to deliver excellent curriculum
7: Identify and retain qualified faculty.
Service Objective:
1: Offer coursework and service-learning experience focused on health and well-being in
    Connecticut.
Research Objectives:
1: Prepare students to design, undertake and disseminate relevant public health research.
2: Promote ethical, compassionate public health research.
3: Promote research focused on causes and control of health disparities.

1.1.d. Procedures for developing, monitoring, revising and publicizing program mission,
goals, objectives and values
        Over the past 2 years, the Advisory Committee, composed of program administrators,
faculty, students, alumni, and public health professionals, reviewed our mission, goals, and
objectives. We also reviewed mission, goal, and objective statements of the UConn Health


                                                      2
Center, the School of Medicine, other graduate programs in public health, as well as the
guidelines on the mission of public health education issued by CEPH. The above statements of
mission, goals, and objectives are the results of that effort. These statements will be monitored
and periodically revised by the Advisory Committee.
        All statements are presented, as is deemed appropriate, in our promotional and
recruitment materials including the monthly electronic newsletter, the program’s website, the
student handbook, the program’s brochure and information kit and in other written
communications.

1.1.e. Program values
        Since the last reaccreditation, the Advisory Committee has developed a values statement
outlining those values that guide our mission, goals, and objectives, as shown above. The
Committee reviewed values statements from the UConn Health Center and UConn to ensure
congruency with institutional values. Before finalizing and distributing the statement, program
constituents were invited to comment through the monthly newsletter. Comments and
recommendations were then reviewed by the Advisory Committee and any changes deemed
appropriate were made.
        Through its pursuit of exemplary education, service and research, the UConn MPH
Program embraces the following values:
• Social justice – belief in health as a public good and fundamental right.
• Diversity/respect – recognition and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and needs.
• Collaboration – cooperation and promotion of participatory approaches to enhance research,
    service, and educational activities.
• Advocacy – generation and dissemination of information to increase awareness and foster
    support for the public health agenda.
• Integrity – promoting the highest standards of objectivity, accountability, transparency and
    professionalism in all activities.

1.1.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.
The program objective pertaining to this criterion is:
Educational Objective 1: Design, implement and evaluate a competency-based core curriculum
Performance Target:      Program mission, goals, objectives, performance measures and value
                         statements are monitored, revised and used for program planning.
Annual Assessment:
            2004-05                           2005-06                        2006-07
 The Advisory and Executive           The Advisory and Executive           The Advisory and Executive
 Committee monitored program          Committee monitored program          Committee reviewed and revised
 performance and, when appropriate,   performance and, when appropriate,   statements regarding the program’s
 recommended procedural and           recommended procedural and           mission, goals, objectives,
 organizational changes.              organizational changes.              performance measures and value
                                                                           statements
                                                                           Procedural and organizational
                                                                           changes, consistent with revised
                                                                           statements were implemented.

We believe Criterion 1.1 is met.
• The program has mission, goal, objective and performance measures and value statements in


                                                 3
    place to guide planning and program evaluation.
•   Statements regarding the program’s mission, goals, objectives and performance measures are
    available and disseminated to the public.
•   Procedures to monitor and amend statements are in place.

1.1.g. Future considerations regarding the program’s mission, goals and objectives
        The Advisory Committee will routinely review the program’s mission, goals, objectives
and performance measure statements and seek input from relevant constituencies about ways to
enhance the relevance and quality of our educational program. The Curriculum Committee will
meet periodically to define course content and procedures in relation to the program’s mission,
goals, objectives and performance measures.




                                            4
Criterion 1.2 Evaluation and Planning. 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.

Required documentation:
a. Description of the evaluation procedures and planning processes used by the program, including an
   explanation of how constituent groups are involved in these processes.
b. Description of how the results of evaluation and planning are regularly used to enhance the quality of
   programs and activities.
c. Identification of outcome measures that the program uses to monitor its effectiveness in meeting its
   mission, goals and objectives.
   * Defined target levels.
   * Data regarding program performance for each of the last 3 years.
d. An analytic self-study document providing qualitative and quantitative assessment of how the
   program achieves its mission, goals and objectives and meets all accreditation criteria, including a
   candid assessment of strengths and weaknesses in terms of the program’s performance against the
   accreditation criteria.
e. Analysis of the program’s responses to recommendations in the last accreditation report.
f. Description of the manner in which the self-study document was developed, including effective
   opportunities for input by important program constituents, including institutional officers,
   administrative staff, teaching faculty, students, alumni and representatives of the public health
   community.
g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

1.2.a. Evaluation and planning procedures
        The Program Director and Associate Director are responsible for routine monitoring of
activities pertaining to curriculum; student recruitment and retention; financial, material and
personnel resources; administrative/office procedures; standards of academic performance;
opportunities for applied practice learning; faculty development; community outreach; program
information and marketing. While the Program Director and Associate Director work in tandem,
major responsibility is delegated to the Associate Director in specific areas:
        Program Director                                 Associate Director
        MPH degree curriculum                            Student Recruitment & Retention
        Material & Personnel Resources                   Administrative/Office Procedures
        Standards of Academic Perform                    Applied Practice Learning Opportunities
        Faculty Development                              Community Outreach
                                                         Program Info & Marketing

       Reports on program performance, with appropriate recommendations, are regularly
provided to the Program’s Executive Committee which reviews, recommends and modifies
information before presentation to the Program’s Advisory Committee for comment and
guidance. Implementation of policy/procedural changes is the responsibility of the Program
Director working on behalf of the Executive Committee. On occasion, the Advisory Committee
recommends change to the Executive Committee, which considers and responds to such requests.
       Program evaluation has occurred through the CEPH accreditation process in 1984, 1989,
1994 and 1999. Each of those accreditation self-studies, in turn, yielded comprehensive post-
review evaluations and planning efforts. During 2001-02, UConn completed an internal review



                                                5
and strategic plan for the program (available upon request and in our on-site self-study resource
file and our on-site self-study resource file). Among that study’s recommendations:
• Increase teaching commitment of full-time faculty.
• Clarify administrative and resource support of the program.
• Engage core faculty in governance and evaluation of the program.
• Tighten core curriculum.
• Admit fewer students and decrease time to completion of degree.
• Develop continuing education opportunities.

        Program effectiveness is assessed using information from a number of sources:
Course evaluations. At the end of each semester, an anonymous online questionnaire, consisting
of detailed Likert-scale items, combined with open-ended questions, is available through the
University’s Blackboard® learning system for student input (course evaluation form is available
upon request and in our on-site self-study resource file). In general, a substantial proportion of
the students (80% and greater) rate the quality of individual courses as “high” or “very high.”
Core courses, in particular, are generally regarded as such by students who submit course
evaluations. Electives are equally well received; those that have consistently received less
favorable evaluations (e.g., Public Health Research Methods, Topics in Intermediate
Biostatistics) were reviewed and changes in instructors were instituted. (See Appendix 1.2.a.2 for
a summary table of course evaluations.)
        The use of electronic evaluations has greatly increased the turnaround of information
while minimizing workload, but has inadvertently reduced student participation, as there no
longer are ‘set aside’ times for completing evaluations at the end of class time. We are
disappointed by low participation rates although we understand that other programs utilizing
similar methods have experiences comparable to ours. The program’s Advisory Committee has
identified course evaluation methodology to be an important topic for review; our Curriculum
Committee will assess the cost-benefit of the current and alternative approaches for eliciting
student input on courses during the 2007-08 academic year.
        Student focus groups. Qualitative assessment of the overall program by students was
accomplished through focus groups. Three student focus groups conducted during spring 2006
enabled us to identify and work to address student concerns and issues. While all students were
invited to participate in any of these sessions, one group was intended for first year students,
another for second year students and the third for advanced students. The concerns from each
group were somewhat different in relation to what year they were in the program. Each focus
group addressed the same issues including: coursework; class instruction; advisement; career
counseling; communication within and about the program; and program staff, support and
administration. In addition, there was a general discussion during which students could address
any other issues. (Focus group script and summary of results are available upon request and in
our on-site self-study resource file.) To elicit feedback in a non-threatening environment and
ensure the anonymity of the students, program administrators did not lead or attend the sessions;
one of the program’s research assistants served as the scribe for each focus group.
        Overall, students were very satisfied with the program. Students felt the faculty, staff,
and administration were all very accessible and knowledgeable. They were also pleased with the
diversity of the student body. Students were most concerned with program advisement, which
will be discussed in greater detail in section 4.6 (Advising and Career Counseling). In terms of
program communication, students felt they were not well informed about plan of study and


                                             6
graduation requirements. They were, however, highly complimentary about the program’s
electronic newsletter, commenting that it kept them connected to and informed about the
program. Some of the issues raised by the students include:
• They would like to have more of a choice in selection of the practicum topic.
• They want to be made more aware of the research interests of the faculty.
• They would like to see class schedules posted earlier.
• There are logistical issues when taking courses on other UConn campuses.
• Students want more direction for selecting their advisory committee and request an “advising
    session” that would discuss deadlines, timelines, and provide a “question-and-answer”
    opportunity.
• Although most students entered the program as mid-career professionals, suggestions for
    career advisement included a job fair with community providers, a student program or
    seminar focused on public health careers, and requests to all guest speakers and community-
    based instructors to discuss their career paths at the beginning of their presentations or
    classes.
        Alumni survey. Students who graduated within a 3 year period (2003-2005) have been
surveyed to get their perspective on various issues within, and as a result of graduating from, the
MPH program. The survey, which was distributed through email, had a 58% response rate. The
survey included questions concerning their current position, job satisfaction, experience and
level of satisfaction with UConn MPH Program, quality of various aspects of the MPH program,
and personal accomplishments. More detailed survey results are found in Section 2.7.f.1 and the
form is available upon request and in our on-site self-study resource file.
        Employer survey. Employers of graduates from the 2003-05 period were surveyed about
whether the program is accomplishing the goal of producing capable public health graduates who
can play a productive and, perhaps, leading role in the professional public health workforce.
More detailed survey results are found in Section 2.7.f.1 and the form is available upon request
and in our on-site self-study resource file.
        Faculty performance reviews. The MPH program faculty is drawn from academic
departments across UCHC and the University. Annual performance reviews are the
responsibility of the department chairs where individuals hold primary appointments and Type II
Center Directors. Promotion and tenure review are the responsibility of department chairs (see
http://www9.uchc.edu/faculty_staff/pdfs/bylaws.pdf for School of Medicine By-laws.).

        Reports generated by program administrators and the various evaluations procedures
delineated above allow the program to assess progress against mission, goals, and objectives. As
the mission, goals and objectives were revised through the self-study process, the program
developed performance measures for each objective and identified specific data sources that can
be used to assess whether a specific objective has been met. The program’s performance
measures are fully articulated in Section 1.2.c. As an example, we describe below how program
‘data’ are used to measure a particular educational objectives has been met.

   Educational Objective 2: Assure graduates are competent practitioners of public health
   Performance Target: All students will complete their degree with GPAs >3.0 in core
   curriculum.
   Assessment Mechanism: Grade reports for each core course are scanned each semester to
   identify any student earning less than a B in a core course, and a summary report is prepared


                                             7
   for the Executive Committee. The report includes information on other core course grades
   and students at risk are identified for remediation, further watching, or a recommendation to
   discontinue. Any grade of D or F generates a letter from the Graduate School that asks
   whether the student should be allowed to continue in the program.

   Performance Target: All students will complete 42 credits of graduate coursework to earn
   the MPH degree.
   Assessment Mechanism: Plans of Study and/or transcripts of graduating students on the list
   to graduate are reviewed to determine number of credits completed and reason for
   completing <42 credits are documented.

   Performance Target: All students complete core courses in public health and electives
   addressing the 3 core public health functions.
   Assessment Mechanism: Since the Applied Practice Concentration is a relatively new
   development, the program is in process of reviewing transcripts of 2006/07 graduates to
   determine the percentage of students who met this new criterion. Beginning with the newly
   matriculated fall (or summer) 2007 students, student plans of study will be monitored prior to
   submission to the Graduate School for compliance with this performance measure. The
   Graduate Records Office is responsible for assuring congruence of plan of study with the
   student’s transcript.

   Performance Target: 50% of graduates complete applied practice-based capstone projects.
   Assessment Mechanism: This information will be culled from student transcripts and/or
   capstone project approval pages.

   Performance Target: 75% of alumni judge program’s competencies to have been met.
   Assessment Mechanism: Beginning with 2007/08 graduates, new alumni will be surveyed one
   year after graduation to gauge the extent to which they believe they have acquired the
   program’s competencies.

   Performance Target: 75% of alumni hold jobs in preferred fields within 12 months of
   graduation.
   Assessment Mechanism: Beginning with 2007/08 graduates, new alumni will be surveyed one
   year after graduation to determine whether they hold jobs in their preferred fields.

1.2.b. Impact of evaluation and planning procedures
       The various assessments described above have yielded many positive changes to program
administration, curriculum, and recruitment/enrollment and student performance. Among key
changes are:
• Securing time and effort commitments of the program’s primary and secondary faculty.
• Clarifying the university’s financial and material resource commitments to the program.
• Establishing a core course on public health research methods.
• Expanding elective course offerings (e.g., Environmental Risk Assessment, Genetics and
    Public Health, Computational Statistics, Public Health Policy Development and Advocacy,
    Behavioral Epidemiology, Emergency Preparedness, Bioterrorism).




                                            8
•   Experiential learning through a group practicum project option and increased placement
    opportunities within the CT DPH and other agencies.
•   Expanding program governance by adding stakeholders to existing advisory, curriculum and
    admissions committees and designating new committees to oversee interdisciplinary
    education and community outreach.
•   Defining objectives and performance measures for use in program planning and evaluation.
•   Specifying academic competencies and evaluation requirements to assess student
    performance.
•   Implementing curriculum and personnel changes in response to student evaluations.
•   Supporting a student-run organization to address social and program needs.
•   Recognizing performance of students through conferral of Susan S. Addiss and James
    Mulvihill awards for exemplary practice and academic performance.

         The evaluation and planning process generally is initiated in one of three ways.
Depending on the subject and context, the process can be initiated by program administrators, the
MPH Executive Committee or the MPH Advisory Committee. Program administration
initiatives are generally introduced to the full Executive Committee for input and agreement
before being presented to the Advisory Committee for feedback. If changes are suggested by the
Advisory Committee, the Executive Committee reviews and a decision is made at that time, or is
open to further research or discussion. The final decision is brought back to the Advisory
Committee for information purposes. In some cases, the Executive Committee might initiate an
evaluation and planning process.
         The Advisory Committee is particularly active in student and community affairs, and this
is further facilitated by the significant representation of both students and community
practitioners on the committee. The students bring up issues of important to them and a response
or planning process is suggested and brought before the Executive Committee for further
consideration. Community-based needs are sometimes identified by the Advisory Committee
and a planning process suggested for the Executive Committee and program administrators to
implement.
         For example, the MPH Advisory Committee has identified the need for a more diverse
public health workforce in Connecticut. Program administrators were asked to review
admissions data on minority recruitment, acceptances, matriculation, and retention, and that data
has been used by ad hoc subcommittees to recommend methods for increasing minority
recruitment. Admissions data is used to evaluate whether objectives in this regard are being met.
Student evaluations (at various times surveys and more recently focus groups) have been used to
identify issues and develop plans to resolve student issues raised.
         In 2003-2004, the Executive Committee raised the issue of admission criteria. Some
thought that too much attention was being paid to commitment to the health of the community at
the expense of academics, and were particularly concerned about students having the quantitative
skills necessary to succeed in biostatistics and epidemiology, as well as in research methods.
         The Admissions Committee Chair initiated an evaluation of applicant reviews to see the
extent to which the four main criteria (strength of academics, relevant background and/or
experience, relevance of career goals, and commitment) were predictive of success in the
program. The analysis suggested that perhaps too much weight was being placed on
commitment in relation to academics, and the Executive Committee asked the Admissions
Committee to maintain the four criteria, but to put more of an emphasis on academics, which the


                                            9
evaluation showed, was the only predictor of success in the program. Feedback from instructors
is that students are now better prepared quantitatively. However, further analysis of recent
matriculated students indicate that only 35% of them were rated high (4 or 5 on a 5-point scale)
in commitment, so this needs further thought.
         In addition to evaluation processes initiated by the program itself, UCHC periodically
evaluates each academic program. The MPH program was evaluated in 2003. Two related
issues that arose from this process were the relatively large student body (apart from the medical
school, the MPH program has the largest study body on the Farmington campus) and time for
completion. With this feedback, the Executive Committee made two major decisions at the
initiation of the program director:
     1) Reduce the size of the entering class from up to 40-50 to 30 so as to focus more attention
         on individual students and to help assure a highly qualified study body and, most
         importantly, more timely program completion.
     2) Tighten the curriculum so that students move through the program by taking specific core
         courses each of their first 4 semesters, so that by the end of the 2nd year full time students
         will have completed or be close to completion and part-time students will have completed
         at least half of their credit requirements. Another goal of this process was to create
         strong student cohorts. The associate director was tasked with preparing reports on
         student movement through the program to help assure that students are progressing as
         designed.

        Evaluation has shown that the smaller class size and the redesign of the core curriculum
to develop cohorts have served to improve time to completion. The students are more well
prepared to the extent that we have been able dispense with the math pretest we used to require
to identify students in need of remediation prior to enrolling in Biostatistics.

1.2.c. Outcome measures of program effectiveness in meeting mission, goals and
objectives
        Program goals specific to education, service and research, along with objectives and
performance measures, have been adopted and disseminated to University leadership, program
faculty, students, alumni and community-based stakeholders (see 1.1.a.). Administrative
practices and curriculum are guided by 7 education-related objectives, 1 service-related objective
and 3 research-related objectives. A total of 36 performance measure targets (27 specific to
education, 2 to service and 7 to research) are in place to gauge the range of program activities.




                                              10
Table 1.2.c.1. Performance Measures, Data Sources and Assessment.




                                                                                                  in section…
                                                                                                                Assessment
                                                                                                  Addressed
Performance Measure Target                                                 Data Source
Educational Objective 1: Design, implement and evaluate a competency-based core curriculum
Program mission, goals, objectives, performance measures and value         Advisory Committee     1.1               +
statements are monitored, revised and used for program planning            minutes
Relevance, effectiveness and consistency of curriculum with program        Curriculum Committee   1.2               +
goals is periodically assessed.                                            minutes
Applicants will have strong academic records and commitment to health      Admissions Committee   4.4               +
of communities                                                             minutes
Educational Objective 2: Assure graduates are competent practitioners of public health
All students complete their degree with GPAs = or >3.0 in the overall      Transcripts            2.7               +
core curriculum
All students will complete 42 credits of graduate coursework to earn the   Plans of Study &       2.2               +
MPH degree                                                                 Transcripts
All students complete courses in core areas of public health and electives Plans of Study &       2.3               +
addressing 3 core public health functions                                  Transcripts            2.6
50% of graduates complete applied practice-based capstone projects         Transcripts            2.5               +
                                                                                                  2.7
75% of alumni judge program’s competencies to have been met              Alumni survey            2.7               +
75% of alumni hold jobs in preferred fields within 12 months of          Alumni survey            2.7               +
graduation
Educational Objective 3: Nurture diversity of experience and interest among faculty and program staff
All program committees include relevant stakeholders                     Committee minutes          1.5             +
All faculty, staff and students understand UConn policies regarding fair Program handbook           1.4             +
and ethical practices                                                                               4.2
                                                                                                    4.3
                                                                                                    4.5
Faculty, staff and student groups reflect demographic profile of CT      Faculty, staff and student 4.3
                                                                         profiles                   4.5
Educational Objective 4: Offer continuing and interdisciplinary education opportunities
Enrollment is offered to persons pursing DPH certificate in core public  Registration records       3.3             +
health knowledge
Tuition waivers are available to persons holding CEPH-accredited         Registration records       3.3             +
degrees
Enrollment available to non-degree students                              Registration records       3.3             +
Tuition-free workshops offered to public health workforce through a      CT TRAIN management 3.3                    +
Summer Institute in Public Health Practice & Preparedness                system

Interdisciplinary degree options are available to students             Program handbook           2.1               +
                                                                                                  2.10
Educational Objective 5: Improve student retention and matriculation
75% of students will receive degrees within 6 years of enrollment    Registration records         2.7               +

Educational Objective 6: Secure necessary institutional and extramural support to deliver an excellent
curriculum
The University and School of Medicine maintain accreditation         UCHC Administration         1.3                +
Procedures regarding accountability, budgeting, resource allocation, UCHC Administration         1.3                +
personnel and academic standards are in place
                                                                                                  smen
                                                                                                  Asse
                                                                                                  sec
                                                                                                  in
                                                                                                  d




                                                      11
Performance Measure Target                                                Data Source
100% of personnel, operation and other program costs that exceed tuition Budget & expenditure      1.6   +
revenue will be funded through a UCHC appropriation                       report
80% of graduates will express satisfaction with curriculum and program Course evaluations,         2.7   +
support services                                                         alumni survey & student
                                                                         focus groups
A 10:1 student to faculty ratio will be maintained                        Faculty profiles         1.6   +
Educational Objective 7: Identify and retain qualified faculty
90% of faculty will hold appropriate terminal degrees                     Faculty profiles       4.1    +
                                                                                                 1.6
25% of primary faculty will be recognized for exemplary contributions to Faculty profiles        3.1    +
the field                                                                                        3.2
                                                                                                 4.1
Service Objective 1: Offer coursework and service-learning experiences focused on health and well-being
in Connecticut
40% of primary faculty have significant community-based activities       Faculty profiles        4.1    +
All students are engaged in 1 or more service-learning projects          Transcripts             2.3    +
                                                                                                 2.4
                                                                                                 3.2
Research Objective 1: Prepare students to design, undertake and disseminate relevant public health
research
10% of graduates make public presentation of their academic work         Alumni survey           2.7
All primary faculty author peer-reviewed manuscripts and presentations Faculty profiles          3.1
                                                                                                 4.1
All primary faculty have active extramural funding for research          Faculty profiles        3.1
40% of primary faculty engage students in their research                 Faculty profiles        3.1    +
Research Objective 2: Promote ethical, compassionate public health research
All students are trained in protection of human subjects and             HIPPA and IRB           1.4    +
confidentiality of health information                                    Certificates
All students complete required Law and Public Health course              Transcripts             2.1    +
Research Objective 3: Promote research focused on causes and control of health disparities
5 or more students per year complete capstone projects focused on health Capstone approval pages 2.5    +
disparities and/or global health

1.2.d. Self-study of program performance
       In the course of preparing this self-study, the Advisory Committee assessed our overall
performance with respect to the program having met (+) performance measures identified above.

1.2.e. Response to recommendations in last accreditation report
        The 2000 self-study and site visit report (available upon request and in our on-site self-
study resource file) yielded a number of concerns and recommendations that have guided
program development over subsequent years. Among the findings of that process, the following
11 issues were prominent.




                                                  12
Table 1.2.e.1 Summary of 2000 CEPH Accreditation Report and Program Response.

CEPH Recommendation/Concern                       MPH Program Response
1. Faculty shows variable level or commitment     Program administrators coordinate academic advisement to first
   and knowledge regarding student advising.      and second year students. Advisor training is offered to
                                                  all participating faculty.
2. Size and composition of the faculty make       The program shares information with stakeholders through
   coordination and communication difficult.      regular distribution of our newsletter, university press
                                                  releases and web postings. The Center serves to link
                                                  university resources to program needs and to coordinate
                                                  information and responsibilities across the University’s
                                                  various administrative structures. The program offers
                                                  training sessions for advisors and course instructors.
3. Size of the program staff has not matched      The program is administered by a director, associate director,
   the growth of student enrollment.              and 6 support personnel, with an increase of 1 staff member
                                                  since the last reaccreditation.
4. Commitment to the program by university        Primary and secondary faculty commitments to teaching,
   based faculty appears to be variable.          advising, and program support have been secured with
                                                  endorsement by senior UCHC administrators.
5. The program does not have a line item          From 2000 to 2004, budget allocations did not explicitly identify
   budget in the budgets of the medical and       faculty participation in program activities (teaching, advising and
   graduate school.                               Program service). Beginning in 2005, an explicit fiscal allocation
                                                  to the program was established. Beginning in 2007-08, salary
                                                  support equivalent to faculty time/effort profiles will be
                                                  designated to the MPH program.
6. Some students take up to eight years or more   All students have 6 years to complete the program and must
   to complete the program.                       register for at least 2 classes a semester.
7. The new occupational medicine faculty are      The occupational medicine faculty have been incorporated
   not utilized to its fullest extent.            into our primary and secondary faculty and are regularly
                                                  involved in teaching and advising in the program.

1.2.f. Self-study process
        While self-assessment is a continuous process, the current focus on self-study activities
began during spring 2005. The program’s Advisory Committee set a time line to examine
accreditation criteria and distributed workload among committee members and program staff.
While developing this report, draft sections were posted on-line for review and anonymous
comment by the public. Students, faculty, alumni and university colleagues were invited to
review and comment on draft sections through communication in the program’s newsletter and
website. Comments received by these methods were recorded and considered by the Advisory
Committee; as appropriate, sections of the report were modified and reposted.
        Administrative and educational issues raised through focus groups activities, survey
responses and committee discussions were aired through a 6 month (January–July, 2007) period
by a workgroup comprised of UCHC academic leaders (Executive Vice President for Health
Affairs, the Center Director and Deputy Director, Associate Dean of UConn Graduate School,
various UCHC department chairs and the MPH program director). This document reflects the
composite contributions of program administration, committee members, faculty, students,
alumni, staff and university and community-based stakeholders. A new forum in which to
continue to address administrative and educational issues involving multiple departments and
units at UCHC was established in the Executive Committee of the Center.




                                                   13
1.2.g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 1: Design, implement and evaluate a competency-based core curriculum.
Performance Target:      Relevance, effectiveness and consistency of curriculum with program
                         goals is periodically assessed.
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                               2005-06                                2006-07
The Advisory and Executive            The Advisory and Executive           The Curriculum Committee was
Committee advised regarding           Committee advised regarding          reconstituted to review course
curriculum development and            curriculum development and           content, faculty and student
teaching evaluation. Electronic       teaching evaluation. procedures to   performance for consistency with
course evaluations were introduced.   encourage electronic course          program mission, goals, objectives,
                                      evaluation were instituted.          and value statements. Additional
                                                                           strategies to encourage electronic
                                                                           course evaluation were considered.



We believe Criterion 1.2 is met.
• Procedures for program evaluation and planning that include specification of program
  objectives and performance measures specific to education, service and research are in place.
• Program governance has been changed to better accommodate input from various
  stakeholders.
• Responses to prior self-study and institutional reviews have resulted in significant change to
  program administration, curriculum and student experiences.
• Students and alumni express satisfaction with the program.
• This self-study was completed with considerable input from and communication among key
  stakeholders.

1.2.h. Future considerations regarding program evaluation and planning
        The program administration will work through the Community Partnership committee to
better engage alumni and employers in discussion about necessary competencies and curriculum.
The program will work closely with the Advisory Committee’s newly formed Student Affairs
Subcommittee to address student-oriented concerns and support the new MPH Student
Organization. We will ensure that the program’s revised governance structure is working
effectively.




                                                  14
Criterion 1.3 Institutional Environment. The program shall be an integral part of an accredited
institution of higher education.

Required documentation:
a. A brief description of the institution in which the program is located, along with the names of
   accrediting bodies (other than CEPH) to which the institution responds.
b. One or more organizational charts of the University indicating the program’s relationship to the
   other components of the institution, including reporting lines.
c. A brief description of the university practices regarding:
   * Lines of accountability, including access to higher-level university officials.
   * Prerogatives extended to academic units regarding names, titles and internal organization.
   * Budgeting and resource allocation, including budget negotiations, indirect cost recoveries,
       distribution of tuition and fees and support for fund-raising.
   * Personnel recruitment, selection and advancement, including faculty and staff.
   * Academic standards and policies, including establishment and oversight of curricula.
d. Description of all participating institutions within a collaborative program and delineation of their
   relationships to the program.
e. Copy of formal written agreement with participating institutions within a collaborative program.
f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

1.3.a. Institutional description and relevant accrediting bodies
        The University of Connecticut (UConn), founded in 1881 as the Storrs Agricultural
School, is a Land Grant and Sea Grant College and a Space Grant Consortium institution.
UConn is a research-intensive university and a school of choice for academically talented
students. The University’s current enrollment is 21,476, of which 6,180 individuals are enrolled
in post-graduate degree programs. UConn is fully accredited by the New England Association of
Schools and Colleges. The School of Medicine and the MPH Program also are fully accredited.
A full list of UConn programs and their accreditation status is available upon request and in our
on-site self-study resource file.

Table 1.3.a.1. Accreditation Status of UConn, School of Medicine and MPH Program.
                                                                                 Initial    Most recent
                                  Accrediting Body                            Accreditation Accreditation
UConn                             New England Association of Schools and          1931         1996
                                  Colleges
UConn School of Medicine          LCME/AAMC                                       1968          2003
Master of Public Health Program   CEPH                                            1984          2000

         The mission of the University states: The University of Connecticut is dedicated to
excellence demonstrated through national and international recognition. As Connecticut’s public
research university, through freedom of academic inquiry and expression, we create and
disseminate knowledge by means of scholarly and creative achievements, graduate and
professional education, and outreach. Through our focus on teaching and learning, the University
helps every student grow intellectually and become a contributing member of the state, national,
and world communities. Through research, teaching, service, and outreach, we embrace
diversity and cultivate leadership, integrity, and engaged citizenship in our students, faculty,
staff, and alumni. As our state’s flagship public university, and as a Land and Sea Grant
institution, we promote the health and well-being of Connecticut’s citizens through enhancing
the social, economic, cultural and natural environments of the state and beyond.


                                                15
        The UConn Health Center (UCHC), located in Farmington just outside of Hartford,
comprises Schools of Medicine and Dental Medicine, a teaching hospital and graduate programs
in Biomedical Sciences, Dental Science, and Public Health. The UConn School of Medicine was
established in 1961.
        The mission of UCHC states: UCHC is dedicated to helping people achieve and maintain
healthy lives and restoring wellness/health to maximum attainable levels. In this quest, UCHC
continuously enables students, professionals and agencies in promoting the health of
Connecticut’s citizens. UCHC consistently pursues excellence and innovation in the education of
health professionals; the discovery, dissemination and utilization of new knowledge; the
provision of patient care; and the promotion of wellness.” In turn, the mission of the UConn
School of Medicine is “education at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels for
practitioners, teachers, and researchers, conducted in an environment of exemplary patient care,
research, and public service.” The School of Medicine's mission is reflected in its programs,
which incorporate 4 basic interrelated goals:
• To provide educational opportunities for Connecticut residents pursuing careers in the
    patient care professions, education, public health, biomedical and/or behavioral sciences.
• To advance knowledge through basic, biomedical, clinical, behavioral, and social research.
• To develop, demonstrate, and deliver health care services based on effectiveness, efficiency,
    and the application of the latest advances in clinical and health care research.
• To help health care professionals maintain their competence through continuing education
    programs.

1.3.b. University organizational chart

Figure 1.3.b.1. UConn Senior Administration

                                                         University Board of Trustees



                                                                 President
                                                               Michael Hogan




 Deans of…                             Provost, Storrs                                       Exec. VP Health Affairs, UCHC
 Liberal Arts & Sciences               Peter Nicholls                                                Peter Deckers
 Pharmacy
 Business
 Nursing
 Agriculture & Natural Resources
 (Cooperative Extension)           Dean, Graduate School             School of Medicine                               School of Dental Medicine
 Engineering                          Greg Andersen                    Peter Deckers                                      Monty MacNeil
 Education
 Law
 Social Work
                                      Associate Dean,
                                   Graduate School-UCHC

                                                                     Departments        Center for Public Health & Health Policy   Departments
                                                                                                 Director: Eileen Storey
                                                         Executive                           Deputy Director: Ann Ferris
                                                         Committee

                                                                                           Master of Public Health Program
                                                                                              Director: David Gregorio




                                                                   16
         Today, the University includes 10 Schools and Colleges at its main campus in Storrs,
separate Schools of Law and Social Work in Hartford and West Hartford, 5 regional campuses
throughout the state and Schools of Medicine and Dentistry at UConn Health Center in
Farmington.
         University of Connecticut Graduate School. Academically, the MPH Program is located
within the University of Connecticut Graduate School and it is the responsibility of that school’s
Faculty Council to set overall standards for student admission, performance, advising, instruction
and granting of degrees. A Health Center-based Graduate Programs Committee provides on-site
support and oversight of activities and facilitates interaction with the Storrs-based graduate
offices. Academic standards and policies are established by the Graduate School and conveyed
in its annual catalog. Within that framework, individual programs are permitted to develop their
own governing policies in the areas of admissions, student performance, adjunct and clinical
faculty recruitment and promotion, budgeting and resource allocation, curriculum design and
evaluation, research and service and degree requirements. Graduate programs, in turn,
participate in setting Graduate School standards through representation on the Graduate
Programs Committee at UConn Health Center and the Graduate Faculty Council of the
University.
         University of Connecticut Center for Public Health and Health Policy. The Center is a
university-wide center established by the President of the University in 2004 to “serve as the
central organizing and implementing force in public health for teaching, research, and service
activities”…that…“will enable the University to speak with one voice to any and all interested
agencies and other constituencies regarding established or new needs in public health education
and research of significance for all of our citizens throughout the State and the region.” In 2005,
the Center was designated a “Signature Program” of the University of Connecticut Health Center
to organize resources in public health at the Health Center to further enhance education, research,
and service for the State and region. The Center’s mission is “to serve the public health needs of
the State of Connecticut through integrated research, education and service emphasizing areas of
public health work force development; disease prediction, prevention and intervention; health
promotion; and chronic disease management toward the elimination of health disparities.” “The
Center’s Director and Deputy Director report jointly to the Executive Vice President for Health
Affairs and the Provost of the University. Faculty affiliated with the Center have primary
appointments in academic departments. Department chairs are responsible for promotion and
tenure with the advice and support of the Center Director and Deputy Director.
         MPH Program. The University established public health as an official “field of study” in
1985, one of 3 graduate fields of study based at UCHC in 1976. Public health education began
at UCHC as an MS program in community health. During the 1980s efforts were taken to
establish a formal graduate degree in public health and CEPH accreditation was earned in 1984
as a community health/preventive medicine program. The program has been reviewed
periodically by CEPH and accredited since that time. As such, the program is accountable
academically to the Graduate School, which is based on the University’s main campus in Storrs
(about 30 miles from the UCHC campus). As an entity of the Center, it reports administratively
through the Center to the University‘s Executive Vice President for Health Affairs.

1.3.c. University procedures
       Accountability. The program director is responsible for program planning, evaluation
and management of day-to-day performance. In this role, the director reports to UCHC’s



                                            17
Graduate Programs Committee (Associate Graduate School Dean, Dr. Gerald Maxwell) on
matters of curriculum and academic performance; and the Center (Director Dr. Eileen Storey and
Deputy Director Dr. Ann Ferris) on matters of fiscal, resource and personnel management,
program planning and implementation.
        Prerogatives extended to academic units. The program is recognized throughout the
University as “The Master of Public Health Program.”
        Budgeting and resource allocation. Tuition payments, minus graduate school fees, are
returned to UCHC to cover program-related costs. An annual operating budget request is
submitted by the program director to the Center for review and processing to the School of
Medicine’s Associate Dean for Finance who, in concert with the UCHC Finance Committee,
makes the final decisions about fund allocation. Indirect costs recovered from contracts do not
accrue to the program. The UCHC Development Office and University Foundation are available
for consultation with program leaders on matters pertaining to gifts and other fund-raising
activities.
        Faculty time and effort commitments regarding teaching, advising and program
administration are recommended by the program director. Department chairs allocate faculty
resources through participation in the Signature Program with support from the Executive Vice
President to secure necessary general fund allocations for these faculty.
        Monitoring of time and effort by MPH program staff is the responsibility of the program
director and managed through the Department of Community Medicine.
        Personnel recruitment, selection and advancement. UConn faculty within the program
are recruited through schools and departments where they hold primary academic appointments.
The program director participates in recruitment of faculty who will participate in the MPH
Program. He engages faculty with primary appointments in the Schools of Medicine and Dental
Medicine, as well as other UConn schools and colleges, to secure their interest in participation.
In addition, he recruits adjunct faculty with significant expertise as community-based
practitioners. Adjunct personnel who make recurring and significant contributions to the
program may receive “clinical” appointments to an academic department of the University. Staff
recruitment is facilitated through the UCHC Human Resources Office, which posts and
advertises available openings, screens eligible candidates and monitors compliance with
recruitment goals for diversity. Hiring decisions are the responsibility of the program director
and senior staff. Professional development opportunities for program staff are available through
state and university training options.
        Academic standards and policies, including oversight of curricula. Oversight of the
curriculum is the responsibility of the Graduate School, which administers policies and practices
university-wide through the Graduate Faculty Council and at UCHC through the Graduate
Programs Committee. The MPH program director is a member of both entities. Academic
standards are governed by policies delineated in the University’s Graduate Catalog. The major
policies affecting MPH students are included in the Program Handbook.

1.3.d. Description of all participating institutions within a collaborative program
This is not applicable. We do not conduct a collaborative program with another institution.

1.3.e. Copy of formal written agreement with participating institutions within a
collaborative program
This is not applicable. We do not conduct a collaborative program with another institution.



                                           18
1.3.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objective pertaining to this criterion is:
Educational Objective 6: Secure necessary institutional and extramural support to deliver an
                         excellent curriculum
Performance Target:      The University and School of Medicine maintain accreditation.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                              2005-06                              2006-07
The University maintains             The University maintains             The University maintains
accreditation by the NEASC. The      accreditation by the NEASC. The      accreditation by the NEASC. The
School of Medicine maintains         School of Medicine maintains         School of Medicine maintains
accreditation by LCME/AAMC.          accreditation by LCME/AAMC..         accreditation by LCME/AAMC.
Performance Target:          Procedures regarding accountability, budgeting, resource allocation,
                             personnel and academic standards are in place.
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                              2005-06                               2006-07
The program was administered         The program was administered         Administrative control of the
within the Department of             within the Department of             Program was re-assigned to the
Community Medicine; the Program      Community Medicine; the Program      CPHHP; the Program Director
Director reported the Chair of the   Director reported the Chair of the   reports to the Center Director.
Department and Dean of the school.   Department and Dean of the school

We believe Criterion 1.3 is met:
• UConn, the School of Medicine and the MPH Program hold current accreditation by
  appropriate governing bodies.
• Lines of communication and accountability are in place to address academic, fiscal and other
  administrative matters pertaining to the program.
• Policies and procedures are in place to address curriculum, student recruitment and retention,
  faculty development and student performance.




                                                 19
Criterion 1.4 Organization and Administration. The program shall provide an organizational setting
conducive to teaching and learning, research and service. The organizational setting shall facilitate
interdisciplinary communication, cooperation and collaboration. The organizational structure shall
effectively support the work of the program’s constituents.

Required documentation:
a. One or more organizational charts showing the administrative organization of the program,
   indicating relationships among its component offices or other administrative units and its
   relationship to higher-level departments, schools and divisions.
b. Description of the roles and responsibilities of major units in the organizational chart.
c. Description of the manner in which interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation and collaboration are
   supported.
d. Identification of written policies that are illustrative of the program’s commitment to fair and ethical
   dealings.
e. Description of the manner in which student grievances and complaints are addressed, including the
   number of grievances and complaints filed for each of the last 3 years.
f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

1.4.a. Program organizational chart
        In 2004, UConn established the Center for Public Health and Health Policy and defined it
as the central organizing and implementing force in public health at the University. In December
2005 the Center was designated a Signature Program with responsibility for Health Center wide
interdisciplinary programs. The MPH program reports to the Center in this new organizational
structure.

Figure 1.4.a.1. MPH Program Administration.
 UCONN Graduate School
                                                 Center for Public Health and Health Policy
                                                          Director: Eileen Storey
                                                        Deputy Director: Ann Ferris
                CPHHP Academic
               Development Advisory
                    Committee


                                                    MPH Program Executive Committee                    Associate Director
                                                         Chair: David Gregorio                            Joan Segal


                                                                                                         Program Staff
                                                                                                         W. Walsh
         Curriculum Committee         Interdisciplinary Programs              Admissions Committee       B. Case
         Chair: J. Ungemack           Committee                               Chair: T. Morse            M. Hollenbeck
                                      Chair: J. Segal                                                    L. McCarthy



                                                    MPH Program Advisory Committee
                                                                                                           Graduate Student
                                                Chair: Susan Addis Vice Chair: Paul Schur
                                                                                                            Organization
                            Community Partnership Subcommittee        Student Affairs Subcommittee          Chair: R. Mar
                            Chair: S. Wolfe                           Co-Chairs: R. Mar and P. Gacek      Co-Chair: P. Gacek



        Administrative, governance and academic procedures and policies of the Center
priorities. Decision-making is the shared responsibility of the Center leadership, program
administrators, faculty, students and community-based representatives of public health service


                                                            20
agencies. The following committees (Advisory, Curriculum, Admissions and Interdisciplinary
Education) and subcommittees (Community Partnership, Student Affairs) structure highlights
principle domains of decision-making within the program.

1.4.b. Roles and responsibilities of program’s major units
        Management of day-to-day aspects of the program is the responsibility of the program
director and Associate Director. Programmatic leadership and resource allocation are the
responsibility of the Center. The program director, is expected to:
• Provide leadership for the MPH Program to improve quality and maintain CEPH
    accreditation.
• Develop and implement, with input from the MPH Advisory Committee, a vision and
    mission for the program.
• Establish and implement an effective management structure to ensure successful admission
    and retention of students, curriculum, student evaluation and advising, class scheduling and
    overall program evaluation.
• Develop stable faculty commitments to teaching courses and advising students.
• Ensure that the curriculum develops competencies identified as appropriate for program
    graduates.
• Prepare an annual fiscal and programmatic report.
• Secure and manage fiscal, material and personnel resources to implement the program.
• Coordinate other activities in public health education through collaboration within the Center
• Apprise the Center’s leadership of requirements for accreditation by CEPH and communicate
    with CEPH regarding resource needs for optimal program performance, significant changes
    in the MPH Program, allocation of budgetary resources, relationships within the University
    that support or hinder the program and status of relationships with outside agencies.
• Secure collaborative relationships and partnerships within the University and with outside
    agencies and other parties through the Center in order to optimize those relationships with
    regard to their impact on the University and the University’s impact on them.
• Promote the CENTER as the unifying entity that makes resources available to students,
    faculty, state agencies and other partners in the state, region, and beyond.

        The Associate Program Director, supports activities of the MPH program and the Center:
•   Oversee day-to-day operation of the MPH program office and its staff.
•   Serve as a member of the Executive Committee and support the Advisory, Admissions and
    Interdisciplinary Education Subcommittees.
•   Plan and develop course listings and direct the program’s marketing and communications
    activities.
•   Serve as liaison between the program, the Center, state agencies and relevant community
    organizations.
•   Serve as major academic advisor to students and content advisor of selected capstone projects.
•   Coordinate individual practicum, applied practice projects and the CT DPH internship
    program.
•   Provide career development and service opportunities to students and alumni.




                                            21
1.4.c. Program support for interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation and collaboration
        Interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation, and collaboration are encouraged on several
levels. MPH governance committees include a range of stakeholders that includes primary and
adjunct faculty, public health professionals, program staff, university officials, alumni and
students. Participants are drawn from several departments/disciplines across the University (e.g.,
Community Medicine, Behavioral Sciences, Law, Occupational Medicine, Nutrition, Social
Work, Psychology, etc.), as well as practice settings (e.g., state and local service agencies,
government, primary care sites, general medical practice, for-profit health organization, etc.).
Communication among members is facilitated by regular electronic and print messages,
seminars/convocations, and other activities.
        The program offers a number of interdisciplinary education programs (e.g., MD/MPH,
MSW/MPH, JD/MPH, etc.), and participates in interdisciplinary certificate programs (e.g.,
Industrial Psychology, Ergonomics).

1.4.d. Written policies illustrative of the program’s commitment to fair and ethical
dealings
        UCHC is committed to ensuring non-discrimination, harassment-free and equal
opportunity regarding education, employment and patient services. In accordance with
applicable laws, UCHC has developed and implemented affirmative action programs with
conviction and effort.
        This program adheres to the relevant UCHC policies on affirmative action, racism and
acts of intolerance, equal employment and educational opportunity for persons with disabilities,
HIV/AIDS non-discrimination, rules of conduct, family and medical leave, alcohol abuse and
drug-free workplace policy, appropriate use of non-compensated individuals, confidentiality and
prohibition on sexual harassment. All students are required to complete training in Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Institutional Review Board (IRB)
procedures/policies. In addition to HIPPA and IRB training, program faculty and staff also are
required to complete training in the University’s Code of Ethics. All course outlines, as well as
the program’s website and student handbook, includes explicit guidance on available protections
to individuals pertaining to harassment, discrimination, safety or disabilities. (See Appendix
1.4.d.1 for syllabus insert.)

1.4.e. Procedures to address student grievances and complaints
        Students, staff and faculty who experience harassment, discrimination, threats to safety or
property or limitation due to a disability are advised through university and program information
about procedures for having concerns recognized and evaluated. UCHC activities pertaining to
affirmative action, equal opportunity and diversity in the workforce are administered by Carolyn
Lyle, Executive Director of the Office of Diversity and Equity (ODE). Counseling and
employee assistance are available. Allegations of discrimination, harassment or safety submitted
in writing that are presumed to have merit and to be within the scope of the ODE functions will
be investigated by ODE personnel. An investigatory report and judgment with recommendations
will be issued in appropriate instances.

1.4.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 3: Nurture diversity among faculty, staff and students.



                                            22
Performance Target:            All faculty, staff and students understand UConn policies regarding
                               fair and ethical practices.
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                               2005-06                              2006-07
No specific action taken              No specific action taken.           All UConn faculty and staff
                                                                          complete required training on fair
                                                                          and ethical practices. Advisory
                                                                          Committee recommends
                                                                          modification of program handbook
                                                                          to advise students of UConn policies
                                                                          and procedures to assure fail and
                                                                          ethical treatment.

Research Objective 2:          Promote ethical, compassionate public health research
Performance Target:            All students are trained in protection of human subjects and
                               confidentiality of health information.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                               2005-06                             2006-07
All students complete training on     All students complete training on   All students complete training on
HIPPA and IRB procedures. All         HIPPA and IRB procedures. All       HIPPA and IRB procedures. All
students conducting research          students conducting research        students conducting research
involving human subjects obtain       involving human subjects obtain     involving human subjects obtain
IRB approval of their project.        IRB approval of their project.      IRB approval of their project.s

We believe Criterion 1.4 is substantially met.
• Organizational and administrative responsibilities for MPH program and the Center leaders
  continue to be clarified and operationalized.
• Activities/efforts by the program to support interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation and
  collaboration across the University are underway and effective.
• Written policies pertaining to the program’s commitment to fair and ethical dealings and
  procedures to address student grievances and complaints are in place and widely distributed.
• All students are monitored to assure completing of recommended training regarding
  protection of human subjects and confidentiality of health information.

1.4.g. Future considerations regarding program organization and administration
       The MPH program administration will continue working to clarify its relationship with
the Center regarding their respective educational, research, administrative and service
responsibilities.




                                                  23
Criterion 1.5 Governance. The program administration and faculty shall have clearly defined rights
and responsibilities concerning program governance and academic policies. Students shall, where
appropriate, have participatory roles in conduct of program evaluation procedures, policy-setting and
decision-making.

Required documentation:
a. Description of program’s governance and committee structure and processes, particularly:
   * General program policy development.
   * Planning.
   * Budget and resource allocation.
   * Student recruitment, admission and awarding of degrees.
   * Faculty recruitment, retention, promotion and tenure.
   * Academic standards and policies.
   * Research and service expectations and policies.
b. A copy of the constitution, bylaws or other policy document that determines the rights and obligations
   of administrators, faculty and students in governance of the program.
c. A list of standing and important ad hoc committees, with a statement of charge, composition and
   current membership for each.
d. Identification of program faculty who hold membership on university committees, through which
   faculty contribute to the activities of the University.
e. Description of student roles in governance, including any formal student organizations and student
   roles in evaluation of program functioning.
f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

1.5.a. Program governance and committee structure
         Within University and Graduate School guidelines and the Center’s priorities,
administrative, governance and academic procedures and policies of the program are established
jointly by program administrators, faculty, students and representatives of community-based
agencies through the committee (Advisory, Curriculum, Admissions) and subcommittee
(Interdisciplinary Education, Community Partnership and Student Affairs) framework outlined in
Figure 1.4.a.1.
         The Center’s Executive Committee consists of Chairs of departments with faculty
significantly involved in public health, representation from the dean’s office in the Schools of
Medicine and Dental Medicine and the Provost’s office, and programmatic leaders in public
health. The Committee reviews programmatic activities across the Center’s component parts and
facilitates coordination of these activities with relevant programs across UCHC. This committee
allocates faculty resources to public health education, research, and service. It develops
recruitment strategies for new faculty and monitors promotion, tenure, and retention of public
health faculty. It periodically reviews the mission and goals of the Center and evaluates the
success of programmatic activities in advancing these.
         The Center’s Executive Committee monitors promotion and retention of faculty engaged
in public health education, research, and service. In the Schools of Medicine and Dental
Medicine, nominations are made for junior rank (instructor, assistant professor) by department
chairs and approved by the respective Dean’s Office. Appointments at senior rank, promotion,
and tenure are reviewed by the School’s Senior Appointments and Promotions Committee
(SAPC) and approved by the Dean and the UCHC Board of Directors and the UConn Board of
Trustees. Specific guidelines exist for each School.


                                               24
        The MPH Executive Committee oversees and is responsible for all matters of governance
and administration relevant to day-to-day operations of the program. It is also responsible for
monitoring student issues regarding admission, degree completion and recognition of distinction
(e.g., meritorious awards for exemplary academic and service products) that fall outside other
committee responsibilities.
        The Executive Committee meets periodically to address operational issues of the program
and consists of the program director, associate director and chairs of 5 of the program’s standing
committees and subcommittees. The program director engages faculty to teach and advise
students largely from the School of Medicine and to some extent from the School of Dental
Medicine and other Colleges and Schools in the University. The program director allocates
resources to provide salary support for faculty time which is reflected in the academic profile
developed for faculty with their respective department chairs.

Table 1.5.a.1 MPH Executive Committee Membership (Walsh – program support)
 1.   David Gregorio, PhD (Chair)                Program Director
 2.   Joan Segal, MA, MS (Vice Chair)            Associate program director
 3.   Tim Morse, PhD                             Chair, Admissions Committee
 4.   Jane Ungemack, DrPH                        Chair, Curriculum Committee
 5.   Stanton Wolfe, DDS, MPH                    Chair, Community Partnership Subcommittee
 6.   Judy Lewis, MPhil                          Chair, Interdisciplinary Programs Committee
 7.   Paul Gacek                                 Co-Chair, Student Affairs Subcommittee

1.5.b. Constitution, bylaws and other policy documents
        Guided by UConn and School of Medicine By-laws (available at
http://www9.uchc.edu/faculty_staff/pdfs/bylaws.pdf ), the program’s policy directives regarding
committee/subcommittee responsibilities, administrative roles/functions and academic
requirements described here are available for review at
http://publichealth.uconn.edu/MPHprogrampolicies.pdf. Relevant information is presented
electronically through the University/program website, the Blackboard® educational portal, the
Student Handbook and periodical newsletters and other program correspondence.

1.5.c. Standing and ad hoc committees
        The Advisory Committee is responsible for recommending and reviewing general policy
and practices related to program administration and performance for consistency with (a) CEPH
accreditation criteria, (b) UConn Graduate School regulations, and (c) the program’s mission,
goals, objectives and values. Specific activities undertaken by the Advisory Committee include
strategic planning and advocacy; mapping financial, equipment/facility and personnel assets at
the disposal of the program director; setting budgetary priorities for resource allocation;
providing direction regarding expectations for student and faculty recruitment; monitoring
practices for recruitment and retention of students, faculty, advisors and community preceptors
(with particular attention to assuring diversity within such groups); guiding academic course and
program development; soliciting stakeholder feedback on program activities/performance;
assisting in resolving operational problems of program governance/administration; and
disseminating program information to promote its agenda to the wider public health community.
The Advisory Committee typically meets bi-monthly and consists of no fewer than 15
individuals. Members include community-based practitioners; state government and local health
agency personnel; program faculty, students, alumni and other interested stakeholders. Members



                                            25
are appointed/reappointed for 3 years and committee activities are lead by an Advisory
Committee Chair, Vice Chair and Recording Secretary elected from the committee as a whole.

Table 1.5.c.1    Advisory Committee Membership (Segal, Hollenbeck and Walsh – program support)
                                    Constituency        Affiliation
  1. Susan Addiss, MPH,MUrS (Chair) Community           Past State Commissioner of PH and APHA President
  2. Paul Schur, MPH (Vice Chair)   Community           Past Head of Environmental Epidemiology, CT DPH
  3. Patricia Checko, DrPH          Community           Former Director, Bristol-Burlington Health District
  4. Baker Salsbury, MSW,MPH,MHSACommunity              Director, Ledge Light Health District
  5. CADH representative            Agency              To be appointed
  6. DPH representative             Agency              To be appointed
  7. Catherine Zito, MPH            Alumni (06)         Senior Govt. Affairs Specialist, WellCare of Conn.
  8. Stephen Mansfield, MPH         Alumni (06)         Assistant Director, Ledge Light Health District
  9. Anthony Paquette, MPH          Alumni (05)         EMS Educator, Hartford Hospital
 10. Jeanette Goyzueta, MPH         Alumni (05)         Research Assistant, Ethel Donaghue Center, UConn
11. Demetria Cain, MPH              Alumni (07)         Program Assistant, CHIP, UConn
12. Stanton Wolfe, DDS, MPH         Alumni (95)         Public Health Consultant
13 Jane Ungemack, DrPH              Primary faculty     Asst. Professor, Department of Community Medicine
14. Judy Lewis, MPhil               Primary faculty     Professor, Department of Community Medicine
15. Mary Eberle, JD (Secretary)     Secondary faculty   Asst. Professor, Department of Medicine
16. Brenda Kurz, PhD, MSW           Secondary faculty   Associate Professor, School of Social Work
17. Charles Huntington, PA-C, MPH Secondary faculty     Asst. Professor, Department of Community Medicine
18. Eileen Storey, MD, MPH          Secondary faculty   Professor and Director, CPHHP
19. Rasy Mar                        2nd year student    Admin. Fiscal Assistant, UConn School of Medicine
20. Amir Mohammed, MD               2nd year student    Resident, John Dempsey Hospital, UConn
21. Paul Gacek                      1st year student    Graduate Assistant, Department of Community Medicine
22. Ross Friedberg                  1st year student    Research Assistant, Department of Community Medicine

        The Curriculum Committee is responsible for developing and monitoring public health
curriculum and related instruction (e.g., workshops, certificate program in core public health
competencies, dual degree options) consistent with the program’s mission, goals, objectives and
values and appropriate for demonstrating selected professional competencies as defined by the
Association of Schools of Public Health. Committee members periodically will assess demand
for curriculum in the public health and related population sciences within Connecticut and
southern New England, prioritize substantive areas for development and/or enhancement and
specify personnel and material resources necessary to meet selected educational objectives. The
Curriculum Committee will monitor and, as appropriate, make recommendations regarding all
courses offered within the program for relevance of learning objectives, appropriateness of
procedures for assessing student competencies and quality of faculty and student performance
within courses. The Curriculum Committee consists of 8 members, meets quarterly and reports

Table 1.5.c.2 Curriculum Committee Membership (Hollenbeck – program support)
                                    Constituency      Affiliation
 1.   Jane Ungemack, DrPh (Chair)   Primary faculty   Asst. Professor, Department of Community Medicine
 2.   Zita Lazzarini, JD, MPH       Primary faculty   Assoc. Professor, Department of Community Medicine
 3.   John Meyer, MD, MPH           Primary faculty   Asst. Professor, Department of Medicine
 4.   Helen Swede, PhD              Primary faculty   Asst. Professor, Department of Community Medicine
 5.   Alyssa Norwood                JD/MPH student    Research Assistant, Department of Community Medicine
 6.   Steve Mansfield               Advisory Com      Associate Director, Ledgelight Health District
 7.   Minakshi Tiko                 Advisory Com.     CT Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services
 8.   Renee Coleman-Mitchell        Community Rep.    CT Department of Public Health




                                                 26
on functions and findings to the program’s Advisory Committee. At least two members are from
the Advisory Committee, with the remainder drawn from program faculty, alumni, and
community-based practitioners.

         The Admissions Committee is responsible for recruiting an appropriate, well-qualified
and diverse student body according to priorities and policies established by the program’s
Advisory Committee and consistent with Graduate School requirements and accreditation
standards of CEPH. Its activities include specification and implementation of procedures to
solicit, compile, and assess applications for student admission to the program. The Admissions
Committee reports on its functions and decisions to the program’s Advisory Committee. It
includes 3 members of the program’s Advisory Committee, as well as members drawn from the
program’s faculty, alumni, matriculating students and community-based practitioners. The Chair
of the committee is Tim Morse, Associate Professor of Community Medicine.

Table 1.5.c.3     Admissions Committee Membership (Case – program support)
                                    Constituency        Affiliation
 1.   Tim Morse, PhD (Chair)        Primary faculty     Assoc. Professor, Department of Community Medicine
 2.   Jane Ungemack, DrPH           Primary faculty     Asst. Professor, Department of Community Medicine
 3.   Mary Eberle, JD               Secondary faculty   Asst. Professor, Department of Medicine
 4.   Jennifer Kertanis, MPH        Agency              Executive Director, CT Association of Directors of Health
 5.   Kristin Sullivan, MA          Agency              Section Chief, Workforce & Professional Dev., CT DPH
 6.   Paul Schur, MPH               Community           Past Head of Environmental Epidemiology, CT DPH
 7.   Ann Levie, MPH                Alumni (02)         Independent Public Health Consultant
 8.   Pam Meliso, JD, MPH           Alumni (06)         Attorney, Center for Medicaid Advocacy
 9.   Laurine Powers, DDS, MPH      Alumni (00)         Independent Public Health Consultant
10.   Morgan Hollenbeck, MPH        Alumni (06)         Research Associate, Department of Community Medicine
11.   Anna Marie Beaulieu           3rd year student    Campaign Coordinator, CT Public Health Association
12.   Beasha Bartlette              2nd year student    Graduate Assistant, Department of Community Medicine

         The Interdisciplinary Programs Committee is responsible for implementing and monitoring public
health curriculum and related instruction through policy and practices pertinent to students who seek dual
degrees with Public Health through the UConn Schools of Medicine (MD/MPH), Dental Medicine
(DMD/MPH), Law (JD/MPH), Social Work (MSW/MPH) and Nursing (MSN/MPH), as well as students
who pursue the MPH in tandem with a UConn residency (primarily Primary Care – Internal Medicine) or
fellowship program or with a residency or fellowship in Preventive Medicine. The Committee will assure
that the program of instruction for these individuals is consistent with CEPH accreditation standards,
regulations of the UConn Graduate School and the program’s mission, goals, objectives and values. It
will oversee advising and mentoring of dual degree students and will develop and implement recruitment
and retention strategies for their timely completion of program requirements. The Interdisciplinary
Programs Committee meets quarterly and reports on functions and findings to the program’s Advisory
Committee.

Table 1.5.c.4     Interdisciplinary Programs Committee Membership (Segal and McCarthy – program support)
                                    Constituency        Affiliation
 1.   Joan Segal (Chair)           Primary faculty      Assoc..Director, Master of Public Health Program
 2.   Zita Lazzarini, JD, MPH      Primary faculty      Assoc. Professor, Department of Community Medicine
 3.   Brenda Kurz, PhD, MSW        Secondary faculty    Assoc. Professor, School of Social Work
 4.   John Shanley, MD             Secondary faculty    Professor, Department of Medicine
 5.   Sean Cronin                  3rd year student     Clinical Social Worker Associate, DHMAS




                                                27
        The Community Partnership Subcommittee is responsible for establishing and sustaining
necessary linkages between the program, relevant state agencies and community-based practice
settings according to priorities and policies established by the program’s Advisory Committee. It
is responsible for developing and implementing strategies to recognize extra-mural contributions
of individuals and organizations to the program’s educational and related activities; enhancing
the number, breadth and extent of such relationships; and assuring that diversity of backgrounds,
experiences, interests and expectations are reflected among students, faculty and community-
based partners. It also will be responsible for selecting practicum course topics and evaluating
overall performance by students, faculty and preceptors in their various efforts. This
subcommittee is responsible for disseminating information on program activities and
accomplishments to the wider public health community and for providing guidance to the
Curriculum Committee on applied practice content. The Community Partnership Subcommittee
meets quarterly and reports on its functions and findings to the program’s Advisory Committee.

Table 1.5.c.5      Community Partnership Subcommittee Membership (Walsh– program support)
                                       Constituency        Affiliation
 1.   Stanton Wolfe, DDS,MPH (Chair)   Alumni (95)         Public health consultant
 2.   Pamela Kilby-Fox, MPH            Agency              Local Health Liaison, CT DPH
 3.   Jennifer Kertanis, MPH           Agency              Executive Director, CT Association of Directors of Health
 4.   Kristin Sullivan, MA             Agency              Section Chief, Workforce and Protection, CT DPH
 5.   Karen Spargo, MPH                Agency              Director, Naugatuck Valley Health District
 6.   William Blitz, MPH               Agency              Director, NorthCentral Health District
 7.   Stephen Huleatt, MPH             Agency              Director, West Hartford-Bloomfield Health District
 8.   Pat Checko, DrPH                 Community           Former Director, Bristol-Burlington Health District
 9.   Charles Huntington, PA-C, MPH    Secondary faculty   Assoc. Director, CT Area Health Education Ctr.
10.   Jennifer Granger                 Agency              CT Primary Care Association
11.   Mary Ellen Haas                  Community           Stamford School based Health Center
12.   Arvind Shaw                      Community           Executive Director, Generations Family Health Center
13.   Bonnie Smith, MPH                Alumni (05)         Exec. Dir, East of the River Substance Abuse Elimination

        The Student Affairs Subcommittee is responsible for developing and strengthening
student interests and activities by promoting student involvement as an integral part of public
health education. It utilizes the MPH student network to distribute information, support student
interests and communicate suggestions, requests and concerns to the program administration and
university leaders. The Subcommittee seeks a diverse audience for information and social
activities. It will coordinate student participation on other program committees/subcommittees,
as well as the UCHC Graduate Student Organization, and will disseminate information from
those activities to other students via meetings, emails and other scheduled events. The Student
Affairs Subcommittee meets regularly and reports on its functions and findings to the program’s
Advisory Committee.

Table 1.5.c.6      Student Affairs Subcommittee Membership. (Hollenbeck – program support)
                                           Constituency
 1.   Rasy Mar (Co-Chair)                     2nd year student
 2.   Paul Gacek (Co-Chair)                   1st year student
 3.   Amir Mohammed, MD                       2nd year student
 4.   Beasha Bartlette (Vice Chair)           2nd year student
 5.   Ross Friedberg                          1st year student
 6.   Giorelly Prado                          1st year student
 7.   Ekenesenarienrien Omokaro               Advanced Student



                                                   28
1.5.d. Program faculty membership on university-wide committees
       Appendix 1.5.d.1 lists activities of the program’s primary faculty on university-wide,
school and departmental committees (those of the program’s secondary faculty is available upon
request and in our on-site self-study resource file). Faculty serve on various MPH committees,
and also are very active within the School of Medicine, holding memberships on the Ethics
Committee, Executive Policy Committee, Admissions Committee, AIDS Task Force Committee,
Academic Advancement Committee, Senior Appointments and Promotions Committee, and
many more. Faculty are active in the 4 signature programs at the Health Center, particularly in
Public Health and Cancer.

1.5.e. Student roles in governance, student organizations and program evaluation
        Students play a significant role in the program’s decision-making, communication and
socialization. They help set policy, implement procedures, conduct evaluations and provide
“real time” feedback to program administrators. Student representatives hold seats and have full
rights of participation on all standing committees/subcommittees, including a newly constituted
Student Affairs subcommittee with exclusive student membership. Students participate on all
MPH committees/subcommittees.

1.5.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objective pertaining to this criterion is:
Educational Objective 3: Nurture diversity among faculty, staff and students.
Performance Target:      MPH committees include relevant stakeholders
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                               2005-06                               2006-07
All committees and subcommittees      All committees and subcommittees      All committees and subcommittees
include representation of students,   include representation of students,   include representation of students,
alumni, community and agency          alumni, community and agency          alumni, community and agency
representatives, primary and          representatives, primary and          representatives, primary and
secondary faculty.                    secondary faculty.                    secondary faculty.

We believe Criterion 1.5 is met.
• A committee structure to support program governance and administration related to policy
  development, planning, budget and resource allocation, student recruitment, admissions and
  degree requirements, and academic standards is in place.
• Primary and secondary program faculty are recruited, retained, promoted and tenured
  through the school and department in which they hold primary appointments; the program’s
  role in these processes is advisory by nature. Similarly, research and service expectations for
  participating faculty are set by department/center heads.
• The MPH program director engages faculty for the program who then work with their
  Department Chair to reflect their time/effort commitment to the program within their
  academic profiles. The program director brings need for faculty in various disciplines to the
  Center for assistance in identifying resources across departments and schools.
• Program policies regarding rights, obligations and expectations of administrators, faculty,
  staff and community-based volunteers have been developed and widely distributed in print
  and electronically.




                                                  29
•   Guidelines and expectations regarding shared decision-making by faculty, staff, students,
    alumni and community-based stakeholders through the program’s committee/subcommittee
    structure are in place and widely distributed in print and electronically.
•   The program’s primary and secondary faculty play extensive and important roles on
    university committees.
•   Student roles in program decision-making and policy implementation are explicit and
    extensive.

1.5.g. Future considerations regarding program governance
        The program will continue to monitor makeup and performance of committees to assure a
voice to stakeholders within and outside the University.




                                           30
Criterion 1.6 Resources. The program shall have resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission and
goals, and its instructional, research and service objectives.

Required documentation:
a. A description of the budgetary and allocation processes, sufficient to understand all sources of funds
   that support the teaching, research and service activities of the program (i.e., legislative
   appropriations, formula for funds distribution, tuition generation and retention, gifts, grants and
   contracts, indirect cost recovery, taxes imposed by the University, etc.).
b. A clearly formulated program budget statement, showing sources of all available funding and
   expenditures by major categories since the last accreditation visit.
c. Budget statement for collaborative program delineating respective financial contributions of each
   sponsoring institution to the overall program budget.
d. A concise statement or chart concerning the number of core faculty employed by the program as of
   fall for each of the last 3 years.
e. A table showing faculty, students and student/faculty ratios for each of the last 3 years:
   * Headcount of primary faculty who support the teaching programs.
   * FTE conversion of faculty based on % time or % salary support devoted to the instruction
        programs.
   * Headcount of other faculty (adjunct, part-time, secondary appointments, etc.) involved in the
        teaching programs.
   * FTE conversion of other faculty based on estimate of % time commitment.
   * Total headcount of primary plus other (i.e., total) faculty.
   * Total FTE of primary plus other (i.e., total) faculty.
   * Headcount of students.
   * FTE conversion of students (based on 9+ credits per semester as full time).
   * Student FTE divided by primary faculty FTE.
   * Student FTE divided by total faculty FTE.
f. A concise statement or chart concerning availability of other personnel (administrative and staff).
g. A concise statement or chart concerning amount of space available to the program by purpose
   (offices, classrooms, common space for student use, etc.).
h. A concise statement or floor plan concerning laboratory space, including kind, quantity and special
   features or special equipment.
i. A concise statement concerning the amount, location and types of computer facilities and resources
   for students, faculty, administration and staff.
j. A concise statement of library/information resources available for program use, including library
   capabilities in providing digital (electronic) content, access mechanisms and guidance in using them
   and document delivery services.
k. A concise statement describing community resources available for instruction, research and service,
   indicating those where formal agreements exist.
l. A concise statement of the amount and source of ‘in-kind’ academic contributions available for
   instruction, research and service, indicating where formal agreements exist.
m. Identification of outcome measures by which the program may judge the adequacy of its resources,
   along with data regarding the program’s performance against those measures for each of the last 3
   years:
   * Institutional expenditures per FTE student.
   * Research dollars per FTE faculty.
   * Extramural funding (service or training) as a percent of the total budget.
n. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.




                                               31
1.6.a. Program budget and allocation processes
        Tuition, minus graduate school fees, is accrued by the School of Medicine through a
longstanding agreement with the Graduate School (normally, Graduate School tuition is paid to
the University and distributed to colleges and departments according to a specified allocation).
As initially conceived, the MPH program agreement reflected an expectation that tuition
recovery by the program would sustain the curriculum without significant additional support
from the Graduate School or School of Medicine. However, as reflected in Table 1.6.b.1, there
has been sustained administrative support by the School of Medicine for administration of the
program. Over the past several years, annual UCHC appropriations include office space, salary
support (0.5 FTE for the program director), a graduate assistantship and, as needed periodically,
salary for staff and faculty.
        Expenditures are not the sole prerogative of the program’s administration. The School of
Medicine’s Associate Dean for Finance, David Gillon, is responsible for monitoring all revenues
and expenditures. Budgets describing income sources (tuition, grants, gifts, etc.) and requested
expenditures (staff, operational costs, adjunct faculty, equipment, etc.) are submitted each year to
the Director of the Center for review and comment before submission to the UCHC Budget
Committee for review and final approval. Tuition revenues not expended on program activities
revert to the Health Center’s general fund for re-distribution to other cost centers.
        From its beginning, commitments by UCHC faculty to teaching, advising and MPH
program support were variable and unpredictable. During the past 4 years, however, the
program director has worked with department heads and the School of Medicine to set
educational priorities, clarify responsibilities and recognize contributions by faculty to the
program. Beginning with the 2007-08 academic year, the program director will recommend
time/effort allocations by UConn faculty to teaching, advising and program administration,
which then are subject to negotiation between individuals, their department heads and the Center
Director. The Executive Vice President for Health Affairs approves the allocation of general
funds to support faculty time committed to the Program. Depending upon the achieved
agreements, faculty are to be distinguished as Primary (time/effort commitments of >0.50 FTE),
secondary (time/effort commitments of 0.05-0.45 FTE) and “other” (time/effort commitments of
<0.05 FTE) contributors to the educational experience of MPH students. Such time/effort
commitments to the MPH program are to be distinct from an individual’s other education and
service responsibilities within the institution. In addition, salary support commensurate with a
defined commitment will be provided. Hence, the anticipated UCHC appropriation for 2007-08
reflects a substantial increase in funds supporting our educational program.
        The predominant support for public health research and service comes from the
departments in which faculty hold academic appointments and the UCHC research
administration. The MPH program does contribute funds to the Department of Community
Medicine to support computer/IT services and some clerical staff.

1.6.b. Annual program budgets
        Table 1.6.b.1 summarizes annual program revenue and expenditures by major categories
for 7 years (beginning with 2000-01), along with a proposed budget for the 2007-08 fiscal year.
Throughout this period, resources to fund program activities have been predominately through
tuition and a UCHC appropriation for program administration and miscellaneous costs.
Extramural contracts with the CT DPH also have been received to support workforce




                                             32
Table 1.6.b.1   Program revenues and expenditures by major categories, 2000-01 to 2006-07.

                                                                                                                      Budgeted†    Anticipated
                                          2000-01      2001-02      2002-03      2003-04      2004-05      2005-06      2006-07      2007-08
REVENUE
UConn Health Center Appropriation*              0            0            0            0        28,529      257,939      144,401       805,268
Grants/Contracts                            3,225       20,000       26,196       58,400        77,328       60,000       20,000             0
Tuition                                   768,473      677,868      792,805      765,893       787,708      728,882      771,590       790,000
University Fellowships                     18,000       20,000       21,000       21,000        25,000       25,000       26,000        26,000
Total revenue                             789,698      717,868      840,001      845,293       918,565    1,071,821      961,911     1,621,168

EXPENDITURES
Personnel
  Program administration                  175,410      183,145      186,505      175,465      165,390       170,235      173,934       173,934
  Primary & Secondary faculty             101,414      191,214       90,215      174,920      176,654       257,098      125,960       860,710
  Administrative support                  150,199       85,730      148,139      256,949      292,688       313,225      272,515       272,515
  Adjunct faculty                          13,023       19,500       29,000       26,428       86,718        37,677       69,187        51,687
Operational costs                          30,922       99,049       82,715       53,265      105,915       167,202      206,560       142,138
Equipment                                   5,107        8,653        1,000        7,016        5,676         4,796            0         6,700
Travel                                     23,026       18,365       15,063       18,331        6,345        10,696       11,171        11,000
Fellowships/assistantships                 56,317        4,616       71,916       33,123       25,000        25,000       26,000        26,000
Tuition waivers                            55,484       47,596       72,218        9,647       54,179        85,892       76,584        76,584

Total Expenditures                        610,902      717,868      696,771       755,144      918,565    1,071,821      961,911     1,621,168
* From 2000 to 2004 full time School of Medicine faculty participation was not explicitly allocated to the Program, but embedded in educational
  activities of various departments. Fiscal allocation to the program began in 2005.
† Revenue and expenditures for 2006-07 not final until 10/07.




                                               33
development efforts. Program expenditures predominantly have supported salaries of program
staff (described below in section 1.6.f), adjunct faculty and students (assistantships and tuition
waivers). During the period 2000-01 through 2006-07, UCHC appropriations for program
support and faculty salaries varied according to program activities and revenues for given years.
Beginning with the anticipated 2007-08 budget, faculty salaries and program support will be
explicitly allocated to MPH program activities.

1.6.c. Delineation of respective financial contributions of all sponsoring institutions to a
collaborative program
This is not applicable. We do not conduct a collaborative program with another institution.

1.6.d. Program faculty
        The commitment of time and effort to teaching, research, institutional service or clinical
care by every member of the UConn Health Center faculty are negotiated to reflect an
individual’s capabilities and interests, as well as the needs of the institution. Beginning with the
2007-08 fiscal (July-June) and academic (Sept-Aug) years, all time/effort commitments by
UCHC faculty to the MPH program will be recognized in time/effort profiles used in allocation
of the institution’s general fund resources and in performance reviews for merit, promotion and
other institutional considerations. The change helps clarify the many significant commitments
individuals make to our program, and recognizes those commitments with commensurate salary
support. Time/effort allocations of faculty to the MPH Program, beginning in 2007-08, are
recognized by the University’s Executive VP for Health Affairs and heads of the Departments of
Community Medicine and Medicine (see Appendix 1.6.d.1).
        The UConn Graduate School recognizes 52 members of the faculty within the Public
Health area of study at the Masters level. Individuals are nominated for appointment to the
Graduate School by the program director on the basis of credential (Masters Degree or higher),
relevant experience and commitment to engage in graduate education. The individuals are listed
in the following tables according to their extent of involvement in the MPH program.
Collectively, they, along with the considerable resources of the University and Greater Hartford
area, provide opportunity for a remarkable educational, research and service experience by our
students.
        Table 1.6.d.1 defines 12 individuals whom we recognize for playing sustaining roles
within the program through regular course instruction, student advising, and/or program
administration. They are considered to be our primary faculty, as a majority of their time and
effort benefits students directly through their focus on public health related topics of education,
research and/or service. This group has knowledge and experience across the core disciplines of
public health, along with significant expertise in public health law and applied public health
practice.
        In aggregate, our 12 primary faculty will commit during the next academic year the
equivalent of 1.5 FTE to teaching, 0.925 FTE to student advising and 1.55 FTE to program
support. These amounts, in aggregate, are equivalent to faculty teaching 10 courses per year,
providing approximately 1,400 hours advising students and contributing a total of 3,100 hours
each year to support administration of the program.
        To this group, the program has been authorized to recruit, by September 2007, 3 half-
time (0.50 FTE) faculty to teach and advise students on topics of health policy, applied practice
and research methodology. An additional 0.50 FTE commitment to biostatistics was approved.



                                             34
Table 1.6.d.1 Estimated time/effort Commitments (in percent of FTE units) by Primary Program Faculty.
                                                                                          % time committed to.....
                                                                                                                   Program                      Public Health Other
                                       Affiliation                     Focal area              Teaching Advising   Support Research   Service    Activities Activities
1.   David I. Gregorio, PhD, MS        Community Medicine              Social Sciences            7.5        5        40      30          5         87.5       12.5
     Teaching: Health Disparities
     Advising: 29 students
     Program support: Director
2.   Zita Lazzarini, JD, MPH           Community Medicine              Public Health Law          15         5         5      50         10           85         15
     Teaching: Law and Public Health; Health and Human Rights
     Advising: 5 students
     Program support: Curriculum & Interdisciplinary Education Committees
3.   Judy Lewis, M.Phil                Community Medicine              Applied Practice           7.5       10        10      10         40         77.5       22.5
     Teaching: International & Immigrant Health
     Advising: 26 students
     Program support: Advisory, Interdisciplinary Education (Chair) and Executive Committees
4.   John Meyer, MD, MPH               Medicine                        Occupational Health        15         5         5      15         20           60         40
     Teaching: Occupational & Environmental Epidemiology
               Occupational & Environmental Diseases
     Program support: Curriculum Committee
5.   Tim Morse, PhD                   Community Medicine               Occupational Health        7.5      7.5        10      15         60          100           0
     Teaching: Occupational Health
     Advising: 10 students
     Program support: Admissions (Chair) and Executive Committees
6.   Steve Schensul, PhD               Community Medicine              Social Sciences            15         5         5      50         15           90         10
     Teaching: International Health
     Advising: 3 students
     Program support: Curriculum Committee
7.   Joan Segal, MA, MS                Community Medicine              Applied Practice            0        30        60       0         10          100           0
     Advising: 39 students
     Program support: Associate Director
8.   Helen Swede, PhD                  Community Medicine              Epidemiology               7.5        5         5      50         15         82.5       17.5
     Teaching: Cancer Epidemiology
     Program support: Curriculum Committee
9.   Richard Stevens, PhD              Community Medicine              Epidemiology               15        10         5      50         10           90         10
     Teaching: Health & Built Environment
     Advising: 5 students
     Program Support: Admissions Committee
10. Jane Ungemack, DrPH                Community Medicine              Health Services            15         5        10      20         50          100           0
     Teaching: Health Services Research
     Advising: 5 students
     Program support: Curriculum (Chair), Admissions and Advisory Committees




                                                       35
                                                                                                Program                      Public Health Other
                                       Affiliation          Focal area      Teaching Advising   Support Research   Service    Activities Activities
11. Stephen Walsh, ScD                 Community Medicine   Biostatistics      15         5         0      50         10           80         20
   Teaching: Intermediate Statistics
   Advising: 1 student
12. Scott Wetstone, MD                 UCHC Admin.          Biostatistics      30         0         0       0          0           30         70
   Teaching: Epidemiology/Biostatistics I & II


Primary Faculty FTE Subtotal                                                 1.50     0.925       1.55     3.4      2.45        9.825      2.175




                                                     36
Recruitment for the biostatistics positions will await determination by UCHC administration
regarding how best to define and fund biostatistics faculty across the institution.
        Table 1.6.d.2 summarizes information on an additional 24 members of the UConn faculty
who are recognized for playing important roles as instructors and student advisors within the
public health program. They are considered the program’s secondary faculty as a significant
portion of their time/effort (0.05-0.54 FTE benefits students through their focus on public health
education, research and/or service. These individuals focus the majority of their time on public
health related issues, as do our primary faculty. However, these individuals are unable or are
unavailable to designate a sufficient portion of their time/effort profile to be designated within
the former category. Together, they will contribute the equivalent of 1.75 FTE to teaching (11.5
courses per year), 0.85 FTE to advising (1,700 hours) and 0.25 FTE (500 hours) to program
support.

Table 1.6.d.2 Estimated time /effort Commitments (in percent of FTE units) by Secondary Program
              Faculty.
                                                                                                     Program
                                    Affiliation            Focal area               Teaching Advising Support
13. Glenn Affleck, PhD              Community Medicine     Health psychology          15        0        0
14. Robert Aseltine, PhD            Dental Medicine        Survey methods              0        5        0
15. Thomas Babor, PhD, MPH          Community Medicine     Addictions                  0        5        0
16. Barbara Blechner, JD, MEd       Community Medicine     Public Health law          7.5       5        0
17. Mary Beth Bruder, PhD           Pediatrics             Disabilities                0        5        0
18. Joseph Burleson, PhD            Community Medicine     Substance abuse            7.5       5        0
19. Audrey Chapman, PhD, MDiv       Community Medicine     Ethics                     7.5       5        0
20. Martin Cherniack, MD, MPH       Medicine               Occupational health        7.5        5       0
21. Mary Eberle, JD                 Medicine               Disabilities               15        5        5
22. Pam Erickson, PhD               Anthropology           Medical anthropology .     7.5       0        0
23. Ann Ferris, PhD                 Nutritional sciences   Community nutrition         0        5        5
24. Richard Fortinsky, PhD          Medicine               Gerontology                7.5       5        0
25. Penn Handworker, PhD            Anthropology           Ethnographic methods       7.5       0        0
26. Charles Huntington, PA-C, MPH   Community Medicine     Program evaluation         7.5       5        5
27. Jeffrey Kramer, EdD             Finance                Health economics           15         0       0
28. Brenda Kurz, PhD, MSW           Social work            MCH                        7.5       0        5
29. Rafael Perez-Escamilla, PhD     Nutritional sciences   Nutrition                  15         5       0
30. Rex Santerre, PhD               Finance                Finance                    7.5       0        0
31. T. Joseph Sheehan, PhD          Community Medicine     Measurement                15        0        0
32. Eileen Storey, MD, MPH          Medicine               Occupational health         0        5        5
33. Howard Tennen, PhD              Community Medicine     Health psychology           0         5       0
34. Minaksi Tiko, PhD               Community Medicine     Mental health systems      7.5        5       0
35. Tom Van Hoof, MD                Community Medicine     Quality improvement        7.5        5       0
36. Nicholas Warren, ScD            Medicine               Ergonomics                 7.5        5       0
Total FTEs for secondary faculty                                                     1.725     0.85     0.25

       Table 1.6.d.3 lists 19 UConn affiliated members of the faculty who support the
educational mission of the public health program as occasional advisors to students. For the
most part, they either spend their time/effort on subjects other than public health or they are
unable or unavailable to commit additional time/effort to be designated within another category.




                                                  37
Table 1.6.d.3 UConn Affiliated Faculty Providing Academic Support to the MPH program.
                                     Affiliation                Focal area
37.   Tryfon Beazoglou, PhD          Pediatric Dentistry        Health economics
38.   Jonathan Covault, MD, PhD      Psychiatry                 Psychiatric genetics
39.   Ken Dangman, MD, MPH           Medicine                   Occupational health
40.   Barbara Dicks, PhD, MPH        Social Work                Maternal and child health
41.   Purhan Faghri, MD, PhD         Allied Health              Health promotion
42.   Judith Fifield, PhD            Family Medicine            Community-based research
43.   Julian Ford, MD                Psychiatry                 Emergency response to terrorism
44.   Amala Guha, PhD                Medicine                   Complementary medicine
45.   Dennis Heffley, PhD            Economics                  Urban and health economics
46.   Robin Leger, RN, PhD           Orthopedics                Disabilities
47.   David Pendrys, DDS, PhD        Dental Medicine            Oral epidemiology
48.   Nancy Petry, PhD               Psychiatry                 Health psychology
49.   Carol Pfieffer, PhD            Medicine                   Clinical skills assessment
50.   Susan Reisine, PhD             Dental Medicine            Medical sociology
51.   Edward Thibodeau, DDS, PhD     Dental Medicine            Dental practice
52.   Marcia Trape-Cardoso, MD       Medicine                   Occupational health
53.   John Vernon, PhD               Finance                    Pharmacoeconomics
54.   Catherine Weber                Family Medicine            Palliative & end of life care
55.   Katherine Whitbread, PhD       Pediatrics                 Disabilities

    Lastly, Table 1.6.b.4 identifies 36 adjunct faculty who have offered courses during the
previous 4 years. These individuals play important parts in our program’s success, bringing “real
world” perspective and skills to the classroom and linking program resources with community
issues. In several cases they serve on the students’ advisory committees as associate advisors
and a few also serve on program committees.




                                            38
Table 1.6.d.4 Adjunct MPH program Faculty, 2003-07.
Instructor                       Course                                                 Affliation
56. Elaine Abrams, MPH            Health Education                                      Nursing & Home Care, Wilton, CT
57. William Blitz, MPH            Public Health Agencies                                North Central CT Health District
58. Robert Booz                   Health Administration*                                Gartner Financial Services Global Research, Inc.
59. Anne Bracker, CIH, MPH        Industrial Hygiene                                    UConn, Occupational Medicine
60. Matthew Cartter, MD, MPH      Investigation of Disease Outbreaks                    CT DPH
61. Jane Comerford, JD, MPH       Health Regulation                                     Assistant CT Attorney General
62. Mark Croteau, MD, MPH         Public Health Disaster Preparedness and Response      Community Health Center, Clinton, CT
63. Leslie Curry, PhD             Gerontological Health                                 UConn, Geriatrics
64. Rene Jahiel, MD               Chronic Disease Control, Comparative Health Systems   President, Ecole Libre des Hautes Etudes, NY
65. Rene Coleman-Mitchell, MPH    Maternal and Child Health Services                    CT DPH
66. Stephen Deleronde, MPH        Introduction to Biostatistics                         ConnectiCare, Inc.
67. Robert DiBernardo, MD, MPH    Health Promotion and Disease Prevention               Physician - retired
68. Amanda Durante, PhD           Infectious Disease Epidemiology                       Yale University, Center for Public Health Preparedness
69. Gary Ginsberg, PhD            Toxicology and Risk Assessment                        CT DPH
70. Christine Hager, JD, MPH      Health Policy and Legislative Development             Chief House Counsel, House of Reps, MA
71. Holger Hansen, MD, DrPH       Epidemiological Research Appraisal                    Emeritus Professor, Community Medicine
72. Garry Lapidus, PA, MPH        Injury and Violence Prevention                        CT Children’s Medical Center, Pediatrics
73. Peter Love, PhD, MPH          Disabilities and Public Health                        Learning Resource Center, Mitchell College
74. David Mack, JD, MPH           Behavioral Health Law and Ethics                      Robinson and Cole, Hartford, CT
75. Katie Martin, PhD             Social Determinants of Food Consumption               UConn, Center for Public Health & Health Policy
76. Kristin Mattocks, PhD         Public Health Research Methods*                       Associate Research Scientist, VA CT Healthcare System
77. Pam Meliso, JD, MPH           Public Health Policy Development and Advocacy         Center for Medicare Advocacy
78. Laura Minor, PA               Women, Public Health and Reproduction                 Wheeler Clinic, Prevention and Wellness Program
79. Deborah Paturzo, MS           Introduction to Data Management Using SAS             UConn, Community Medicine & Health Care
80. Christine de la Paz, PhD      Health Communication                                  Southern Connecticut State University
81. Ramon Rojano, MPH             Community Mental Health, Urban Health                 Hartford Health Department
82. Paula Schenk, MPH             Environmental risk Assessement                        Center for Public Health & Health Policy
83. Paul Schur, MPH               Environmental Health*                                 Environmental Scientist - retired
84. Robert Shaw, MD               Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Disease           Medical Director, Shawcroft Medical Associates
85. Kristin Sullivan, MA          Field Experience in Public Health Systems             CT DPH
86. Jan Tate, MPH                 Principles of Epidemiology, Cancer Epidemiology       Doctoral Student, Harvard SPH
87. William Teel, PhD             Topics in Intermediate Biostatistics                  CT DPH
88. Hongjie Wang                  Public Health Informatics                             UCHC, Library & Information Services
89. Nancy Williams, JD, RN        Healthcare Law and Ethics                             UCHC, Risk Management - retired
90. Katherine Zito, MPH           Public Health Policy Development and Advocacy         Wellcare of Connecticut
*Core Course of Program




                                            39
1.6.e. Faculty, students and student/faculty ratios, 2004-07
        Below, we report enrollment and faculty participation for academic years 2004-05
through 2006-07. We conservatively reason that full time students are considered as 1.0 FTE,
part-time and others are considered as 0.5 FTE. The FTE of program faculty are based on
commitments made to teaching, advising, program support (and for primary faculty, public
health research and service).

Table 1.6.e.1 Student Enrollment, MPH Program Faculty and Student-to-Faculty Ratios.
                                                   2004-05           2005-06              2006-07
Student enrollment                               #      FTE         #     FTE            #     FTE
    Full time (9+ credits per semester)         32        32       21       21          21       21
    Part time (3-8 credits per semester)        81        41       79       40          56       28
    Continuous registration (0 credits)         78        39       64       32          34       17
    Total                                      191       112      164       93         111       66
Program faculty
    Primary faculty                               15    11.8       13      10.5         12      9.8
    Secondary faculty                             16     1.9       18       2.4         24      2.8
    Total                                         31    13.7       31      12.9         36     12.6
Ratios: Headcounts
    Students : primary faculty               191 to 15 = 12.7   164 to 13 =12.6    111 to 12 = 9.3
    Students : total faculty                  191 to 31 = 6.2   164 to 31 = 5.3     111 to 36 = 3.1
Ratios: FTEs
    Students : primary faculty              112 to 11.8 = 9.5   93 to 10.5 = 8.8    66 to 9.8 = 6.7
    Students : total faculty                112 to 13.7 = 8.2   93 to 12.9 = 7.2   66 to 12.6 = 5.2

         When previously re-accredited (2000), the program had a complement of 15 primary
faculty, based within the Department of Community Medicine and an enrollment of 197 students
(111.2 FTE). During the 2004-05 to 2006-07 period, enrollment in the program was cut roughly
in half, at the same time that primary program faculty was reduced to retirements and
reassignments. Today, the program has 12 primary and 24 secondary faculty and enrolls 111
students (66 FTE) and anticipates enrolling another 30 students (22.5 FTE) for the fall 2007
term. To address the decrease in the program’s primary faculty, the University has:
• Recruited a tenure-track epidemiologist to the program’s primary faculty (H. Swede) and a
    tenure-track health ethicists to the secondary faculty (A. Chapman).
• Authorize recruitment of 2.0 FTE non-tenure track faculty to support MPH program
    curriculum in biostatistics( 2 persons at 25% time/effort), health policy (50%), research
    methodology (50%) and applied practice (50%).
• Committed salary support commensurate with time/effort expended by primary and
    secondary faculty on MPH program teaching, advising and program support.

        At the present time, the student to primary faculty ratio for 2006-07 is 9.3 to 1. We
anticipate a ratio 11.8 to 1 when the 2007-08 academic year begins. Presently, 1 in 5 students
are enrolled full-time and the proportion will grow to 1 in 4 students for the fall 2007 semester.
The FTE ratio of students to primary faculty was 6.7 to 1 and is anticipated to be 9.0 to 1 at the
beginning of the 2007-08 year. When the total faculty (primary + secondary) is considered, the
student to faculty ratio in 2007-08 will be between 3.4 and 3.9 to 1, and the FTE ratio will be
between 6.0 and 7.0 to 1.




                                             40
1.6.f. Other administrative and program staff
        The program is administered by a director, associate director and 6 support personnel.

Table 1.6.f.1 Program Staff, 2003-07
Name                                   % Effort        Role
Wendy Walsh                            100             Office management and financial analysis
Barbara Case                           100             Student services
Morgan Hollenbeck, MPH                 100             Program planning & evaluation
Juanita Thompson (separated 11/06)     100             Student services
Laurene McCarthy                       60              Database management
Deborah Paturzo, MS                    20              IT support
Michael Davies (separated 5/06)        15              IT support
Robert Piangozza                       15              IT support

1.6.g. Office, classroom and common space for program functions
        The program draws on many resources available throughout the UCHC (e.g., library,
classrooms, computer facilities, and graduate student services) and the School of Medicine in
particular (e.g., faculty office space, committed time & effort, administrative support services).
        The staff of the program is housed within space assigned to the School of Medicine’s
Department of Community Medicine and Health Care. Space allocated for program
administration includes individual offices for the Director and the Associate Director, 163 feet
square feet and 100 square feet respectively. The reception space allocated for the MPH
program is a separate area and contains 108 square feet. The program and administrative staff
occupy space encompassing 290 square feet; the 2 research assistants share a space of 96 square
feet. The department provides a total of 1069 square feet to the program.
        The program uses a variety of rooms within the Health Center for its courses. Electives,
generally limited to about 20 students, are usually held in seminar rooms, whereas core courses
are scheduled in the larger classrooms or auditoriums. Within the department's main suite are 2
conference rooms and 2 smaller rooms, which are used both for meetings and occasionally for
classes. Lastly, the Health Center’s Lyman Maynard Stowe Library has 3 computer classrooms
that can be reserved for classes (see 1.6.i. below).

1.6.h. Laboratory space and other special facilities
       This is not applicable. The program does not directly access laboratory space within its
educational programs. Individual faculty using laboratories in their research negotiate access
through the departments and centers in which they hold appointments.

1.6.i. Computer facilities
        A wide range of computer facilities and resources are available for students, faculty,
administrators, and staff. Each faculty member and administrator has, at the minimum, a
personal computer located in his or her office, and several also have additional hardware for use
at home, for travel, or for field research. All staff members have their own personal computer
and work space and are free to use the other computers located within the department. There are
also laptops, data projectors, slide projectors and VCRs available on a check-out basis for
students, faculty and staff.
        Program administrators, staff, departmental faculty and MPH students have access to the
Department of Community Medicine’s own computer laboratory, which consists of 6 Pentium
PC computers and 312 square feet. The laboratory also has laser printers (including1color




                                                  41
printer), scanners, and a fax machine. The computers are outfitted with the latest statistical and
research software including SPSS and SAS, as well as the Microsoft Office suite of programs,
geographic information systems (GIS), graphics and web publishing software. The computer lab
has been used for MPH classes including Introduction to SPSS, Visual Presentation of Public
Health Data, Using Census Data, Public Health Informatics and GIS for Emergency
Preparedness. Computer assistance for students is offered by the IT support staff. The Center
maintains computer equipment and support staff for special projects related to audio-visual
presentation and desktop publishing.
        The Health Center’s Lyman Maynard Stowe Library also contains the Computer
Education Center (CEC), which provides educational and technical support and resources to
students and faculty. Student support services include, but are not limited to, laptop, PDA,
wireless, educational software, Blackboard®, and CEC equipment usage questions or problems.
Students with technological or curricular-related questions may seek assistance from CEC staff.
The CEC has 3 PC classrooms equipped with overhead projectors and SMART Board®
technology available for teaching as well as student use when classes are not in session. Several
MPH courses are either held or scheduled some time in the computer classrooms (e.g.,
Introduction to Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Intermediate Statistics, Public Health
Informatics, Approaches to Data Management and Analysis of Epidemiologic Data).
        The CEC also has a computer lab with an open study area, as well as PDA sync stations
and multimedia development stations with scanning capabilities available for students. UCHC’s
wireless network is accessible to students, faculty and staff. There is 24-hour study room with
printer capability. In addition, the CEC provides information and recommended security
software such as anti-virus, anti-spyware, and firewall software. The Health Center’s IT
department has purchased a subscription to Symantec Anti-Virus® which can be downloaded
from the IT web site and installed on the students’ personal laptops.

1.6.j. Library/information resources
        The UCHC Lyman Maynard Stowe Library includes over 40,000 books and 7,000
journals. Centrally located opposite the main academic entrance, it is open 94 hours a week
during the academic year. The library’s automated on-line card catalog, LYMAN (Library
Management and Access Network), provides access to the books, journals, computer software
and audiovisuals in the collection. LYMAN terminals give up-to-date information as to whether
the desired item is available, checked out, or on hold. LYMAN can also be accessed through any
microcomputer equipped with the appropriate network connection and software. The leading
medical databases are also easily accessed via this same network. Access to Lyman and the
medical databases is available on the web at www3.uchc.edu/uchclib/.
        Information Service personnel staff are located at the information desk in the library
Monday through Friday. Materials not owned by the library are usually available using
interlibrary loan. This service may be requested at the Information Desk or via the internet. This
service is free for all Health Center students, who use their identification card for library
privileges. The UCHC library, available through all networked computers on campus has
available 255 electronic databases (including PubMed and Community of Science), over 10,000
electronic journals, including linkage to the full electronic resources of the main campus library
in Storrs and is a National Library of Medicine repository. The UCHC network is fully available
over secure VPN connections, including e-mail, shared files and library resources.




                                            42
1.6.k. Community resources
        The program draws upon knowledge, experience and opportunity available through
various local health departments, community health agencies, for profit and non-profit
organizations for student research, practicum and independent study projects. The program has
long-standing collaborative education and service relationships with the many Hartford area
organizations, as well as with regional, state, national and global agencies. Examples of the
range of local partners include:
  CT Primary Care Consortium                 Institute for Community Research    CT Cancer Partnership
  Catholic Family Services Refugee Relief    Urban League of Greater Hartford    Hispanic Health Council
  American Cancer Society (New England)      West Indian Foundation              Hartford Health Department
  North Central Area Agency on Aging         Asian Family Services               CT Children’s Medical Center
  New England Farm Workers Assoc.            American Lung Association           St. Francis Medical Center
  CT Homeless Coalition                      Mi Casa                             Urban Artists Initiative
  Hartford Board of Education                Braceland Center on Aging           Central AHEC
  CT Dept of Mental Hlth & Addiction Servs   CT Assoc of Directors of Health     CT Dept of Public Health
  CT Public Health Association               CT Council for Occupational Safety & Health

1.6.l. ‘In-kind’ facilities, resources, opportunities available to the program
        As described above in Sec. 1.6.d., the program’s primary and secondary faculty have
explicit time/effort obligations to teach, advise and provide administrative support to the MPH
program. In addition, UCHC administration provides space, facilities and equipment necessary
to deliver our curriculum.

1.6.m. Adequacy of resources, facilities, equipment and opportunities, 2003-07.
        During the period 2004-05 through 2006-07, average program expenditures totaled
$999,849 per year. With an average enrollment during that period of 121 students, or 74 FTE,
program expenditures were $8,261 per student, or $13,511 per FTE student.
        Research dollars per faculty (or faculty FTE) is not directly applicable to our program.
The MPH program does not function as a research grant/contractor recipient and grant/contract
income of faculty are credited to the various departments in which they hold primary
appointments. However, faculty are heavily engaged in research.
        During 2004-05, the program’s 15 primary faculty members received extra mural funding
totaling $1.93M for 15 discrete projects. During 2005-06, extramural funding was $2.5M for 22
projects; for 2006-07 funding was approximately $2.5M for 23 projects. On the basis of 12
primary faculty (9.825 FTE), we estimate the average annual research/project support during this
period to be to be $192,500 per individual and $235,100 per FTE faculty.

1.6.n. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 6: Secure necessary institutional and extramural support to deliver an
                         excellent curriculum
Performance Target:      100% of personnel, operation and other program costs that exceed
                         tuition revenue will be funded through a UCHC appropriation.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                             2005-06                                2006-07
3% of program costs covered by      24% of program costs covered by        15% of program costs covered by
UCHC appropriation; 97% by          UCHC appropriation; 76% by             UCHC appropriation; 85% by
tuition recovery.                   tuition recovery.                      tuition recovery.




                                                  43
Performance Target: A 10 to 1 student-to-faculty ratio will be maintained.
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                              2005-06                              2006-07
The student to primary faculty       The student to primary faculty       The student to primary faculty
headcount was 12.7 to 1. The FTE     headcount was 12.6 to 1. The FTE     headcount was 9.3 to 1. The FTE
student to FTE primary faculty was   student to FTE primary faculty was   student to FTE primary faculty was
9.5 to 1.                            8.8 to 1.                            6.7 to 1.

Educational Objective 7: Identify and retain qualified faculty.
Performance Target: 90% of faculty will hold appropriate terminal degrees
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                              2005-06                              2006-07
97% of primary faculty hold          97% of primary faculty hold          97% of primary faculty hold
appropriate terminal degrees.        appropriate terminal degrees.        appropriate terminal degrees.

We believe Criterion 1.6 is met:
• A budgetary and allocation process is in place to set program priorities, capture revenue
  through tuition and grants/contracts, secure additional institutional commitments, authorize
  and monitor operational expenditures.
• Budgetary statements for previous, current and pending academic years are available for
  review and comment.
• Primary and secondary faculty commitments to teaching, advising and program support have
  been secured with endorsement by senior UCHC administrators.
• Time/effort commitments to the program are linked to compensation and promotion and
  merit reviews.
• The faculty to student ratio is within the program objective.
• Staff, facilities, equipment and services to support educational activities of the program are in
  place, functional and appropriately financed.

1.6.o. Future considerations pertaining to program resources
        We will continue to refine expectations for time/effort expenditures by faculty and staff
and secure institutional commitments consistent with those expectations. We also will work to
identify extramural funding streams to support program activities with particular attention to
securing training support for disadvantaged students. Recruitment of non-tenure track faculty to
support the program’s curriculum will be undertaken during the 2007-08 academic year.




                                                 44
Criterion 2.1 MPH Degree. The program shall offer instructional programs reflecting its stated
mission and goals, leading to the MPH or equivalent professional degree.

Required documentation:
a. An instructional matrix presenting all degree programs and areas of specialization.
b. The bulletin or other official publication, which describes all curriculum offered by the program.
c. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

2.1.a. Instruction matrix of degree programs and areas of specialization
         The UConn program of study leads to a MPH degree, conceived as a professional rather
than academic degree. Because it is a generalist program, all students are expected to develop
competencies in the applied practice of public health principles. It is designed for working
professionals who wish to pursue part-time evening study, although an increasing proportion of
applicants are full-time, some specifically attracted by the applied practice focus.
         The program also offers interdisciplinary education for students desiring dual study in
Medicine (MD/MPH), Dental Medicine (DMD/MPH), Nursing (MSN/MPH), Law (JD/MPH)
and Social Work (MSW/MPH). Interdisciplinary study typically is accomplished by respective
programs recognizing 12 credits of coursework completed within the other program (i.e., public
health credits waived for specified courses completed within the schools of medicine, dental
medicine, nursing, law or social work). We also have had a few students who have combined
their coursework in health systems management (a concentration in the MBA program) or their
doctoral study in nutritional sciences or anthropology with our public health program. In
addition, we offer 2 programs that combine the study of public health with a residency or
fellowship. First, the MPH degree is a requirement for physicians in the Preventive Medicine
Residency in Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Second, medical residents and fellows
in the Family Medicine and Primary Care - Internal Medicine Residency Programs can combine
their clinical medical training with the MPH degree program.

Table 2.1.a.1 UConn Public Health Program Instructional Matrix
Degree                                    Academic                     Professional
Bachelors                                  None                        None
Masters                                    None                        MPH
Doctoral                                   None*                       None
Joint degree                               None                        MD/MPH, DMD/MPH, JD/MPH,
                                                                       MSW/MPH, MSN/MPH
* The University offers a PhD in Public Health with a concentration in Social and Behavioral Health Sciences. A
second concentration in Occupational and Environmental Health Sciences has been approved by the CT Department
of Higher Education. At the present time, however, the PhD degree in public health is not within the academic unit
under CEPH accreditation review. Administration, faculty and curriculum of the PhD degree are distinct from those
pertaining to the MPH program.

2.1.b. Bulletin and other official publications describing program curriculum
        The curriculum is described in the program’s brochure (see Appendix 2.1.b.1), the
website (http://publichealth.uconn.edu/acprgms_mph_overview.php), the Graduate Catalog
pertaining to the MPH program (see Appendix 2.1.b.2). The MPH student handbook, which
summarizes the above information, is available upon request and in our on-site self-study
resource file.




                                                   45
2.1.c. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives that pertain to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 4: Offer continuing and interdisciplinary education opportunities
Performance Target:      Interdisciplinary degree options are available to students.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                                2005-06                               2006-07
Options to combine the MPH with        Options to combine the MPH with       Options to combine the MPH with
the MD, DMD, MSW, JD and MSN           the MD, DMD, MSW, JD and MSN          the MD, DMD, MSW, JD and MSN
are available. 12 students completed   are available. 7 students completed   are available. 11 students completed
interdisciplinary degrees.             interdisciplinary degrees.            interdisciplinary degrees.

Research Objective 2:          Promote ethical, compassionate public health research
Performance Target:            All students complete required PUBH 406 Law and Public Health
                               course.
Annual Assessment:
             2004-05                                2005-06                               2006-07
92% of graduating students             94% of graduating students            91% of graduating students
completed PUBH 406.                    completed PUBH 406.                   completed PUBH 406.

We believe Criterion 2.1 is met.
• The program offers a generalist degree in public health with a focus on applied practice,
  along with interdisciplinary study options in a number of related fields.
• Program descriptions are available through the Graduate Catalog, program brochures, the
  website and student handbook.

2.1.d. Future considerations regarding instructional program.
        The program administration will continue monitoring the national discussion regarding
educational and performance competencies for MPH students and evaluate program goals,
objectives and performance measures relative to such expectations.




                                                   46
Criterion 2.2 Program Length. An MPH degree program must be at least 42 credit units in length.

Required documentation:
a. Definition of a credit with regard to classroom/contact hours.
b. Information about minimum degree requirements.
c. Information about the number of MPH degrees awarded for less than 42 semester credit units over
   each of the last 3 years, including a summary of reasons.
d. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

2.2.a. Definition of a credit with regard to classroom/contact hours
        MPH program courses typically carry 3 credits, although there are also some 1-credit
offerings, generally during the summer. A 1-credit course requires the equivalent of 50 hours of
academic effort and 15 contact hours; a 3-credit course requires the equivalent of 150 hours of
academic effort and 45 contact hours.

2.2.b. Minimum degree requirements
        The curriculum requires completion of 16 courses/48 credits, distributed among the core
(7 courses) addressing epidemiology, biostatistics, social sciences, health systems administration
and policy, environmental health, public health law and research methods; 5-7 electives (1
course for each domain of assessment, assurance and policy development and 2 to 4 courses
specific to a student’s interests), an individualized practicum; and a capstone activity involving
either a 9-credit thesis or a 3-credit applied practice project or policy analysis. Typical plans of
study for part-time and full-time UConn MPH students are outlined below.

Table 2.2.b.1       Typical Curriculum for MPH students.
       Year       Fall                                            Spring
For students pursuing part-time study – 48 credits over 4 years
        1         Health Administration (PUBH 403)                Social Foundations of Public Health (PUBH 405)
                  Epidemiology/Biostatistics I (PUBH 408)         Epidemiology/Biostatistics II (PUBH 409)
        2         Law and Public Health (PUBH 406)                Environmental Health (PUBH 404)
                  Research Methods (PUBH 431)                     Practicum in Public Health (PUBH 407)
        3         Concentration Electives (6 credits)             Concentration Electives (6 credits)
        4         Applied Practice or Thesis option               Applied Practice or Thesis
                  Electives (6 cr.)     Elective (3 cr.)          Elective (3 cr.) Thesis (6 cr.)
                                        Thesis (3 cr.)            Project (3 cr.)

For students pursing full-time study – 48 credits over 2 years
        1         Health Systems Administration (PUBH 403)        Social Foundations of Public Health (PUBH 405)
                  Epidemiology/Biostatistics I (PUBH 408)         Epidemiology/Biostatistics II (PUBH 409)
                  Law and Public Health (PUBH 406)                Environmental Health (PUBH 404)
                  Concentration Elective (3 credits)              Concentration Elective (3 credits)
        2         Research Methods (PUBH 431)                     Practicum in Public Health (PUBH 407)
                  Applied Practice or Thesis option               Applied Practice or Thesis option
                  Electives (9 cr.)    Electives (6 cr.)          Electives (6 cr.)   Elective (3 cr.)
                  Thesis (3 cr.)       Project (3 cr.)            Thesis (6 cr.)

       A student’s plan of study is developed at the time core courses are completed, with input
from a major and 2 associate advisors and approval by the program director and the Graduate
School. Until they have fulfilled their coursework requirements, students are expected to register




                                                     47
for a minimum of 6 credits per semester and complete core requirements before enrolling in
elective courses.

2.2.c.1 Number of MPH degrees awarded for less than 42 semester credits
         Students can graduate with less than the required 48 credits through transfer credits or
advanced standing. Individuals who have completed courses outside the MPH program (e.g.,
UConn courses completed as non-degree students or courses completed at another institution)
may request transfer of up to 6 credits to our program with evidence of appropriateness of
content, equivalence of requirements, and minimum grades of B. Transfer credits are included in
the student’s official plan of study and counted toward the MPH degree.
         Students seeking advanced standing must furnish a rationale for the request and evidence
(i.e., course outline, catalog descriptions, etc.) that prior coursework was equivalent to that
within a traditional public health curriculum regarding content (addressing one or more public
health competencies) and scope of effort (approximately 50 hours of effort per credit). Each
request for advanced standing is considered individually; the request must be approved by the
student’s major advisor and the program director and be accompanied by appropriate
documentation (the advanced standing application form is available upon request and in our on-
site self-study resource file). Individuals who have completed relevant post-baccalaureate study
in medicine, dentistry, nursing, social work, business or the social sciences may receive
“advanced standing,” which lowers their required credit load (by 12 credits maximum).
         A student may request a waiver of a specific required course (e.g., if competency in
biostatistics and/or epidemiology is documented). A course waiver does not reflect a reduction
in total credits and requires the student to substitute a more advanced course for the course being
waived (e.g., Intermediate Statistics or Applied Regression Analysis and Investigation of Disease
Outbreaks or Epidemiological Research Appraisal as substitutes for Introduction to
Epidemiology and Biostatistics I and II).
         Requests for transfer credit, advanced standing or course waiver are only considered prior
to students’ completing their university plan of study. Advanced standing is not granted for prior
work or volunteer experience. In no instance can advanced standing or transfer credits be
substituted for the practicum or capstone project, nor can the practicum or capstone project be
waived.

Table 2.2.c.1 MPH Program Graduates by Year and Credit Hours Completed.
                                 Credits at time of graduation
                           36      37-41              42-47        48            Total
MPH Degree
    2004-05                7         1                 5           27             40
    2005-06                2         3                 5           18             28
    2006-07                4         2                 4           22             32
    Subtotal               13        6                 14          67             100
Interdisciplinary Degree
    2004-05                10        1                 1           0              12
    2005-06                 4        0                 3           0               7
    2006-07                 2        3                 3           3              11
    Subtotal               16        4                 7           3              30
Overall                    29        10                21          70             130

     Students enrolled in one of our interdisciplinary programs complete a minimum of 36
MPH credits, provided that they complete courses in their other programs that are relevant to



                                              48
public health. Requests to reduce credits follow procedures similar to those described above and
are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Interdisciplinary degrees were completed by 30 students,
of whom 10 (33%) completed degrees with 42 or more credits.
        Implementation of credit load requirements is described in Table 2.2.c.1, separately for
(1) students who only completed the MPH degree and (2) those who completed interdisciplinary
education (e.g., MD/MPH) requirements between 2004-05 and 2006-07. Among the former
group, 67 of 100 program graduates since 2004-05 completed degrees with 48 credits. Another
14 students completed study with 42-47 credits. Together, they account for 81% of graduates.
Among the rest, the proportions of students who completed degrees with fewer than 42 credits
decreased markedly over this period.
        Table 2.2.c.2 below summarizes the reasons for completing less than 42 credits for
students graduating in academic years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. By far the most common
reason for both regular students and dual degree students was “relevant medical school
coursework,” followed by coursework in other UConn professional and graduate programs. In
one case, the degree was awarded posthumously; the student had completed all her coursework
and a draft of her thesis and was close to finalizing the paper and scheduling a defense at the
time of her death (upon completion she would have had an additional 9 credits, or 48 credits
total). In another case, a student who entered the program in 2001(with an unrelated masters
degree) was given some advanced standing for “relevant certificate/continuing education
programs;” we no longer accept this reason in granting advanced standing.

Table 2.2.c.2 Summary of Reasons for Completing Less Than 42 Credits: 2004-07 Graduates.
                                                        Interdisciplinary
                                          MPH Degree        Degree*
Medical school coursework                     9               13
Law school coursework                         1                1
Social work coursework                        2                1
Nursing school coursework                     1                3
Other relevant UConn coursework               2                1
Relevant coursework other than UConn          4                1
Deceased; degree awarded posthumously         1
NIH courses                                   1
Certificate/continuing education programs     1
Unduplicated count                           19               20
*In some cases advanced standing was approved for more than one reason.

2.2.d. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objective pertaining to this criterion is:
Educational Objective 2: Assure graduates are competent practitioners of public health
Performance Target:      All students will complete 42 credits of graduate coursework to earn
                         the MPH degree.
               2004-05                               2005-06                               2006-07
63% of all graduates completed 42     74% of all graduates completed 42     74% of all graduates completed 42
or more credits for the degree. 33%   or more credits for the degree. 12%   or more credits for the degree. 24%
of graduate received 6 or more        of graduate received 6 or more        of graduate received 6 or more
credits of advanced standing for      credits of advanced standing for      credits of advanced standing for
prior graduate coursework and/or      prior graduate coursework and/or      prior graduate coursework and/or
interdisciplinary education and 4%    interdisciplinary education and 14%   interdisciplinary education and 2%
transferred credits into the MPH      transferred credits into the MPH      transferred credits into the MPH
program.                              program.                              program.




                                                  49
We believe Criterion 2.2 is met.
• The University and program abide by consistent and conventional definitions of credit hours.
• Minimum requirements for the MPH degree are set forth and well publicized in university
  and program materials.
• Rules for recognizing credit load reduction through advanced standing and/or transfer credit
  are set forth and well publicized in program materials.
• Procedures for monitoring credit load of individuals seeking the MPH degree assure an
  equivalent experience of all students.

2.2.e. Future considerations regarding program length
       We will review procedures and rules for advanced standing with attention to consistency
of procedures and rules with Criterion 2.2.




                                          50
Criterion 2.3 Public Health Core Knowledge. All professional degree students must demonstrate an
understanding of the public health core knowledge.

Required documentation:
a. Identification of the means by which the program assures that all students have a broad
   understanding of the areas of knowledge basic to public health.
b. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

2.3.a. Assurances that all students have broad understanding of areas of knowledge basic
to public health
        The UConn MPH Program is focused on preparing individuals for careers as practitioners
of public health through employment in government, non-government agencies, academic and
advocacy organizations. As a generalist program with a concentration in applied public health
practice, we seek a balance between conveying what is known about conditions by which people
are healthy or at-risk of injury/illness and what is done to assure that necessary conditions for
good health are met. In doing so, we place high priority on collaborative problem-solving
through participatory student-faculty-preceptor experiences.
        Our curriculum, as outlined in Table 2.2.b.1, is distributed according to core courses (21
credits consisting of the 5 core disciplines of public health, along with public health law and
research methods), a practicum (3 cr.), elective courses (15-21 cr. distributed to reflect topics of
public health assessment, assurance and policy development) and the capstone project (3-9 cr.).
Every student who completes the MPH degree at UConn undertakes a practicum as described in
Section 2.4. Waivers are not allowed, regardless of how experienced in public health an
individual student may be, because the practicum is one of many opportunities to demonstrate
the public health competencies gained through the academic experience.
        Beginning with the 2007-08 academic year, our concentration in applied public health
practice will require students to select electives across the 3 core functions of public health.
Students are expected, at a minimum, to select a course from within each domain listed in Table
2.3.a.1, with options for remaining electives to reflect the special interests they may have.

Table 2.3.a.1 PUBH course numbers and Titles of Electives for MPH Students Concentrating in Applied
              Public Health Practice.
    Assessment                          Assurance                         Policy Development
430-Pub Health Informatics          410-Strategic Planning            461-Healthcare Law & Ethics
434-Intermediate Biostatistics      412-Health Regulation             463-Comparative Health Systems
438-Invest. of Disease Outbreaks    414- Health Economics             465-Occupational Health Policy
452-Injury & Violence Prevention    416-Quality Improvement           467-Occ/Enviro Diseases
468-Occ/Enviro Epid                 419-Pub Health Agencies           473-Women, Health & Reproduction
472-Disability & Pub Health         453-Chronic Disease Control       497-Food Consumption & Policy
486-Infectious Disease Epid         455-Health Education              497-Human Rights & Health
497-Toxicology                      466-Industrial Hygiene            497-MCH Services
497-Latino Health Disparities       497-Ergonomics/Exposure Asses.    497-Disability Law
497-Applied Regression Analysis     497-Program Evaluation            497 Policy& Legislative Development
497-Epi Research Appraisal          497-Health Communication
497-Genetics in Public Health
497-Nutritional Epid
497-Health & Built Environment

      Beyond our program’s mission and goals, curriculum content is guided by selected
competencies expected of all program graduates. Section 2.6 summarizes the 15 competencies



                                              51
that were selected as basic and common skills and experiences appropriate for all public health
practitioners. Mechanisms for assessing the competency of students completing the program are
described in Section 2.7.

2.3.b. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 2: Assure graduates are competent practitioners of public health
Performance Target:      All students complete courses in core areas of public health and
                         electives addressing 3 core public health functions.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                                 2005-06                                 2006-07
87% of graduates completed courses      86% of graduates completed courses      89% of graduates completed courses
in 5 core areas of public health. Of    in 5 core areas of public health. Of    in 5 core areas of public health. Of
the 7 students not completing           the 5 students not completing           the 5 students not completing
courses in the 5 core areas of public   courses in the 5 core areas of public   courses in the 5 core areas of public
health; 5 were MD’s before entering     health; 2 were MD’s before entering     health; 1 was an MD/MPH, and 1
the program.                            the program and 2 were MD/MPH           was a Res/MPH. Advisory
                                        students.                               Committee set requirement
                                                                                (Beginning with 2007-08 class) that
                                                                                all graduates must complete 1
                                                                                elective course addressing each of
                                                                                the 3 core public health functions.

Service Objective 1:           Offer coursework and service-learning experiences focused on health
                               and well-being in Connecticut
Performance Target:            All students are engaged in 1 or more service-learning projects.
Annual Assessment;
               2004-05                                 2005-06                                 2006-07
100% of graduates completed a           100% of graduates completed a           100% of graduates completed a
required practicum.                     required practicum.                     required practicum.

We believe Criterion 2.3 is met.
• The program’s curriculum addresses 15 competencies expected of all MPH program
  graduates. Competencies reflect the program’s mission, goals and objectives and, in turn, are
  reflected in the learning objectives of core courses.
• The program requires service-learning of all students and encourages multiple field work
  placements




                                                    52
Criterion 2.4 Practical Skills. All professional degree students must develop skills in basic public
health concepts and demonstrate the application of these concepts through a practice experience that is
relevant to the students’ areas of specialization.

Required documentation:
a. Description of the program’s policies and procedures regarding practice placements, including
   selection of sites, methods for approving preceptors, approaches for faculty supervision of students,
   means of evaluating practice placement sites, preceptor qualifications and criteria for waiving the
   experience.
b. Identification of agencies and preceptors used for practice experiences for students, by specialty
   area, for the last 2 academic years.
c. Data on the number of students receiving a waiver of the practice experience for each of the last 3
   years.
d. Data on the number of preventive medicine, occupational medicine, aerospace medicine and public
   health and general preventive medicine residents completing the academic program for each of the
   last 3 years, along with information on their practicum rotations.
e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

2.4.a. Policies and procedures regarding practice placements
         The UConn MPH program has emphasized the development of practical skills by
students throughout its history. Every student completes a semester-long service learning
(practicum) project under the guidance of a community-based public health practitioner. These
projects have afforded students experience in application of theory to problem solving on behalf
of the State’s citizenry and have fostered strong campus-community partnerships that enhance
workforce development, continuing education and program advocacy. A summary of practicum
sites, preceptors and projects is presented in section 2.4.b.
         Our commitment to practical skills development is further reflected by several recent
modifications of our overall service-learning expectations. In 2004, the change of program
leadership afforded faculty and staff the opportunity to emphasize public health practice across
the curriculum. Specifically, the following changes were developed in acknowledgement that
the MPH curriculum had evolved to disproportionately focus on conveying what is known about
conditions by which people are healthy, at the expense of facilitating the students’ experiences of
what should be done to assure that necessary conditions are met. In response to that trend,
UConn MPH students now:
• Have options for individual or group practicum experiences (spring 2005).
• Have greater opportunity for campus-community independent service-learning collaborations
    (fall 2005).
• Experience problem-based learning that integrates content within the core course sequence
    (to commence in fall 2007).

        The practicum experiences. All students are expected to complete a 3-credit, semester-
long, practice-based experience during their second year of study. Course descriptions are
included in the Graduate Catalog, and requirements and procedures are described in the MPH
student handbook. The objectives of the practicum include:
• Defining biological, social, cultural, economic and behavioral determinants of problems
    under study.




                                               53
•   Identifying individual and community resources available to address conditions.
•   Recognizing performance of assessment, assurance and policy development functions by
    public health agencies.
• Engaging community-based practitioners and other stakeholders in public health action.
• Demonstrating the importance of writing and oral communication skills.
        Students have the opportunity to complete the practicum through an individual or group
project. See Table 2.4.a.1 below for numbers of students who chose group versus individual
practicum projects. The individual practicum topic is selected by students who on the basis of
career interest (e.g., medical students), demonstrate the appropriateness of pursuing a unique,
independent project. The group practicum project is a collaborative endeavor among the 2nd year
cohort of students addressing a single topic from multiple vantage points.

Table 2.4.a.1. Student Enrollment in Practicum course by format.
Year           Group Practicum         Individual Practicum
2004-05             25                        18
2005-06             18                        22
2006-07             17                        16

        The Group Practicum Project is organized around entering class cohorts during the spring
semester of their second year of enrollment, unless other arrangements are made (i.e., approval
of an individual project or postponement). At the beginning, the unique project “theme” was
selected by the program director after consultation with faculty. Beginning in 2007, theme
selection is the responsibility of the program’s Community Partnership Subcommittee, which is
comprised predominantly of community-based practitioners. In selecting the theme, the
Subcommittee is expected to identify topics that (a) are of significant public health concern
within the State, (b) offer a range of experiential opportunities for individual students, and (c)
recognize the capacity and interests within the community for collaboration with students on
selected topics. Consideration also is given to selecting topics that bridge, rather than duplicate,
student backgrounds/interests in order to move all individuals beyond their comfort zones and
reduce knowledge/performance disparities among students. For students who completed the
group practicum in 2005, the project theme was “Halting Childhood Obesity in Connecticut.”
Students who participated in 2006 focused on “Improving Health Literacy in Connecticut,” while
those who completed work in 2007 examined “Health among Persons Living with Disabilities.”
The 2008 Group Practicum Project will explore the theme of “The Uninsured Health Crisis in
Connecticut.”
        Students who select this group practicum option work collaboratively to examine the
extent, causes and responses to a specific public health problem of importance in the State of
Connecticut. During the semester, students are expected to collaborate regarding 3 general
questions: (1) What burden/challenges does the selected topic pose for Connecticut health? (2)
What is the current capacity of practitioners, programs and services in Connecticut to address
these issues? and (3) Can additional regulatory and policy strategies be put forth to ameliorate
current conditions? The principal educational strategies utilized are self-directed learning, peer
instruction and reflective self-assessment.
        Follow-up. At the conclusion of the group practicum experience, all participating
students are invited to participate in a summer workshop in which they take responsibility for
preparing a summary report of the practicum project results. With the number of participants
(25+ students), range of activities and reporting requirements, the volume of “products”



                                              54
generated within the course is considerable. To distill salient points for public distribution and to
provide students opportunity to develop oral, written and visual communication skills, our
program offers a summer seminar where a smaller student group (3-5 individuals) develops a
print product summary and PowerPoint presentation. The result is the basis for a student-led
presentation of the project within a CT legislative hearing.
         Individual Practicum Projects Students selecting the individual practicum experience
first identify a community-based practitioner with whom they work to define a project, scope of
activities, deliverables and timetable. Topics are unique to reflect the student’s interest,
experience and career aspirations. Opportunities and contacts are frequently identified for
students to consider through posting in our electronic newsletter. Students completing
interdisciplinary degrees, medical residents and fellows and others with schedule/timing issues
typically opt to complete an individual practicum project. Students are expected to select and
start individual projects during the spring semester of their second year of study.
         Practicum requirements for student performance. In order to assure that the individual
practicum experience is similar to the group practicum experience, students now initiating an
individual practicum process must follow many of the procedures involved in the group
practicum:       Throughout the course of the semester students, whether enrolled in the individual
or group practicum activity, are expected to complete a number of required assignments.
         Topic definition. Students must define and provide a rationale for undertaking a
particular practicum activity. Students pursing individual projects identify and meet with a field
preceptor to specify a scope of work, timetable and deliverables. A proposal describing its
rationale, procedures and expectations, along with a learning contract, is submitted by the student
for review and approval by the preceptor, major academic advisor and program director. As
required, students complete applications pertaining to protection of human subjects before
starting activities. Students participating in the group practicum meet and define individual and
collective activities and responsibilities. As do the other students (undertaking the individualized
practicum), participants in the group practicum proceed to identify relevant field preceptors and
submit learning contracts for review and approval.
         Time and effort. Students are expected to complete approximately 100 hours of
supervised field experience. Those engaged in individual practicum projects are also expected to
have frequent face-to-face interaction with field preceptors and major advisors. In addition to
service-learning hours, students who complete the group practicum project participate in 7 group
sessions, during which the course director articulates project requirements and expectations,
introduces them to course staff and field preceptors and engages them in discussion of
recommended readings. This time also is used to define individual and collective project
objectives and update one another about pertinent issues and accomplishments related to the
project.
         Self-assessment of practice-based performance. Before commencing and after
completing the practicum, students undertake a self-assessment of their capacity to practice in
the field. The instrument addresses the 15 program competencies specifically relevant to
practice and requires students to judge their capability as “competent, somewhat competent, or
not yet competent.” Students complete the self-assessment questionnaire again at the conclusion
of the project to allow them and advisors to assess professional development attributable to
practicum-related activities.
         Performance monitoring. Communication between the program and students requires
submission of a weekly activity log (via Blackboard®) that details what specific activities were




                                             55
undertaken, what time was committed to the activities, what was accomplished and what further
steps would be required to complete tasks. Activity logs also provide a venue for students to
submit work products to advisors for evaluation. Activity logs have been found to reduce
redundancy and offer a normative standard for expected performance (logs are available to all
students completing practicum projects during a given semester), and provide real-time feedback
on progress toward project objectives.
        Reflective feedback. Students are expected to submit confidential “reflections” that
capture their perceptions, concerns and personal development throughout the semester. Topics
for reflection include:
• “This project requires you to develop skills in public health practice with limited supervision
    from faculty and others. Do you feel prepared to undertake such responsibilities at this time?
    Do you have concern about your skill or experience to complete the work expected of you?”
• For group practicum project: “Working within a group has advantages and drawbacks. How
    well is your workgroup functioning at this time? Do you have specific concerns about what
    and how things are occurring?”
• “How responsible (accountable) do you feel regarding the work you’ve undertaken and the
    products you/your group is generating?”
• “Has the practicum reinforced or added to public health practice skills you’ve brought to the
    course?”
        Course Evaluation. At the conclusion of the individual practicum project, students
prepare a short paper (5-10 pages) summarizing the activities completed and end results along
with a reflection on how the experience relates to their academic program and the extent to
which practice-based competencies were developed. Preceptors provide brief assessments
regarding the quality of the experience and student performance which is used when assigning a
pass/fail grade.
        At the conclusion of a project, students return learning contracts to field preceptors for
evaluation and comment. Preceptor comments and work products are then reviewed by project
advisors, who assign a pass/fail grade to individuals.

2.4.b. Agencies and preceptors used for practice experience for students, 2000-07
        Group practicum field preceptors. Students completing the group practicum (2005-07)
utilized similar sources to those used by students completing an individualized practicum,
including: CT DPH, Manchester Health Department, West Hartford-Bloomfield Health District,
and Yale University Health Services. See Appendix 2.4.b.1 for a complete list of agencies and
contacts.
        Individual practicum filed preceptors. Students complete their practicum within various
agencies and organizations across the state. Individual practicum experiences have ranged from
state agencies and local health departments to community health centers and nonprofit agencies.
A few examples include: The Connecticut Public Health Association (CPHA) under the guidance
of David Mack, JD, MPH, President and Tracey Scraba, JD, MPH, Co-Chair of the CPHA
Advocacy Committee; Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, under direction of Garry Lapidus,
PA-C, MPH, Director of the Injury Prevention Center, and Michelle Cloutier, MD, Director,
Asthma Program; CT DPH with Wendy Furniss, Director, Division of Health Systems
Regulation, Mary Lou Fleissner, DrPH, Division of Environmental Epidemiology and
Occupational Health, and Andrea Poirot, BSN, MPH, Hepatitis C Coordinator; Manchester
Health Department with Maryann Lexius, MPH, Director of Health or Barbara Quigley, RN,




                                            56
Health Education Coordinator; Planned Parenthood with Susan Yolen, VP, Public Affairs &
Communication; Southwestern Area Health Education Center (AHEC), under the Executive
Director, Meredith Ferraro, MS, PT; and the American Red Cross with Richard G. Cable, MD,
Transfusion Medical Doctor. The list of individual practicum sites and preceptors for the years
2000-07 is located in Appendix 2.4.b.2. Practicum preceptors and sites regularly available are
maintained on our website (see Appendix 2.4.b.3.)
         CT DPH Internship Program. An internship program with the CT DPH was initiated in
2005. Students are able to register for the individualized practicum, thesis research, or a seminar
entitled “Field Experience in Public Health Systems.” The Office of Workforce Development
solicits requests for student placements from DPH staff and communicates those requests to the
MPH program and students through our newsletter. Interested students, in turn, submit an
interest form and brief resume which DPH personnel review and match to requests. All projects
are approved by MPH program administration before the student can register.
         The DPH field experience begins a semester with a brief orientation to the department
and concludes when students deliver oral presentations of their work for preceptors and other
personnel. Since the program was initiated, 8 internships have been completed.

2.4.c. Students receiving a waiver of the practice experience, 2003-07
This is not applicable. All students complete a practicum; waivers have not been granted.

2.4.d. Medical residents (preventive medicine, occupational medicine, aerospace medicine
and public health and general preventive medicine) completing the academic program,
2003-07 along with information on their practicum rotations.

Table 2.4.d.1 Medical Residents and Practicum Sites (2003-07)
Name                Practicum Site              Preceptor
Abbas, Syed         CT Dept. of Public Health   Mary Lou Fleissner, Dr.PH, Div. of Environmental Epi. And
                                                Occup. Health
Benaise, Denise     NIOSH, Morgantown, WV       Kathleen Kreiss, MD, Chief, Field Studies Branch, DRDS
D'Agostino,Darrin   Harford Hospital            Rose Maljanian, Institute for Outcomes Research & Evaluation
D'Andrea,Douglas    UConn Health Center         John Meyer, MD, MPH, Occupational & Environmental Health
Farrell, Franklyn   Pratt & Whitney             Philip Lerner, MD, MPH, Medical Director
Macrea, Madelina    UConn Health Center         Mark Metersky, MD, Pulmonary Department
Parrillo, Lucien    CT Dept. of Public Health   Thomas St. Louis, MSPH, Program Director, Occup. Health
Simpson-Givens, N   CT Dept. of Public Health   Thomas St. Louis, MSPH, Program Director, Occup. Health

       Medical residents must complete an individualized practicum; they do not participate in
the group practicum experience. Since 2003, 8 residents have completed the program.
Information on their practicum sites and preceptors is included in Appendix 2.4.d.1.

2.4.e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objective pertinent to this criterion is:
Service Objective 1:     Offer coursework and service-learning experiences focused on health
                         and well-being in Connecticut
Performance Target:      All students are engaged in 1 or more service-learning projects.
               2004-05                              2005-06                             2006-07
100% of graduates completed a        100% of graduates completed a       100% of graduates completed a
required practicum.                  required practicum.                 required practicum.




                                                57
We believe Criterion 2.4 is met.
• The program maintains a practicum requirement of all students.
• Practicum projects address a range of significant public health concerns across Connecticut
  (and sometimes beyond for individual projects).
• Individual and group practicum projects are designed to yield tangible service products.
  Mechanisms are in place to monitor student performance by field preceptors and academic
  advisors.




                                           58
Criterion 2.5 Culminating Experience. Each student demonstrates skills and integration of
knowledge through a culminating experience.

Required documentation:
a. Identification of the policy and procedures for the culminating experience required of students.
b. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

2.5.a. Policy and procedures for the culminating experience
         All students are required to complete a capstone project. Students may opt for a 9-credit
thesis exemplifying scholarship of discovery (i.e., answering questions) or a 3-credit applied
practice project demonstrating the scholarship of application (i.e., resolving problems). See
Table 2.5.a.1 below for numbers of students selecting between the thesis and applied practice
option for the capstone experience. Through the capstone experience, students are expected to
address a significant public health concern, pursue novel inquiry and/or initiative and
demonstrate the student’s mastery of one or more of our program competencies. Whether opting
for the thesis or applied practice project, the student’s effort should be clear, concise, accurate
and thorough. It should yield generalizable knowledge relevant to the practice of public health.
Excellence in scholarship of capstone projects is encouraged through selection of annual
Mulvihill (for research excellence) and Addiss (for performance excellence) award winners.
Program requirements for both the thesis and applied practice project are summarized here.
         Students in good academic standing at the time they complete our core course sequence
(GPA >3.0) submit a plan of study to the University indicating coursework completed/
anticipated toward the MPH degree and selection of an advisory committee of 3 of which the
major advisor and 1 associate member must hold appointments within our Public Health Field of
Study. The second associate advisor must have at a minimum a relevant graduate degree and a
background appropriate for the student’s capstone project. A copy of the associate advisor’s
Curriculum Vitae is attached to the plan of study for approval by the Graduate School if the
associate advisor does not have a faculty appointment in the field of public health at the master’s
level. Once the Graduate School approves the plan of study, the major advisor is responsible for
guiding students in the selection of remaining courses and the capstone format and topic. The
associate advisors are responsible for helping to guide the capstone and for reviewing and
approving the final product. Before commencing their projects, students prepare a brief
prospectus summarizing their area of focus, method of inquiry/activity, timetable and
expectations for review. The thesis application form and the applied practice application form
are available upon request and in our on-site self-study resource file. Approvals by the advisory
committee and MPH program director must be in hand, and assurances (as required) pertaining
to fair and ethical practices (e.g., IRB, HIPPA training, etc.) must be secured before students can
begin their work.
         Both the completed thesis and applied practice project conform to the University’s
manual of style, procedures and timetable; an applied practice project must follow comparable
MPH Program standards. Guidance is available through the MPH student handbook, Graduate
Catalog, University and Program websites and consultation with program and university
personnel.
         Once the student’s advisory committee considers the capstone project ready, students are
permitted to schedule oral presentations of their work for their committee and other interested
parties. Agreement among the advisory committee that written and oral products meet program
requirements results in signatures on a Final Examination Form whereby they recommend degree



                                               59
conferral to the Dean of the Graduate School. Capstone projects and advisory committee
members of students who graduated from 2004-07 are presented in Appendix 2.5.a.3.
        After completion of the capstone experience some of our graduates were given the
opportunity to present their findings. For example, Chinekwa Obidoa, MPH, a 2005 graduate of
the program, presented her thesis, entitled “Factors Associated with HIV/AIDS Sexual Risk in
Unmarried Women Aged 15-24 in Nigeria,” at the Global Health Council Conference in June of
2006. Donna Maselli, RN, MPH, also a 2005 graduate, presented her essay, "Factors that
Influence Provider Discussion of Genetic Testing in Infants with Hearing Loss," at the 2005
annual CDC/HRSA Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Conference held in Washington,
DC. Lisandra Velez, MPH, a 2005 graduate, presented a poster on her thesis, “Evaluating
Effectiveness of a Faith-Based Sexual Abstinence Curriculum,” at the 2005 Annual Conference
of the CPHA. A 2004 graduate, Robert Pietrzak, received the 2004 National Council on Problem
Gambling Student Thesis Award. Ralph Miro, a 2006 graduate, developed a video, DUI: The
Hard Truth, which is being distributed widely, based on his capstone entitled; Short-Term
Efficacy Study of the Hard Truth DUI Awareness Initiative. Eric Secor, a current student, will
present a poster entitled, “Alternative and Complementary Health Practices,” at the APHA 135th
Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, which is based on work produced for his culminating
experience.

Table 2.5.a.1. Students selecting thesis or applied practice options for their capstone experience.

                   Thesis       Applied Practice
Year              (Plan A)         (Plan B)                Total
2004-05              23               29                    52
2005-06              16               19                    35
2006-07              18               25                    43
Subtotal             57               73                   130

2.5.b. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 2: Assure graduates are competent practitioners of public health
Performance Target:      50% of graduates complete applied practice-based capstone project.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                                  2005-06                                  2006-07
55% of graduates completed an            54% of graduates completed an            58% of graduates completed an
applied practice capstone project.       applied practice capstone project.       applied practice capstone project.

Research Objective 3:           Promote research focused on causes and control of health disparities
Performance Target:             5 or more graduates per year complete capstone projects focused on
                                health disparities and/or global health.
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                                  2005-06                                  2006-07
10 students completed capstone           5 students completed capstone            10 students completed capstone
projects focused on health disparities   projects focused on health disparities   projects focused on health disparities
and/or global health.                    and/or global health                     and/or global health.

We believe Criterion 2.5 is met.
• The program and University have explicit, available guidance regarding capstone
  requirements of all students.



                                                      60
•   Students have options for completing thesis or practice-based projects.
•   Numerous capstone projects each year focus on health disparities and/or global health.
•   Capstone projects and oral presentations are completed by all program graduates.

2.5.c. Future considerations regarding the culminating experience
         We will review program and university requirements for additional opportunities to
facilitate timetables for completing and presenting capstone projects. We will use the Program’s
Community Partnership Subcommittee to increase visibility of student activities and
dissemination of project results to the larger public health community. We will develop
improved mechanisms for capturing information on presentations and publications based on
capstone projects. The program will increase effort encouraging students to demonstrate
competency as public health practitioners through completion of practice-based capstone
projects.




                                           61
Criterion 2.6 Required Competencies. There shall be clearly stated competencies that guide the
development of educational programs.

Required documentation:
a. Identification of core public health competencies that all students are expected to achieve through
   their courses of study.
b. A matrix that identifies the learning experiences by which the core public health competencies are
   met.
c. Identification of competencies for each specialty area identified in the instructional matrix.
d. Description of the manner in which competencies are developed, used and made available to
   students.
e. Description of the manner in which the program periodically assesses the changing needs of public
   health practice and uses this information to establish the competencies for its education programs.
f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

2.6.a. Selected core public health competencies
       The following 15 competencies were set forth by the program to evaluate capability of
program graduates to function as public health practitioners. We believe that mastery of skills
contained within our competency set is a cumulative experience that begins from the time of
admission to the program and extends throughout a student’s educational experience,
encompassing coursework, individualized study, experiential fieldwork and the capstone
experience.

Table 2.6.a.1 Selected Core Public Health Competencies
                                                                                                 Core Courses
                                                                                                                          Social & Behavioral Foundations
                                                      Epidemiology/Biostatistics I & II




                                                                                                                                                                                Public Health Research Methods
                                                                                          Health Systems Administration




                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Environmental Health




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Practicum experience
                                                                                                                                                            Public Health Law




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Examples of Relevant
  Competency                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Public Health Electives
1 Describe the roles biostatistics and epidemiology X                                     X                               X                                 X                   X                                                       PUBH434-Intermediate Biostatistics      X
  play in informing scientific, ethical, economic                                                                                                                                                                                       PUBH437-Epi Research Appraisal
  and political discussion of health issues.                                                                                                                                                                                            PUBH438- Invest. of Disease Outbreaks
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        PUBH452-Injury & Violence Prevention
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        PUBH468-Occ/Enviro Epidemiology
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        PUBH472-Disability & Public Health
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        PUBH486-Infectious Disease Epid.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        PUBH497-Toxicology
2 Identify vital statistics and other key data sources X                                                                                                                        X                                                       PUBH430-Public Health Informatics       X
  for describing socioeconomic conditions and                                                                                                                                                                                           PUBH438- Invest. of Disease Outbreaks
  health states of communities.                                                                                                                                                                                                         PUBH465-Occupational Health
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        PUBH467-Occ & Enviro Diseases
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        PUBH468-Occ & Enviro Epidemiology
3 Use concepts of probability and random variation X                                                                                                                            X                                                       PUBH412-Health Regulation
  to draw appropriate inferences from data.                                                                                                                                                                                             PUBH419-Public Health Agencies
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        PUBH430-Public Health Informatics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        PUBH433-Comparative Health Systems




                                                                                          62
4 Apply basic methods and terminology to               X        X               PUBH401-Principles of Epidemiology       X
  calculate and report measures of rate and risk.                               PUBH402-Intro to Biostatistics
                                                                                PUBH434-Intermediate Biostatistics
                                                                                PUBH435-Statistics in Epidemiology
                                                                                PUBH438-Disease Outbreak Investigation
5 Assess strengths and limitations of various          X   X    X       X       PUBH433-Comparative Health Systems       X
  research designs in interpreting results of public                            PUBH437-Epi Research Appraisal
  health studies.                                                               PUBH453-Chronic Disease Control
                                                                                PUBH454-Infectious Disease Control
6 Describe principles and limitations of population- X          X   X   X       PUBH433-Comparative Health Systems       X
  based prevention efforts.                                                     PUBH451-MCH Services
                                                                                PUBH452-Injury & Violence Prevention
                                                                                PUBH455-Health Education
7 Describe the legal and ethical bases for public               X   X       X   PUBH412-Health Regulation                X
  health systems and services.                                                  PUBH419-Public Health Agencies
                                                                                PUBH461-Healthcare Law & Ethics
                                                                                PUBH465-Occupational Health
                                                                                PUBH467-Occ & Enviro Diseases
                                                                                PUBH472-Disability Health
8 Identify the main components and issues of the           X    X               PUBH414-Health Economics
  organization, financing and delivery of health                                PUBH419-Public Health Agencies
  services and public health systems in the US.                                 PUBH462-International Health
                                                                                PUBH465-Occupational Health
                                                                                PUBH467-Occ & Enviro Diseases
                                                                                PUBH463-Comparative Hlth Systems
9 Explain methods of ensuring community health                  X   X       X   PUBH438-Disease Outbreak Investigation
  safety and preparedness.                                                      PUBH452-Injury & Violence Prevention
                                                                                PUBH453-Chronic Disease Control
                                                                                PUBH454-Infectious Disease Control
                                                                                PUBH465-Occupational Health
                                                                                PUBH466-Industrial Hygiene
10 Describe genetic, physiologic and psychosocial               X           X   PUBH453-Chronic Disease Control
   factors affecting susceptibility to adverse                                  PUBH454-Infectious Disease Control
   environmental health hazards.                                                PUBH466-Industrial Hygiene
                                                                                PUBH467-Occ & Enviro Diseases
11 Describe mechanisms of toxicity to explain direct                        X   PUBH453-Chronic Disease Control
   and indirect effects of environmental and                                    PUBH466-Industrial Hygiene
   occupational agents on humans and ecology.                                   PUBH467-Occ & Enviro Diseases
                                                                                PUBH468-Occ & Enviro Epidemiology
12 Identify basic social and behavioral theories,               X               PUBH455-Health Education
   concepts and models about the causes,                                        PUBH463-Comp. Health Systems
   consequences and remedies for public health
   concerns.
13 Demonstrate leadership and team building in             X    X           X PUBH416-Qualtiy Improvement                X
   developing and advocating for effective policy                             PUBH419-Public Health Agencies
   and program change.


14 Apply evidence-based principles and scientific      X        X           X PUBH410-Strategic Planning                 X
   knowledge base to critical evaluation and                                  PUBH430-Public Health Informatics
   decision-making in public health.                                          PUBH433-Comparative Health Systems
                                                                              PUBH437-Epi Research Appraisal
                                                                              PUBH465-Occupational Health
15 Use appropriate modalities, channels and            X        X   X       X PUBH 430-Public Health Informatics         X
   technology effectively to communicate public                               PUBH 455-Health Education
   health information to lay and professional
   audiences.




                                                           63
2.6.b. Learning experiences by which core public health competencies are met
        Mastery of the program’s competency set is to be accomplished through the core and
elective course requirements, experiential learning opportunities and completion of a capstone
project. Appendix 2.6.b.1 links each competency with course objectives specific to 7 core
courses and our practicum. The table also lists those public health electives that pertain to each
competency.

2.6.c. Competencies for each specialty area identified in the instructional matrix
        This is not applicable to our program. We offer a generalist degree focusing on public
health practice. Core competencies identified in 2.6.a. apply to all students matriculating within
this program.

2.6.d. Manner in which competencies were developed, used and made available to students
        Instructors of each of the 7 core courses were consulted to define the basic set of skills
and abilities that are suitable for public health practitioners. The selected group of 15
competencies is based on language and principles contained within the ASPH’s Core
Competency Development Project v2.3. Content was reviewed by the Advisory and Curriculum
committees for consistency with the program’s mission, goals and objectives. Core course
instructors were asked (a) to identify links between the competency set and their course learning
objectives and (b) to indicate how objectives and competencies could be evaluated within their
curriculum.
        An evolution of program competencies is expected and will be the responsibility of the
Curriculum Committee to consider and bring forward to the Advisory Committee for a decision.
Students, faculty and community-based partners are aware of the competency development
process through the program’s newsletter and website. These groups are represented on all
program committees and have participated in all discussions and decisions to this point.

2.6.e. Manner of assessing needs of public health practice and relevance to establishing
competencies for our educational program
         The program periodically surveys alumni to determine their employment status and to
assess whether they believe the program has prepared them adequately for public health practice.
The findings of the most recent alumni survey are described in section 2.7.f. In 2006, the
program also undertook its first employer survey in which supervisors were asked to evaluate the
graduates’ competencies in public health practice (survey available upon request and in our on-
site self-study resource file). The results of both surveys have been shared with the program’s
major committees and issues raised are addressed by the appropriate committee(s). The
Community Partnership Subcommittee (formerly the Applied Practice Advisory Committee) has
been helpful in reviewing the competencies for their relevance to applied public health practice.

2.6.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 2: Assure graduates are competent practitioners of public health
Performance Target:      All students complete courses in core areas of public health and
                         electives addressing 3 core public health functions.




                                             64
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                                 2005-06                                 2006-07
87% of graduates completed courses      86% of graduates completed courses      89% of graduates completed courses
in 5 core areas of public health. Of    in 5 core areas of public health. Of    in 5 core areas of public health. Of
the 7 students not completing           the 5 students not completing           the 5 students not completing
courses in the 5 core areas of public   courses in the 5 core areas of public   courses in the 5 core areas of public
health; 5 were MD’s before entering     health; 2 were MD’s before entering     health; 1 was an MD/MPH, and 1
the program.                            the program and 2 were MD/MPH           was a Res/MPH. Advisory
                                        students.                               Committee set requirement
                                                                                (Beginning with 2007-08 class) that
                                                                                all graduates must complete 1
                                                                                elective course addressing each of
                                                                                the 3 core public health functions.

We believe Criterion 2.6 is substantially met.
• A set of 15 competencies all students are expected to achieve has been selected and
  distributed to faculty and students.
• The competency set is consistent with the program’s mission, goals and objectives.
• The relationships between competencies, core course learning objectives and evaluation
  criteria are explicit.
• Procedures for ongoing development and assessment of program competencies are in place.
• Students and faculty are aware of this developmental process.

2.6.g. Future considerations regarding required competencies
        Over the coming year, all other instructors will be asked to demonstrate links between
their course objectives, the program’s mission goals and objectives and the above competency
set. The Curriculum Committee is charged with initiating that process. A process for student
self-assessment of competency is being established.




                                                    65
Criterion 2.7 Assessment procedures. There shall be procedures for assessing and documenting the
extent to which each student has demonstrated competence in the required areas of performance.

Required documentation:
a. Description of procedures used for monitoring and evaluating student progress in achieving the
   expected competencies.
b. Identification of outcome measures by which the program evaluates student achievement with data
   assessing the program’s performance against those measures for each of the last 3 years.
c. Outcome measures specific to degree completion rates and job placement experiences of students for
   each of the last 3 years.
d. Destination of graduates for each of the last 3 years.
e. Performance of program graduates on national exams in public health fields where there is
   certification of professional competence for each of the last 3 years.
f. Data regarding periodic assessments of alumni and employers of graduates regarding the ability of
   graduates to effectively perform the competencies in a practice setting.
g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

2.7.a. Procedures for monitoring and evaluating student progress in achieving expected
competencies
        There are three broad domains of activity which MPH students engage in for which they
receive performance evaluations: curriculum, field experiences and capstone projects. The
program uses a number of quantitative and qualitative tools to assess students relative to our
mission. We consider these tools to be real-time indicators of program effectiveness. Our most
common tools for measuring student and program performance include:
        Individual course performance and grade point averages. Students are graded (A-F or
S/U) to reflect the quality of performance on course assignments (e.g., reading comprehension,
discussion, papers, exams, and oral presentations). The program administration monitors grades
each semester to identify students with deficiencies (grades of B- or lower, or U) and
communicates with students and advisors if remediation is necessary. Students who do not earn
a grade of B or above in core courses may be advised to retake the material; those with more
than one deficient grade are counseled about the advisability of continued matriculation.
Students who do not earn a satisfactory grade in elective coursework, who have a cumulative
GPA below the University requirement for graduation (3.0), or who have an average GPA below
3.0 in the core courses are counseled about future course selections and/or the advisability of
remaining in the program.
        Experiential learning assessments. Students are required to complete a semester-long
practicum (described in detail in section 2.4) and are encouraged to complete additional
experiential learning opportunities prior to graduation. Activities undertaken within the
program’s practicum project are monitored and evaluated by the Practicum Project Director (and
practicum instructors in the case of individualized projects) and appropriate community-based
preceptors prior to awarding a course grade. The overall content and process for the program’s
practicum requirement is monitored by the Community Partnership Subcommittee and the
Curriculum Committee. The practicum is graded as S/U; students receiving a U are required to
retake the practicum to remediate the deficiency.
        Capstone activities. Students must complete an independent capstone project (either a
thesis or applied practice project), as described in Section 2.5. When the capstone project is
completed and publicly presented, the student’s advisory committee submits a grade (S/U for the
thesis and a letter grade for the applied practice project) for that work to the Graduate School.



                                              66
As described in 2.5, the Advisory Committee signifies satisfactory completion of the capstone by
signing off on the Final Examination Form, and when appropriate, nominates individuals for the
program’s Mulvihill Award (for academic excellence) and/or Susan S. Addiss Award (for
exemplary public health practice).

2.7.b. Outcome measures by which student achievement is evaluated
        Course enrollment. Students are expected to complete a minimum of 12 credits per
academic year. Most students exceed or approach that expectation. Students who fail to register
for sufficient credits in a given semester (and their advisors) are contacted by the program
administration and are required to justify deficiencies; students who cannot maintain enrollment
across semesters are advised to consider withdrawing from the program.

Table 2.7.b.1. Credits Earned by Matriculating Students, 2004-06
            Enrolled    Graduated       Withdrawn            Enrolled
Year        Students   as of May-07    # Avg. Credits   #      Avg. Credits
2004-05        32            17       6       14         9          28
2005-06        34            2        4       7.5       27          23
2006-07        31            0        1        6        28          13
Total          97            19       11      11        64          19

        Course grades. Student performance in individual courses is strong. Among currently
enrolled students, 35 problematic grades have been recorded (from among more than 1,000
graded courses completed); 5 were for grades of “C-” or lower, 14 for grades of “C” or “C+” and
15 for grades of “B-.” Students who fail to achieve satisfactory grades in individual courses are
identified by the program administration and contacted (along with their advisors) about
strategies to remediate deficiencies (if necessary) and/or avoid similar problems in the future.
        Grade point averages. Enrolled students, as a group, maintain GPAs well above the
University’s requirement for graduation. Of current MPH students, 96% have grade point
averages of 3.0 or greater; the average GPA is 3.61, with 11% of students having GPAs of 4.0 or
better, 32% with GPAs of 3.75-3.99, and 25% with GPAs of 3.50-3.74. There are 7 students
(6%) with GPAs below 3.0. Persons who are not maintaining GPAs adequate for graduation are
identified by the program administration and counseled about strategies for remediation or
withdrawal from the program.

2.7.c. Degree completion rates and job placement experiences
        For cohorts entering the program during years 1996-97 through 2005-06, the number and
percentage of students who graduated within designated time periods is summarized in Table
2.7.c.1. The University expects students pursing the MA/MS degree to complete all
requirements within 6 years of initial enrollment and, consequently, we report completion for
that interval for cohorts that have had opportunity to enroll for 6 or more years. For more recent
cohorts, the maximum years of enrollment is indicated. Overall, for the years 1996-97 through
2000-01, 137 of 239 entering students (58%) completed degree requirements within 6 years of
enrollment. Another measure of program effectiveness, graduation rate, is represented in Table
2.7.c.2. Each column of the table represents the longitudinal experience of an entering class
from 2000 through 2006, summarizing the numbers and cumulative rates of students
withdrawing or graduating from the program. We expect, as indicated by comparing successive
cohorts of entering students, that a significantly shorter time to complete the degree has been
achieved. For example, the percent of graduates within 4 years of enrollment among students



                                              67
who entered during 2002-03 was 69%, compared to 45% among those who entered in 2000-01.
For students who entered the program in 2004-05, 53% completed their degrees within 2 years,
compared to completion rates ranging from 455 to 245 for successively early cohorts.

Table 2.7.c.1. Graduation and by MPH Students for Entering Classes 1996-97 to 2005-06.

          Entering               Entering   Time (in yrs)                  # and %
           Year                  students     to degree                   completing
           1996                     43           <6                           27 63%
           1997                     48           <6                           23 48%
           1998                     51           <6                           31 61%
           1999                     45           <6                           25 56%
           2000                     51           <6                           31 61%
           2001                     40            5                           21 52%
           2002                     49            4                           34 68%
           2003                     47            3                           28 60%
           2004                     32            2                           17 53%
           2005                     34            1                            2   6%

Table 2.7.c.2. Matriculation of MPH Students by Year of Program Entry
                                                                Year entering MPH Program
                                            2000-01   2001-02   2002-03   2003-04   2004-05   2005-06   2006-07
2000-01    # Students beginning year           51
           # Students withdrew, dropped         0
           # Students graduated                 0
           Cumulative attrition rate           0%
           Cumulative graduation rate          0%
2001-02    # Students beginning year           51        40
           # Students withdrew, dropped         5         5
           # Students graduated                 7         2
           Cumulative attrition rate          10%       12%
           Cumulative graduation rate         14%        5%
2002-03    # Students beginning year           39        33        49
           # Students withdrew, dropped         3         9         4
           # Students graduated                 5         6         5
           Cumulative attrition rate         16%        35%        8%
           Cumulative graduation rate        24%        20%       10%
2003-04    # Students beginning year           31        18        40        47
           # Students withdrew, dropped         2         1         2         9
           # Students graduated                 5         6         7         4
           Cumulative attrition rate          20%      37%        12%       19%
           Cumulative graduation rate         33%      35%        14%        8%
2004-05    # Students beginning year           24        11        31        35        32
           # Students withdrew, dropped         1         0         0         1         6
           # Students graduated                 6         3        10        12         1
           Cumulative attrition rate          22%       37%      12%        21%       19%
           Cumulative graduation rate         45%       42%      45%        34%        3%
2005-06    # Students beginning year           17         8        21        22        25      34
           # Students withdrew, dropped         1         0         1         1         0       3
           # Students graduated                 3         0         9         5         9       1
           Cumulative attrition rate          24%       37%       14%      23%        19%      9%
           Cumulative graduation rate         51%       42%       63%      45%        31%      3%
2006-07    # Students beginning year           13         8        11        16        16      30        31
           # Students withdrew, dropped         0         0         1         1         0       1         1
           # Students graduated                 5         4         3         7         7       1         0
           Cumulative attrition rate          24%       37%       16%       26%      19%      12%        3%
           Cumulative graduation rate         61%       53%       69%       60%      53%       6%        0%
2007-08    # Students beginning year        8 (15%)   4 (10%)   7 (14%)   8 (17%)   9 (28%) 28 (85%) 28 (97%)




                                               68
2.7.d. Destination of graduates
        Students who graduated during the period 2003-05 were surveyed on their perspectives of
the program and their experiences after graduation. The survey (available upon request and in
our on-site self-study resource file) was distributed by email and yielded a 58% response.
Questions pertained to current job satisfaction, experience and satisfaction with the UConn MPH
program, and personal accomplishments. Most recent graduates are employed and better than 4
of 5 respondents report working in some aspect of public health. A substantial proportion of
respondents (43%) noted a job change since enrolling in the program. Please see Appendix
2.7.d.1 for Employment Status of MPH Graduates (2003-07).

Table 2.7.d.1. Destination of MPH Program Graduates, 2003-07.




                                                                                                                                                                                   Non-Health Related
                                                                                                                                                       Further Education
                                                                                  Private Practice




                                                                                                                                                                                                                Not Employed



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Not Included
               Government




                                                           Health Care




                                                                                                              University/



                                                                                                                                Proprietary
                                     Nonprofit




                                                                                                              Research
Year
           #                %    #               %    #                  %    #                      %        #       %     #                 %    #                       %   #                        %   #                  %   #                   %
2003-04    3                23   3               23   4                  31   0                      0        2       15    0                 0    1                       8   0                        0   0                  0   7                   35

2004-05    5                15   2               6    14                 41   1                      3        7       20    5                 15   0                       0   0                        0   0                  0   18                  34
2005-06    4                15   2               8    13                 50   0                      0        4       15    2                 8    1                       4   0                        0   0                  0   9                   25
2006-07    7                25   2               8    10                 36   0                      0        5       18    4                 14   0                       0   0                        0   0                  0   15                  61


2.7.e. Graduate’s performance on national examinations
       This is not applicable to the majority of our students who do not, at this time, take
professional licensure/certification exams. However, graduates who have been preventive
medicine residents or fellows do take the American Board of Preventive Medicine examinations
in Occupational Medicine. Over the past 4 years, 8 physician-graduates have sat for the exam
and 6 have passed core and specialty exams. Of the 13 MPH graduates who completed the
program between June 1996 and June 2006, 9 are board certified in Occupational Medicine.

2.7.f. Alumni and employer assessment of graduate’s effective performance of
competencies in a practice setting
        Alumni Survey. Students who graduated within a three-year period (2003-05) have been
surveyed to get their perspective on various issues within, and as a result of, graduating from the
MPH program (the alumni survey and results is available upon request and in our on-site self-
study resource file). The survey was distributed via email and concluded with a 58% response
rate. The survey included various questions concerning current job, job satisfaction, experience
and level of satisfaction with UConn MPH Program, quality of various aspects of MPH program,
and personal accomplishments. Of the alumni who responded to the survey, 97.8% are very or
mostly satisfied with their MPH degree and 98% are satisfied with their current career. In
addition, 95.8% would or might recommend application to the UConn MPH Program. Reasons
provided include: the flexibility of the program to incorporate individuals already in the
workforce, flexible schedule, knowledgeable faculty/advisors, diverse experiences of faculty and




                                                                                                         69
students, exceptional quality of lectures, broad-level training in public health, comprehensive and
coherent program. The remaining 4.2% who would not recommend the MPH program to
prospective students provided the following reasons: not enough courses offered in health
education and promotion and courses are no longer offered on the Stamford campus. Most
(96%) of the recent graduates are currently employed and 85% of these individuals are working
directly or indirectly in the public health field; of the small percentage not working in the public
health field, the top reasons provided were: no jobs in their preferred location, would not accept a
low paying job, or not applicable. After graduating from the MPH program, almost half (42.6%)
of alumni are in a different job with a different employer. Program graduates feel that the
program was helpful or very helpful in providing them with competencies in the following areas:
a broad understanding of public health, a detailed knowledge of epidemiology, and development
of quantitative skills. Some alumni felt that the program could have been more useful in helping
them to develop program management skills and computer application skills. Others responded
that students have little or insufficient involvement in decision-making.
        In assessing the quality of the UConn MPH program, students felt the program was
excellent or good in the following categories: quality of instruction, admissions process, quality
of fellow students, depth of faculty knowledge, grading and evaluation of student performance,
diversity of student body, library facilities, and responsiveness of program staff.
        As determined by the survey, alumni have indicated that they feel less prepared in core
competencies, particularly those related to community engagement and social justice. As we
went through the self study process, we reviewed our former set of competencies and revised
them to reflect the UConn MPH curriculum and the expectations we have for our students, while
taking into account the core public health competencies developed by the Association of Schools
of Public Health (ASPH), competencies that will be tested on the new Board of Public Health
Examination. Our current students should have improved preparation in these competencies
because they are being clearly articulated along with learning objectives reflective of those
competencies. In terms of community engagement specifically, all students doing the practicum
should be engaged in some community-based activity. In the past, a few students were less
appropriately placed in faculty-based projects, for example. Our new Practicum Proposal Form
requires students to lay out an applied practice, community based project, and they will not only
need to log their weekly experiences in the field, but answer reflective questions that should
enhance their engagement in the community. They will also have to lay out in advance the
competencies that should be developed through the practicum and, at the end of the project,
indicate whether they feel more competent in those particular competencies.
        Social justice is a key concern of the program. The Program Director and Associate
Director are, for example, participants in the statewide project known as HEAT and spearheaded
by the CT Association of Directors of Health, which is developing a novel health equity index
that will allow local health departments to assess the health equity in their particular towns and
cities. This index, which has been tested, takes into account a multitude of factors from various
measures of health status to housing, education, political participation, and many other variables.
Students will have opportunities to participate as the project goes forward. The program's focal
topic for this year is "The Uninsured in CT," and the issue of social justice will be addressed
through this year's group practicum process. Other recent topics of health literacy and the
disabled also lent themselves to a discussion of social justice issues. Dr. Gregorio is also
developing a new elective that will address the issue, and a course in Latino Health Disparities
was added to the curriculum in the past two years. We expect that over the next few years our




                                             70
graduates will feel more competent in both community engagement and social justice issues.
And social justice is highlighted in our values statement, which was developed during the self
study process.
       Also indicated through the survey, 30% of our alumni graduating between 2003 and 2005
have received various awards or honors including: CT Secretary of the State’s Public Service
Award, Gerontological Health Section of the APHA Award, Retirement Research Foundation
Masters Student Research Award, the CT Society for Respiratory Care President’s Award, Best
Paper in Preventative Medicine awarded by the American College of Preventative Medicine,
Sexuality Educator of the Year (SIECONN), ACOEM Residents Research Award, Merck
Award, Diplomat of the American Board of Internal Medicine, and Diplomat of the American
Board of Preventative Medicine and Occupational Medicine, National Council on Problem
Gambling Master’s Thesis Award, Durant Jacobs Award, International Center for Youth
Gambling Problems and High-Risk Behaviors (McGill University, Canada), and First Prize
Humanism in Medicine Essay Contest (Arnold P. Gold Foundation).

Table 2.7.f.1. Assessment of MPH Program Features, Alumni Survey, 2006
                                                 “Helpful or                                       “Very Good or
                                                ‘Very Helpful                                         Excellent”
The MPH Program impact                                          MPH Program characteristics
Provided me broad understanding of public health      100%      Quality of instruction                       92%
Provided me detailed skills/experience for my job      64%      Expectations regarding student performance   83%
Enhanced knowledge of epidemiology                    83%       Admissions process                           87%
Promoted values of social justice and equity           74%      Quality of fellow students                   92%
Developed my quantitative skills                       85%      Depth of faculty knowledge                   96%
Developed computer application skills                  82%      Breadth of course offerings                  72%
Developed database management skills                   36%      Concentration of course offerings            56%
Developed my analytic skills                           70%      Grading &evaluation procedures               89%
Developed my program management skills                 47%      Academic advising                            53%
Improved my project management skills                 51%       Career advising                              34%
Enabled me to integrate theory and practice            68%      Student participation in policy making       25%
Developed my writing & oral communication skills       72%      Diversity of the student body                98%
Developed community/organization leadership skills     57%      Access to faculty                            83%
Prepared me to enter the workforce                     58%      Library facilities                           94%
                                                                Computer facilities                          79%
                                                                Classroom facilities                         87%
                                                                Course scheduling                            55%
                                                                Responsiveness of program staff              85%

        Thirty-two of our recent graduates hold or have held leadership positions in the state and
regional public health system: CPHA Board of Directors, President and Project Manager of the
Occupational and Environmental Medical Association of CT, Director of Clinical Services/FNP
at the NY State Designated Health Center, President of the National Association of the Directors
of Speech & Hearing Programs in State Health and Welfare Agencies, VP of the CT Society of
Respiratory Care, President of the Hartford Dental Society and Director of CT State Dental
Association, Director of Habitat for Humanity.
         Employer Survey. Employers of recent graduates were regarding the extent to which the
program accomplished the goal of producing capable public health professionals (the employer
survey and results is available upon request and in our on-site self-study resource file). As a
whole, employers of our alumni agree that their employees have demonstrated the ability to
communicate their ideas verbally and present material effectively. A small portion of employers




                                                 71
believe that program graduates could be better equipped to prepare and write professional
reports. Employers of recent graduates also agree that program graduates have demonstrated an
ability to apply their knowledge and skill in the workplace and are able to conceptualize
problems related to their field of expertise. When asked to compare UConn MPH graduates to
graduates of other accredited public health programs and/or schools, over half of employers
surveyed believe that UConn MPH graduates are equivalent to or better equipped than their non-
UConn graduate counterparts.

2.7.g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 2: Assure graduates are competent practitioners of public health
Performance Target:      All graduates complete their degree with GPAs >3.00 in the overall
                         core curriculum
Annual Assessment:
                2004-05                               2005-06                              2006-07
100% of graduates had GPAs >3.00      100% of graduates had GPAs >3.00     100% of graduates had GPAs >3.00
in the overall core curriculum        in the overall core curriculum       in the overall core curriculum

Performance Target:             50% of students complete an applied practice-based capstone project
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                               2005-06                              2006-07
55% of graduates completed an         54% of graduates completed an        58% of graduates completed an
applied practice capstone project.    applied practice capstone project.   applied practice capstone project.

Performance Target:            75% of alumni judge program core competencies to have been met.
Annual Assessment:
                2004-05                               2005-06                              2006-07
Not assessed.                         Not assessed.                        Advisory Committee recommended
                                                                           that beginning in 2008, program
                                                                           graduates will be questioned about
                                                                           their belief that program learning
                                                                           objectives had been met. 2006
                                                                           alumni survey reported 58% rated
                                                                           program to be ‘helpful to very
                                                                           helpful’ preparing individuals to
                                                                           enter the workforce.

Performance Target:            75% of alumni hold jobs in preferred fields within 12 months of
                               graduation.
Annual Assessment:
                2004-05                               2005-06                              2006-07
Not assessed.                         Not assessed.                        Not assessed.

Educational Objective 5: Improve student retention and matriculation
Performance Target:      75% of students will receive degrees within 6 years of enrollment.
Annual Assessment:
             2004-05                               2005-06                              2006-07
51% of student first enrolled in      45% of student first enrolled in     51% of student first enrolled in
1998-99 completed degrees within 6    1999-00 completed degrees within 6   2000-01 completed degrees within 6
years.                                years.                               years.




                                                   72
Educational Objective 6: Secure necessary institutional and extramural support to deliver an
                         excellent curriculum.
Performance Target:      80% of graduates express satisfaction with curriculum and program
                         support services.
Annual Assessment:
                2004-05                         2005-06                         2006-07
Not assessed.                   Not assessed.                    According to 2006 alumni survey a
                                                                 ‘very good to excellent’ rating was
                                                                 given regarding facility access
                                                                 (83%), library services (94%),
                                                                 computer facilities (79%), classroom
                                                                 facilities (87%) and responsiveness
                                                                 of program staff (85%). 55% rated
                                                                 course scheduling positively.

Research Objective 1:     Prepare students to design, undertake and disseminate relevant public
                          health research
Performance Target;       10% of graduates make public presentation of their academic work
Annual Assessment:
                2004-05                         2005-06                          2006-07
Not assessed.                   Not assessed.                    Not assessed.

We believe criterion 2.7 is substantially met.
• The program has effective operational procedures to monitor student performance in the
  classroom, during fieldwork and on capstone projects.
• Course enrollment and GPAs of students generally meet or exceed program and graduate
  school requirements.
• The time to complete degrees has successively grown shorter over time.
• Student retention has not wavered markedly over time.
• 97.8% of surveyed recent graduates (2003-2005) are mostly or very satisfied with having
  earned their MPH degree.
• 96% of surveyed recent graduates (2003-2005) are currently employed and 85% of these
  individuals are working directly or indirectly in the public health field.

2.7.h. Future considerations regarding the program’s assessment procedures
        The program administration will develop procedures to identify and contact the direct
supervisors of our alumni to monitor graduate’s performance and better anticipate workforce
needs. The program, through the MPH Graduate Student Organization, will involve students in
program planning and evaluation. The curriculum committee will consider options/opportunities
to improve the writing and presentation skills of students and increase occasions where such
skills may be developed and demonstrated within the curriculum and external to the program.




                                            73
Criterion 2.8 Academic Degrees. If the program also offers curricula for academic degrees, students
pursuing them shall obtain a broad introduction to public health, as well as an understanding about
how their discipline-based specialization contributes to achieving the goals of public health.

Required documentation:
a. Identification of all academic degree programs, by degree and area of specialization.
b. Identification of the means by which the program assures that students in research curricula acquire
   a public health orientation.
c. Identification of the culminating experience required for each degree program.
d. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

2.8.a. Academic degree programs
This criterion is not applicable. Our unit of accreditation offers only the MPH and does not
include academic degrees.

2.8.b. Means by which the program assures that students acquire a public health
       orientation
Not applicable.

2.8.c. Culminating experience required for each degree program
Not applicable.

2.8.d. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
Not applicable.

2.8.e. Future considerations regarding academic degrees
       The program will work with the University and the Center to incorporate any academic
(Masters level) public health degrees that may be developed within a single organizational unit and
assure all such programs meet CEPH accreditation standards.




                                               74
Criterion 2.9 Doctoral Degrees. The program may offer doctoral degree programs, if consistent with
its mission and resources.

Required documentation:
a. Identification of all doctoral programs, offered by the program, by degree and area of specialization.
b. Data on the number of active students in each doctoral degree program, as well as applications,
   acceptances, enrollments and graduates for the last 3 years.
c. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

2.9.a. Doctoral degree programs
This criterion is not applicable. Our unit of accreditation offers only the MPH and does not
include doctoral degrees.

2.9.b. Data on active students
Not applicable.

2.9.c. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
        This is not applicable. The University offers a PhD in Public Health with a concentration
in Social and Behavioral Health Sciences. A second concentration in Occupational and
Environmental Health Sciences has been approved by the CT Department of Higher Education.
At the present time, however, the PhD degree in public health is not within the academic unit
under CEPH accreditation review. Administration, faculty and curriculum of the PhD degree are
distinct from those pertaining to the MPH program.

2.9.d. Future considerations regarding academic degrees.
       The program will work with the University and the Center to incorporate academic
(Doctoral level) public health degrees within a single organizational unit and assure all such
programs meet CEPH accreditation standards.




                                               75
Criterion 2.10 Joint Degrees. If the program offers joint degree programs, the required curriculum
for the professional public health degree shall be equivalent to that required for a separate public
health degree.

Required documentation:
a. Identification of joint degree programs offered by the program and description of the requirements
   for each.
b. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

2.10.a. Joint degree programs and descriptions of requirements
        Students studying in several other disciplines at UConn have the opportunity to combine
their study in those areas with a degree in public health. Interdisciplinary programs have been
developed with the Schools of Medicine, Law, Social Work and Nursing, as well as with the
UCHC medical residency and fellowship programs, particularly in Primary Care Internal
Medicine, and the Preventive Medicine Residency/Fellowship in Occupational/Environmental
Medicine. A formal program is also under development with the School of Dental Medicine
(there is1student in this program at present). In addition, on a more ad hoc basis, UConn
students have combined their study of public health with graduate study in business
administration, anthropology and nutritional sciences. Table 2.10.a.1 shows the number of
students who graduated between 2004 and 2007 in the various interdisciplinary programs.

Table 2.10.a.1 MPH Graduates of Interdisciplinary Education Programs, 2004-06
Program                                Graduates    Program                               Graduates
MD/MPH                                    14        Occ/Env Med Residency                     4
JD/MPH                                     1        Residency/Fellowship Training Program     4
MSW/MPH                                    1        Other (MBA/MPH, MS/MPH, PhD/MPH)          3
MS (Nursing)/MPH                           3

        MD/MPH. The largest interdisciplinary program is the MD/MPH. This interdisciplinary
program has been developed to prepare future physicians to deal more effectively and creatively
with the rapidly changing environment of medicine and health care. Medical students are
expected to complete a minimum of 36 credits with the MPH program. While all medical
students take nearly the identical curriculum during their first 3 years of medical school, they
must apply for advanced standing individually following the procedures required for all students
who seek a reduction in credit requirements. However, the two programs have developed a
template that clearly lays out the public health content in the first 3 years of the UConn medical
school curriculum (refer to Table 2.10.a.2 below). The year 2 medical school course, Health and
Human Development, closely mirrors Social and Behavioral Foundations of Public Health, an
MPH core course, and many of the same instructors teach in those courses. For this reason,
Social and Behavioral Foundations is waived for MD/MPH students, with the proviso that they
enroll in an elective in the same domain. MD/MPH students can also elect to waive Introduction
to Epidemiology and Biostatistics I and II, but are then required to take more advanced electives
in those 2 areas.
        In recognition of the relevance of public health coursework to the medical curriculum, the
medical school waives all its requirements for medical school phase-1 electives (16 credits), as
well as the phase-3 selectives requirement, for MD/MPH students. Many MD/MPH students
have used the selectives period to undertake thesis research abroad. While medical students have
the option of selecting the group practicum, most elect to do an individualized project at a site



                                              76
that relates to their medical school activities or at a public health agency, such as the CT DPH, a
local health department, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
         The interdisciplinary program in medicine/public health may be completed in 4 years due
to the elective/selective waivers, together with the evening and summer schedule of MPH
courses. However, the MD/MPH advisor and program administrators encourage a five-year
option because of the opportunity it affords to delve more fully into public health research and
other opportunities. To coordinate the program and ensure that students maintain appropriate
progress, Professor Judy Lewis serves as major advisor to the MD/MPH students, although later
in their study some may elect to change advisors depending on the topic of their capstone
project, which is a thesis.
         As with all of the interdisciplinary programs, candidates for the MD/MPH must meet the
admission requirements of both programs. Unlike the other interdisciplinary programs, however,
MD/MPH candidates are not reviewed unless they are accepted to the School of Medicine and
then their application process is streamlined. To initiate an application, they need only to submit
a personal letter of application that addresses the program’s admissions criteria along with a copy
of their letter of acceptance to the School of Medicine. At that point, the MPH program office
obtains a copy of their AMCAS file from the Medical Student Affairs Office and schedules a
review of the application. In some cases, an additional letter of support that addresses their
interest in public health is requested. They must be interviewed by the major advisor for the
MD/MPH program. If the applicant is recommended for admission to the MPH program, a
formal application is prepared by the program and submitted to the Graduate Admissions Office
for official acceptance. The application fee is waived.

Table 2.10.a.2 MD/MPH Advanced Standing Documentation
Course                                       Public/population health content areas
Human Systems (HS)                           YEAR 1: Population Genetics, Biostastistics
Correlated Medical Problem Solving (CMPS)    YEARS 1 & 2: Informatics: Problem analysis, identifying
                                             information sources, utilizing data bases and problem-solving
                                             Cases address genetic, metabolic and acquired diseases,
                                             examining pathogenesis, epidemiology, prevention and treatment
Principles of Clinical Medicine (PCM)        PCM YEARS 1 & 2; SCP YEARS 1-3: Communities and Health.
Student Continuity Practice (SCP)            Occupational Health, Health LiteracyHealth Promotion,
                                             Screening, Cross Cultural Skills, Health Disparities, Impact of
                                             Health Policy on Practice
Human Development & Health (HDH)             YEAR 2: Demographic trends, health status, and the new
                                             morbidities, Public health services, Culture, biology and
                                             environment: Fetal programming and starvation, Injury
                                             prevention, Disease prognosis and screening, Data sources for
                                             population health, Health services research in clinical
                                             epidemiology, Law, policy, pharmaceuticals. Law and health care
                                             policy, Multiple special topic sessions
Mechanisms of Disease (MOD)                  YEAR 2: Epidemiology is part of the introduction of diseases of
                                             all organ systems, examples of specific cancers, metabolism,
                                             immunological and reproductive disorders.
Multidiciplinary Ambulatory Experience (MAX) YEAR 3: Pediatrics, Family Medicine: Community Resources,
                                             Cross Cultural Skills, Informatics All Disciplines: Screening,
                                             Health promotion Homeweeks: Cross Cultural Skills, Informatics,
                                             Epidemiology, Population Health, Health Policy




                                                77
        JD/MPH. The interdisciplinary program in law/public health is designed for students
who wish to integrate study of the legal and healthcare systems and reduce by1year the time
required to obtain the 2 degrees. It recognizes that an understanding of the legal system is
increasingly important to health care administrators and policy planners, while policy planners
trained initially in law, and attorneys more generally, find a sound professional grasp of health
care systems and their administration is vital to their own work. Instructors include members of
UConn Health Center’s Division of Medical Humanities, Health Law, and Ethics in the
Department of Community Medicine and Health Care; other UConn Health Center faculty; joint
faculty of the UConn School of Law; and health attorneys and public health practitioners from
the greater Hartford area. Students enrolled in the interdisciplinary program must earn 86 credits
toward the law degree and 48 credits toward the MPH degree. However, they may accelerate by
applying 12 credits in relevant law courses to the MPH degree and 12 credits in public health law
and policy courses to the JD degree.
        The courses considered applicable enable the combined degree candidates to appreciate
and apply legal, ethical and policy concepts to their public health knowledge. The law school
coursework enriches the MPH curriculum and satisfies the following MPH and Public Health
Law competencies:
MPH program competencies
• Describe the legal and ethical basis for public health systems and services
• Identify the main components and issues of the organization, financing and delivery of health
    services and public health systems in the US.
• Identify basic social and behavioral theories, concepts and models about the causes,
    consequences and remedies for public health concerns
• Demonstrate leadership and team building in developing and advocating for effective policy
    and program change
• Apply evidence-based principles and scientific knowledge base to critical evaluation and
    decision-making in public health
• Use appropriate modalities, channels and technology effectively to communicate public
    health information to lay and professional audiences

       The courses below assist students in most areas of the eleven public health law
competencies:
   Administrative Law--specifically supplies tools to understand how health laws and
   regulations come into being and are interpreted by administrative agencies. Cases further
   define the administrative process. This knowledge can be applied to most of the work of a
   public health professional.
   Administrative Clerkship--Clinic with a health law focus; an externship that places the
   student in an administrative agency with a health law focus to have hands on experience in
   the administration of health law.
   Health Law Clinic--a “hands on” experience taught at UConn Health Center by MPH and
   School of Medicine faculty for law students that provide students with health care issues to
   resolve in a large academic health center.
   Disability Law Clinic--a health law clinic at the School of Law that enables students to work
   on the resolution of issues of disability.




                                            78
   Environmental Law--Gives students the legal tools to apply to issues of the environment that
   effect health including air and water pollution, and control of toxic substances and toxic
   waste.
   Family Law--enriches student’s ability to deal within the system to many of the social and
   behavioral family issues of our time including marriage, parents and children, and neglected
   and delinquent children
   Labor Law--deals with issues of employment including: discrimination, human rights , union
   organizing and collective bargaining protection of health care benefits, and the developing
   case law.
   Law and Medicine - Selective Topics--an independent study of selected health care and
   public health issues.
   Law and the Health Care Process--introduces students to basic concepts, regulatory systems
   and health care legal issues including health care access, public health, the organizing and
   financing of health care, quality of care, health care policy and reform
   Legal Responses to AIDS--discusses the many legal and ethical issues of AIDS and other
   contagious diseases
   Legal Rights of Persons with Disabilities--delineates the law and the issues that articulate
   rights of persons with disabilities and discusses advocacy issues
   Special Research Project with a health law focus--deals with a myriad of issues of student’s
   choice that enhance knowledge of the legal aspects of public health
   Taxation of Non-Profit Organizations--focuses on legal and ethical issues for non-profit
   organizations in the area of taxation.

        The law curriculum has recently been updated and one of the tasks of the MPH
curriculum committee over the next year will be to review the revised curriculum and determine
which specific courses contribute most to the program’s set of competencies and refine the list of
courses accepted toward meeting the curriculum requirements of the MPH program.
        Barbara Blechner, JD, MEd, Associate Professor of Community Medicine, School of
Medicine, and Susan Schmeiser, JD, PhD, Associate Professor, School of Law, are coordinators
of the JD/MPH program. Barbara Blechner and Zita Lazzarini, JD, MPH, Associate Professor of
Community Medicine, serve as major advisors to JD/MPH students in the field of public health.
As of early 2007, Audrey Chapman, PhD, MDiv, STM, Professor and UConn Health Center
Auxiliary/Joseph M. Healey, Jr. Chair in Medical Humanities and Bioethics, has been appointed
to the faculty in the field of public health and is now available to advise both MPH and JD/MPH
students.
        Candidates for the JD/MPH degree must meet the admission requirements of both the
UConn School of Law and the MPH Program, but may opt to spend one year in either program
before matriculating in the second program. Candidates admitted to both schools in the same
year will ordinarily spend their first year at the School of Law, while students in their first year
of the MPH program may reverse this procedure if they are admitted to the School of Law for the
following year. After the first year of law school, JD/MPH students ordinarily spend the next
year as full-time students of public health. During the third and fourth years, the students will
divide their time between the law and public health programs depending on their preferences and
the scheduling of desired courses.
        MSW/MPH. The interdisciplinary program in social work/public health is a
collaborative effort between the UConn School of Social Work and the MPH Program that




                                             79
affords students the opportunity to earn the MSW and MPH degrees concurrently. The program
offers students interdisciplinary preparation in the fields of both public health and social work.
Students in the interdisciplinary program are expected to complete a minimum of 36 credits in
public health and a minimum of 48 credits in social work. The amount of credits earned in one
program (e.g., the MPH) that can be applied to the other degree (e.g., the MSW) is somewhat
dependent on the student's concentration in the School of Social Work, as certain methods
(Administration, Community Organization, Policy Practice) have more courses relevant to public
health than do the other methods (Casework and Group Work). In addition, certain social work
electives are more relevant to public health as well. In any event, those social work courses that
the student wants included in the MPH program must be pre-approved by the MPH program.
Similarly, those public health courses that the student wants included in the MSW program must
be pre-approved by the MSW program.
        All requirements for the MSW/MPH may be completed in 3-4 years due to the
elective/selective waivers, together with the evening and summer schedule of MPH courses.
Because the social work program requires 2 semesters of field placements, the MPH group
practicum is waived for MSW/MPH students. The second social work placement, however, must
include content of relevance to public health. Brenda Kurz, PhD, MSW, MSPH, Associate
Professor of Social Work, and Joan Segal, MA, MS, Assistant Professor of Community
Medicine and Associate program director, coordinate the MSW/MPH program. Candidates must
meet the admission requirements of both the School of Social Work and the MPH Program.
Application to the MPH program must be made by the end of the first year of the MSW program.
Although the student must be accepted separately by each of the 2 programs, only1Graduate
School application is required for the interdisciplinary program.
        MSN/MPH. UConn offers nursing students the opportunity to earn the MPH degree
concurrently with the Master of Science in Nursing degree. The interdisciplinary nursing/public
health program has been developed to prepare future nurses to deal more effectively and
creatively with the rapidly changing environment of medicine and health care. It is possible to
complete the degree requirements for both programs with a total of 63 credits. The nursing
portion of the dual program requires a minimum of 27 credits; the public health program requires
a minimum of 36 credits. This total credit requirement represents a reduction of up to12 credits
in each program for enrollment in applicable coursework in the other program. The MPH
program accepts as an 11-credit elective concentration community health nursing coursework
(Enhancing Wellness, Risk Reduction, and Health Maintenance). The remaining credit can be
earned through a 1-credit course in administration or health care financing, a research internship,
or an applicable independent study.
        Candidates must apply to and meet the admission requirements of both the UConn
School of Nursing and the MPH Program. Although the student must be accepted separately by
each of the two programs, only one Graduate School application is required.
        Residency in Occupational and Environmental Medicine/Preventive Medicine The
UConn Occupational/Environmental Medicine Residency Training Program was established in
response to recognized national needs for training in the field of worker health, as well as in the
broader area of environmental effects on the health of the population. The program seeks not
only to train physicians for practice within government, labor, corporate, and research
communities, but also to enhance training and expertise in population medicine and public health
at UConn Health Center, the University, and the state. The focus of the residency program is on
investigative skills, both clinical and population-based, that assist in evaluating cases of work- or




                                             80
environmentally-related illness and their underlying causes, while placing a premium on the
development of preventive measures that control and reduce new disease. For example,
residents have taken the lead on investigations of large lung disease outbreaks occurring in such
diverse places as a metal machining plant and a large state office building. Following the events
of September 2001, residents have become involved in the development and promotion of
training modules targeted to recognition of potential terrorist use of biological, chemical, and
radiation hazards, and have provided guidance in the public health response.
         The two-year program is certified by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical
Education (ACGME) and meets all requirements of the American Board of Preventive Medicine
for certification in Occupational Medicine. The residency is accredited for 2 positions per year
(two in the academic phase of their training and 2 in the practicum phase), for a possible total of
4 occupational medicine residents. Funding for the residency has been in part provided by the
Training Program Grants of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
The residency has reached maturity in the last several years, with graduation of 9 residents from
2001-06, during a period when many occupational medicine residency programs have closed for
lack of funding or trainees.
         Residents spend their academic year primarily in the MPH program during which time an
MPH curriculum relevant to the needs of the resident trainees is offered. In addition to the
required core courses, electives are offered and strongly encouraged in the following areas:
Occupational Health, Industrial Hygiene, Occupational/Environmental Diseases,
Occupational/Environmental Epidemiology, and Introductory Ergonomics.
         During the practicum year, residents are engaged in a variety of outside projects,
including rotations at the Connecticut DPH, Pratt & Whitney Corporation, and the Travelers'
Insurance Corp. The schedule provides the flexibility to meet individual needs in clinical, public
health, and research training. The preventive medicine residents earn 36 credits in the MPH
program. Part of the practicum year is spent on a specific public health applied practice project,
with additional time spent on public health practice activities and independent study projects as
needed to assure the equivalent of 48 credits is earned.
         Combined Residency/Fellowship/MPH Training Program. A combined MPH/residency
matching fund incentive program was established in 1993 with its principal mission to assist in
the recruitment of high quality, highly motivated applicants, especially to the primary care
training programs (Primary Care Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, and Family Medicine), of UConn
Health Center. Application to the MPH program is made through the Graduate Admissions
Office, with the final decision regarding entry into the program determined by the MPH
Admissions Committee. A letter of support from the Residency Director is an important piece of
the applicant file. Up to 4 residents per year, primarily from, but not limited to, the above
programs, are available for funding according to the following formula: Dean’s Office, School
of Medicine (40% of the in-state rate), Clinical department sponsoring resident (40% of the in-
state rate), MPH Program contribution (10% of the in-state rate), and Resident responsibility
(10% of the in-state rate, plus the difference between in-state and out-of-state rates, if
applicable).
         New residents are admitted to the program during the second semester of each academic
year, thus allowing the Residency Director the time to assess the resident’s clinical performance
before supporting admission to the MPH program. A letter of approval by the resident’s
program director along with a funding authorization form, with original signatures, is submitted
by the resident prior to the start of each semester. A program director may require a resident’s




                                            81
withdrawal from the MPH program if an individual’s performance as a resident is unsatisfactory.
Residents/Fellows earn a minimum of 36 credits in the MPH program, depending upon the
amount of relevant coursework documented on the advanced standing application.

2.10.b. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 4: Offer continuing and interdisciplinary education opportunities
Performance Target:      Interdisciplinary degree options are available to students.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                                2005-06                               2006-07
Options to combine the MPH with        Options to combine the MPH with       Options to combine the MPH with
the MD, DMD, MSW, JD and MSN           the MD, DMD, MSW, JD and MSN          the MD, DMD, MSW, JD and MSN
are available. 12 students completed   are available. 7 students completed   are available. 11 students completed
interdisciplinary degrees.             interdisciplinary degrees.            interdisciplinary degrees.



We believe Criterion 2.10 is met.
• We offer interdisciplinary opportunities in medicine, law, social work, and nursing, as well
  as programs for medical residents and fellows.
• On an ad hoc basis, students can engage in interdisciplinary study in public health and
  business administration, anthropology, nutritional sciences and other applicable fields of
  study
• Interdisciplinary students earn a total of 48 credits, including a minimum of 36 credits in
  public health and the remaining credits in public health-relevant courses taken in the other
  program.
• Medical residents and fellows earn a minimum of 36 credits in the MPH program, depending
  on the amount of advanced standing for which they qualify.

2.10.c. Future Considerations regarding interdisciplinary education programs
        The MPH program will continue with the development of interdisciplinary opportunities
in dental medicine and business administration, and will continue to work with the Schools of
Medicine, Law, Social Work and Nursing to design a more detailed outline of the
interdisciplinary curriculum and to develop new brochures. The program and the Center will
work to clearly articulate their respective roles and responsibilities delivering interdisciplinary
education programs in accordance with CEPH expectations.
        The Center is developing a new residence training program in Preventive Medicine that will
engage more residents in primary care clinical training programs (e.g., Internal Medicine, Family
Medicine, Pediatrics) in the MPH program and will provide a practicum year for specific training in
preventive medicine.




                                                   82
Criterion 2.11 Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs.

Required documentation:
a. Identification of all degree programs that are offered in a format other than regular, on-site courses.
b. Description of the distance education or executive degree programs.
c. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

2.11.a. Degree programs in a format other than regular, on-site courses
This Criterion is not applicable. Our program does not offer distance education or executive
degree options.

2.11.b. Distance education or executive degree programs
Not applicable.

2.11.c. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
Not applicable.

2.11.d. Future considerations regarding distance education degrees
        The program will work with the University and the Center to assess the appropriateness
and feasibility of incorporating distance education and/or executive degree options within its
organizational unit, with an eye toward assuring such programs would meet CEPH accreditation
standards.




                                                83
Criterion 3.1 Research. The program shall pursue an active research program, consistent with its
mission, through which its faculty and students contribute to the knowledge base of the public health
disciplines, including research directed at improving the practice of public health.

Required documentation:
a. A description of the program’s research activities, including policies, procedures and practices that
    support research and scholarly activities.
b. A description of current community-based research activities and/or those undertaken in
    collaboration with health agencies and community-based organizations.
c. A list of current research activity of all primary and secondary faculty including the amount and
    source of funds for each of the last 3 years.
d. Identification of measures by which the program may evaluate the success of its research activities,
    along with data regarding the program’s performance against those measures for each of the last 3
    years.
e. A description of student involvement in research.
f.. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

3.1.a. Description of the program’s research activities
        Our program is not explicitly structured to conduct research within its organizational
structure. Research at UConn is organized around departments and University Centers.
Nonetheless, our program benefits from operating in a research-rich environment. Among the
resources available to investigators (and MPH program faculty leading these initiatives) are:
• Institute for Public Health Research (R. Aseltine, Director) was established in 2005 as part of
    the CPHHP with the intention of providing methodological and statistical support for public
    health and applied health research on a contract basis.
• Connecticut Health Information Network (R. Aseltine, Director) promotes the availability of
    integrated health information across state agency databases and is also part of the CPHHP.
• The Ethel Donaghue Center for Translating Research into Practice and Policy, a UCHC
    center, (J Fifield, Director) facilitates health services and translational (T2) research.
• Alcohol Research Center (ARC), located in the Department of Psychiatry at UCHC, focuses
    on the etiology and treatment of alcoholism and other psychoactive substances, pathological
    gambling, and HIV/AIDS.
• Center for Eliminating Health Disparities among Latinos (R. Perez-Escamilla, Director),
    located in the Department of Nutritional Science at UConn, promotes scientific exchange on
    health disparities
• Center for Health/HIV Intervention and Prevention (CHIP), UConn’s first University
    Research Center, studies the dynamics of health risk behavior and processes of health
    behavior change.
• A.J. Pappanikou Center of Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, a University Center,
    (M. Bruder, Director) offers teaching, research, community service and assistance for people
    with disabilities and their families.

       Our research program is based at the UCHC campus in Farmington, CT, the site of the
School of Medicine and its associated clinical and research facilities (including a 232-bed
general hospital and numerous outpatient clinics). The UCHC is Connecticut’s only publicly
supported academic health center. Its primary mission is “education at the undergraduate,




                                               84
graduate, and professional level for practitioners, teachers, and researchers conducted in an
environment of exemplary patient care, research and public service”.
        The primary faculty are extensively and appropriately engaged in public health research
of relevance to our curriculum and student interests. Eleven of the twelve primary faculty hold
appointments in the Department of Community Medicine, which has sustained research on
substance abuse, chronic disease epidemiology and control, health law and policy, behavioral
science and community health (The 2005-06 Department Annual Report is available upon
request and in our on-site self-study resource file). As a group, our primary faculty have a
substantial record attracting extramural funding, publishing in highly selective journals, serving
on study section and as reviewers and contributing to definition of national and global research
agenda.

3.1.b. Description of current community-based research activities and/or those
undertaken in collaboration with health agencies and community-based organizations.
        Our program faculty participates in a range of community-based research projects,
domestically and globally. These initiatives draw heavily on collaboration with public health
practitioners and serve both a source of information and as mechanisms to empower
communities to work collectively to address their unique health issues. A few examples of the
range of community-based projects by program faculty include:

Table 3.1.b.1 Examples of Community-based Research by Program Faculty, 2006

Title                                   P.I.            Objective
DELPHI Evaluation of Alcohol            T Babor         Develop methodological tools to protect
Advertising Codes                                       vulnerable populations and enhance ability
                                                        of regulatory agencies to monitor alcoholic
                                                        beverage advertising
Evaluation of CT Underage Tobacco       J Burleson      Analysis of inspections by CT DMHAS tobacco
Purchase Field Study                                    compliance officers
Training programs for the Public        D Gregorio      Initiate and evaluate a learning rotation for MPH
Health Workforce                                        students at state and local health departments
Fetal & Infant Mortality Surveillance   D Gregorio      Design statewide surveillance system

Male Sexual Concerns in Prevention      S Schensul      Using a male health clinic and training health
of HIV/STDs                                             professionals to reduce men’s risk of HIV/STD
The Hartford Youth Project              J Ungemack      Enhancing substance abuse treatment system for
                                                        Hartford youth by provider training and
                                                        community-based outreach
CT Screening and Brief Intervention     J Ungemack      Evaluating alcohol services in hospital emergency
Program                                                 departments and FQHCs in New Haven, CT
Connecticut SMART Moves                 J Ungemack      Expand culturally appropriate drug prevention and
                                                        interventions for users of ecstasy and other club
                                                        drugs

3.1.c. Current research activity of all primary and secondary faculty
       During the years 2004-05 through 2006-07, total research dollars from extramural
sources reported in individual faculty CVs averaged $2.3M per year for primary faculty and
$7.3M for secondary faculty (See Appendix 3.1.c.1 for Research Activity of Primary Faculty and
Appendix 3.1.c.2 for Research Activity of Secondary Faculty) For some time, faculty have
supported almost 50% of their salary from extramural funding sources. The average per capita




                                               85
research funding during this period was $266,000 per year. Among the program’s primary
faculty, 57% of extramural funding was received from NIH, CDC and SAMHSA and 4% from
other federal sources. Connecticut State funding constituted 37% of extramural awards by
primary faculty. Significant funding was received for projects addressing occupational health
(Meyer), substance abuse (Ungemack) and HIV (Schensul). Federal awards to secondary faculty
(NIH and other federal sources) constituted 87% of their extramural funding. Significant
extramural funding by secondary faculty was in the areas of mental health screening (Azeltine),
substance abuse screening & treatment (Babor), developmental disabilities service systems
(Bruder), occupational health (Cherniak and Warren) and health disparities (Perez-Escamilla).
The distribution of awards over the preceding 3 years is summarized on the following page.
        For the years 2004-05 through 2006-07, our program’s primary faculty published 57 peer
reviewed manuscripts, along with several book chapters and numerous presentations. Of these,
24 citations pertained to cancer epidemiology and control, 11 to occupational health and 7 to
methods development.

Table 3.1.c.1 Number of Extramural Grant/contract Awards and Amounts (in $1,000) by
              Program Faculty.

Source                                   2004-05                2005-06               2006-07
Primary faculty
    National Institutes of Health   6         1,235        8         1,523       6         1,229
    Other Federal Agencies          2            83        2            83       3            79
    State of Connecticut            6           587        9           895       10        1,108
    Foundations/Other               1            23        3            50       4            81
    Primary faculty total           15        1,928        22        2,551       23        2,497
Secondary faculty
    National Institutes of Health   10        1,983        10        3,603       9         3,627
    Other Federal Agencies          11        3,554        13        4,358        7        1,983
    State of Connecticut             5          777         6          520        6          444
    Foundations/Other                8          369         9          417       8           347
    Secondary faculty total         34        6,683        38        8,898       30        6,401
Overall faculty total               49        8,611        60       11,449       53        8,898

3.1.d. Identification of measures by which the program evaluates success of its research
        activities
        Faculty performance is evaluated annually by Department Heads who assess the extent
and quality of teaching, research and service. Expectations set at the beginning of each year are
the basis for assessments. Individuals are characterized as “having exceeded expectations’,
“having met expectations” or “having failed to meet expectations”. Program faculty routinely
receive ratings of having met or exceeded expectations. During the period 2003-06, 35.2% of
the performance ratings of the MPH program’s primary faculty by the Department Chair and the
UCHC Academic Performance Review Committee resulted in assessments that individuals
“exceeded performance expectations” during the previous year.
        Research accomplishments of program faculty further demonstrated by the contributions
program faculty make as members of peer-reviewed journal editorial boards, participants on
federal and other national research review panels, and as contributors to national research and
service advisory panels (see Appendix 3.2.b.1 for Selected Primary Faculty Contributions to
Service and the on-site resource file for Selected Secondary Faculty Contributions to Service).




                                             86
        A number of program faculty have earned national and international honors for their
research including Thomas Babor, (1st prize, British Medical Association for his book Alcohol:
No Ordinary Commodity, and the NIDA Distinguished International Scientist Collaboration
Award); Howard Tennen (designated as Distinguished Professor by UConn and recipient of the
Clifford Clake Science Award by the National Arthritis Foundation); and Tim Morse (recipient
of the Irving Selikoff Award for Professional Excellence by the CT Council for Occupational
Safety and Health).

3.1.e. Student involvement in research
       Research is an important part of every student’s course of study. Students, particularly
those engaged in full-time study, frequently participate in research projects of their major
advisors. The capstone project affords all students opportunity to engage in basic and applied
research. Projects may be initiated by students or developed collaboratively with faculty and/or
community-based advisors.

Table 3.1.e.1 Examples of Student Involvement in MPH Faculty Research.

Name                     Topic                                                                Faculty
Shahana Abdullah         Risk analysis preventative health care                               Gould (UCHC) *
Beasha Bartlette         Fetal & infant mortality surveillance                                Gregorio
Jessica Brockmeyer       Racial differences in HER2 expression in breast cancer               Swede, Gregorio
Celeste Cremin-Endes     Post-traumatic illness in international health                       Kurz
Nitza Diaz               Substance abuse services                                             Ungemack
Jeff Dussetshleger       Occupational injury surveillance                                     Morse
Ross Friedberg           Criminalizing sexual behavior with HIV+ status                       Lazzarini
Paul Gacek               Genetic and psychosocial predictors of college student alcohol use   Tennen
Alex Hajduk              HIV epidemiology in poor urban slums in India                        Schensul
Theresa Matos            Positive social development, religiosity & African Americans         Mattis (NYU)*
Lauren Mentasi           Dental school recruitment of under-represented minorities            Thibedeau
Amanda Merz              Early intervention for children with developmental disabilities      Bruder
Jonathan Noel            Giving brief interventions for drug abuse using WHO ASSIST           Babor
Alyssa Norwood           HIV-specific criminal law in US, Britain and Australia               Lazzarini
Katie Perham             Spatial deprivation in Connecticut                                   Gregorio
Jennifer Scott           Fetal & infant mortality surveillance                                Gregorio
Lynn Truesdale           Colon cancer prevention                                              Stevens
*Not MPH faculty

3.1.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertinent to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 7: Identify and retain qualified faculty
Performance Target:      25% of primary faculty will be recognized for exemplary contributions
                         to the field.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                              2005-06                                 2006-07
50% of primary faculty were          50% of primary faculty were             50% of primary faculty were
recognized for exemplary             recognized for exemplary                recognized for exemplary
contributions to the field.          contributions to the field.             contributions to the field.
                                                                             .




                                                  87
Research Objective 1:         Prepare students to design, undertake and disseminate relevant public
                              health research
Performance Target:           All primary faculty author peer-reviewed manuscripts and
                              presentations.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                              2005-06                              2006-07
75 % of primary faculty authored     75 % of primary faculty authored     75 % of primary faculty authored
peer-reviewed manuscripts and        peer-reviewed manuscripts and        peer-reviewed manuscripts and
presentations.                       presentations.                       presentations.

Research Objective 1:         Prepare students to design, undertake and disseminate relevant public
                              health research
Performance Target:           All primary faculty have active extramural funding for research.
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                              2005-06                              2006-07
67% of primary faculty have active   67% of primary faculty have active   75% of primary faculty have active
extramural funding for research.     extramural funding for research.     extramural funding for research.

Research Objective 1:         Prepare students to design, undertake and disseminate relevant public
                              health research
Performance Target:           40% of primary faculty engage students in their research.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                              2005-06                              2006-07
58% of primary faculty engaged       67% of primary faculty engaged       58% of primary faculty engaged
students in their research           students in their research           students in their research




We believe Criterion 3.1.f is met.
• UCHC offers a rich environment for research and maintains expectations that its faculty
  engage in productive research that complements their teaching and service activities
• 75% of the program’s faculty maintain ongoing extramurally funded research. However,
  several members of the primary faculty are without ongoing research programs.
• More than 25% of the program’s faculty hold national research positions on editorial boards,
  review panels and advisory committees.
• Community-based research is conducted by more than 50% of the program’s primary faculty
• Students have opportunity to participate in faculty research

3.1.g. Future considerations regarding public health research
        The program will work with Department Heads and Center Directors to support research
programs by our faculty and solidify links between research and teaching initiatives. We also
will work through our Community Partnership Subcommittee to expand opportunities for faculty
and staff to undertake community-based research. Particular attention will be given to
encouraging all faculty to engage in sustainable public health research. We will work with
University administration to identify additional resources to support students interested in
research training. Our admissions committee will review admissions criteria and procedures to




                                                 88
assure students with appropriate background and interests in public health research are
committed to completing the MPH degree.




                                            89
Criterion 3.2 Service. The program shall pursue active service activities, consistent with its mission,
through which faculty and students contribute to the advancement of public health practice.

Required documentation:
a. A description of the program’s service activities, including policies, procedures and practices that
   support service.
b. A list of the program’s current service activity, including identification of the community groups and
   nature of the activity over the last 3 years.
c. Identification of measures by which the program may evaluate the success of its service efforts, along
   with data regarding the program’s performance against those measures for each of the last 3 years.
d. A description of student involvement in service.
e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

3.2.a. Description of the program’s service activities
        The program’s orientation to service reflects the composition of the student body, our
faculty and our status as a Land Grant University. Most students and many full-time faculty, like
our community-based colleagues, are practicing public health professionals. Expectations
regarding service are built around our educational mission. Student projects, including the
practicum and other independent field work projects, are responsive to community needs.
Program administrators and faculty have set examples through regular interaction with State and
local public health agencies. Similarly, our effort to give voice to community-based partners in
matters of program governance is meant to reinforce the importance of collaborative campus-
community partnerships.
        Service activities can be organized as those pertaining to collaborative work by program
faculty and staff with public health agencies and student-focused service-learning activities.
Program faculty, for example, are actively working with colleagues at the CT DPH, and CT
Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and Department of Social Services. There
also are numerous collaborations between faculty and members of the CT Association of
Directors of Health, local health departments/districts and organizations such as Qualdigm,
American Cancer Society, etc.).
        Practicum projects, independent service-learning opportunities and capstone projects
allow students direct and significant involvement in public health issues confronting state
residents. Examples of student service learning activities are listed in Appendix 3.2.a.1.
Students often originate these projects as a reflection of their special interests and background;
others are announced through the program’s newsletter. Through various MOAs (e.g., Hartford
Health Department, CT DPH, etc.) students are assured of ongoing opportunities to apply skills.

3.2.b. Description of current community-based service activities, community groups and
        nature of activities undertaken
        The program has and will continue to establish formal linkages (through MOAs) with
various state agencies that will enhance its service function. Such relationships are essential for
student access to practicum, research and internship experiences; for fostering practitioner
participation in course instruction, lectures and independent studies; and for career mentoring
and employment opportunities for students and graduates.
        MPH Program faculty engage in a wide range of service activities ranging from
committee, board and advisory panel memberships to reviewing journals. Within the MPH
faculty, there are 2 Former CPHA Presidents (Charles Huntington III, Judy Lewis) and the




                                               90
current President Elect (Joan Segal), President of the Association of Occupational and
Environmental Clinics (John Meyer), Chair of the Occupational Medicine and Environmental
Residency Directors Association within the American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine (John Meyer), Co-chair of the CT Council for Occupational Safety and
Health (Tim Morse), Chair of the Community Nutrition and Public Health Research Interest
Section within the American Society for Nutritional Sciences (Rafael Perez-Escamilla), and the
Co-chair for the Services Sector Council of NORA and NIOSH (Eileen Storey), and a Member
of the National Board of Public Health Examiners, Inc and Member of the Council on Linkages
(David Gregorio). Appendix 3.2.b.1 includes a list of primary faculty contributions to service for
each of the last 3 years. (Secondary faculty contributions to service are available upon request
and in our on-site self-study resource file).

3.2.c. Identification of measures by which the program evaluates success of its service
        efforts
        The program evaluates success of student-focused service through grading requirements,
preceptor feedback and student self-assessments. At the conclusion of a service requirement,
preceptors and/or advisors complete an assessment of the student’s performance before a
‘satisfactory’ grade is entered on the student’s transcript.
        Service activities outside the curriculum (i.e. volunteer work) by students is supported,
but not evaluated by the program. Information about potential service activities is distributed
through our newsletter, as are highlights of student accomplishments. A summary of student
service activities is maintained through periodic student and alumni surveys.
        Faculty service is acknowledged within the annual merit/performance review that is
completed within departments where individuals maintain their primary academic appointment.
Performance also is acknowledged by honors, awards and appointments that individuals receive
in recognition of their performance. Examples of recent recognitions include:

Name                  Recognition
Tim Morse             CPHA “Distinguished Service Award.”
Jane Ungemack         State of Connecticut Public Service Award
Eileen Storey         Secretary of the State of Connecticut Public Service Award
Barbara Blechner      Certificate of Appreciation for Service and Dedication with the UConn School of
                      Medicine
Tom Van Hoof          Pinnacle Award for Excellence in Teamwork, Qualidigm
                      Innovation Prize on behalf of Qualidigm, Silver Level, Connecticut Quality
                      Improvement Award Partnership (state-level Malcolm Baldrige Award)
Joan Segal            CT Public Health Association Charles-Edward Amory Winslow Award

        More than one-half of our primary faculty hold seats on editorial boards of peer-reviewed
journals, an equivalent proportion regularly serve as reviewers of research protocols for federal
(e.g., NCI) and not-for profit (e.g., ACS) programs, and several individuals participate on
national and international public health committees and boards.

3.2.d. Student involvement in service
        Much of the students’ service activities occurs in the form of the practicum, which all
students are required to complete (see section 2.4). In instances when students may not be ready
for the practicum or culminating experience, they sometimes pursue an internship or Independent




                                               91
Study project to gain practical experience and specific competencies, while at the same time
meeting the needs of a particular agency.
         Beyond the practicum and internships, some students are actively involved in service
activities on a local, state, and international level. Many of our students have done advocacy
work with various organizations including: the American Academy of Pediatrics, CT Childrens
Medical Center and CPHA. Two of our students are vigorously involved in the Nutmeg Big
Brothers and Big Sisters Foundation of Harford, CT, a community-based program, whose
mission is to “improve the lives of young people and enable them to become productive
responsible adults by creating one-to-one mentoring relationships between at-risk children and
qualified adult mentor volunteers.” Matthew Cook, an advanced student in the program, has
been considerably active in substance abuse prevention efforts including sitting on the Executive
Committee and Leadership Council of the Connecticut Coalition to Stop Underage Drinking. As
a result of Mr. Cook’s hard work and dedication, he received the Community Volunteer Award
for 2006 from the Capital Area Substance Abuse Council, The Connecticut Coalition to Stop
Underage Drinking Outstanding Volunteer Award for 2006, and a recognition award from the
Governor’s Prevention Partnership for outstanding dedication efforts to assure passage of An Act
Concerning Underage Drinking. Our students are also active on an international public health
level, i.e. Chair of the Board for the Sekolo Foundation, an organization that conducts AIDS
prevention and intervention services in Nambia, Africa and a member of CURE International, an
association to build childrens’ hospitals in developing countries. See Appendix 3.2.d.1 for a list
of selected current student service activities.

3.2.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 7: Identify and retain qualified faculty
Performance Target:      25% of primary faculty will be recognized for exemplary contributions
                         to the field.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                          2005-06                          2006-07
50% of primary faculty were      50% of primary faculty were      50% of primary faculty were
recognized for exemplary         recognized for exemplary         recognized for exemplary
contributions to the field.      contributions to the field.      contributions to the field.
                                                                  .

Educational Objective 7: Offer course work and service-learning experiences focused on health
                         and well-being in Connecticut.
Performance Target:      All students are engaged in 1 or more service-learning projects.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                          2005-06                          2006-07
100% of graduates completed a    100% of graduates completed a    100% of graduates completed a
required practicum.              required practicum.              required practicum.

We believe Criterion 3.2 is met.
• Our faculty are actively engaged in professional and community service activities that have
  direct bearing on their teaching and research programs. More than 25% of our primary
  faculty are routinely recognized for exemplary service-related contributions to the field.




                                             92
•   All MPH students complete a service-learning (practicum) requirement and opportunities for
    additional service-learning are in place.
•   Students are engaged in numerous service activities directly relating to their MPH education.

3.2.g. Future considerations regarding service.
        The program will work through our Community Partnership subcommittee to identify
additional opportunities for faculty and students to engage in professional and community
service and to highlight those accomplishments.




                                            93
Criterion 3.3 Workforce Development. The program shall engage in activities that support the
professional development of the public health workforce.

Required documentation:
a. A description of the program’s continuing education activities, including policies, procedures and
    practices that support continuing education and workforce development strategies.
b. Describe certificate programs or other non-degree offerings of the program, including enrollment
    data for each of the last 3 years.
c.. A list of the continuing education programs offered by the program, including number of students
    served, for each of the last 3 years.
d. A list of other educational institutions or public health practice organizations, if any, with which the
    program collaborates to offer continuing education.
e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

3.3.a. Description of the program’s continuing education activities
        Apart from a non-degree study option and sporadic workshops for the public health
workforce, the program’s continuing education activities were limited prior to 2002. In recent
years, our efforts have expanded significantly as we see our continuing education activities to be
consistent with our program’s mission. Activities include curriculum offerings that accompany a
CT DPH initiative to recognize individuals completing coursework in core public health
disciplines, a tuition waiver for graduates with CEPH-accredited degrees who want additional
coursework, continuing education workshops and seminars to enhance skills among the public
health workforce and support of efforts by a local University to expand curriculum in public
health. With establishment of the Center in 2004, and administrative reorganization of the MPH
program within the Center 2 years later, the respective roles each plays in workforce
development continues to be defined.

3.3.b. Certificate and other non-degree offerings of the program
         CT DPH Certificate in Core Public Health Disciplines. The MPH program does not offer
a certificate. However, during the 2004-05 academic year a Memorandum of Agreement with
the CT DPH established expectations that we would offer enrollment (on a space available basis)
to non-degree students seeking to complete coursework endorsed by the Commissioner of Public
Health. The objective is to enhance training of CT DPH personnel. Individuals with bachelor’s
degrees are eligible to complete 5 of 6 courses: Principles of Epidemiology (required),
Introduction to Biostatistics (required), Health Administration, Environmental Health, Social and
Behavioral Foundations of Public Health, and Law and Public Health. A certificate of
recognition for Study of Core Public Health Competencies signed by the Commissioner of
Public Health is awarded upon successful completion (grade B or better) of the five courses. To
date, two students have completed the certificate program, one of whom is matriculating as a
degree student in fall 2007. Another five are actively pursuing the certificate in good standing
and 4 more will begin in fall 2007.
         Non-degree study program. The MPH program permits individuals with BA/BS degrees
to further their professional training through enrollment in non-degree graduate study. Persons
who later desire to matriculate can transfer 6 credits earned with a grade of ‘B’ or better as a
non-degree student. From 2004-05 through 2006-07, 242 non-degree enrollments in 3-credit
courses and 8 enrollments in 1-credit workshops occurred (see Table 3.3.b.1).




                                                 94
Table 3.3.b.1     Non-degree registration in MPH courses, 2004-06
Year and Semester                          3 credits        1 credit    Total
2004-05                                       82               2         84
2005-06                                       68               3         71
2006-07*                                      85                         85
Overall*                                     235               5        240
*Incomplete registration figure to date

        Tuition-free option for public health graduates. Beginning in the fall of 2006, persons
with CEPH-accredited degrees are permitted to enroll in 1 MPH course, tuition-free, per
academic year. This initiative is intended to further their professional training and bring public
health professionals into contact with our matriculating students. With proof of their eligibility,
individuals receive a tuition waiver from the program office and are responsible for course fees.
Because this is a new initiative, no formal evaluation has been completed. Since fall 2006, 9
persons have taken advantage of our offer. Anecdotally,1 person who participated gained
sufficient proficiency with SAS to be employed later by the CT DPH as an epidemiologist.
        Curriculum development. Community partners have long been vocal regarding a
considerable shortage of sanitarians and other public health workers within the state. With this
in mind, the MPH program leaders and colleagues at Eastern Connecticut State University
(ECSU) held discussions in 2005 and 2006 about options for encouraging undergraduate students
to consider graduate training in public health. ECSU educates a sizable number of minority and
first-generation college students whose enrollment in our program would be consistent with our
objective for greater diversity among students. Together, a proposal was submitted to the
Association of Prevention Teaching and Research (APTR) to support the development,
implementation and evaluation of an undergraduate course at ECSU on Principles of Public
Health. The initial course was offered during fall 2006 and repeated during spring 2007. An
undergraduate minor has been approved. MPH faculty will continue to be involved as guest
lecturers and as resources to ECSU faculty.

3.3.c. Continuing education programs offered by the program
        Through CDC/CT DPH funding earmarked for emergency preparedness training our
program began in 2002 to offer continuing education programs to the state’s public health
workforce. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between our program and the CT Partnership
for Workforce Development at Yale was initiated in 2002 to provide emergency preparedness
training. Two continuing education programs were offered: media training workshops and a
seminar series on legal and ethical issues in disaster preparedness and response. Media training
offered a one-on-one studio session in which participants had the opportunity to engage in a
mock interview. Sixty-four students (6 employed by CT DPH and 28 by local health
departments) attended workshops and 39% took part in an individualized studio training session.
Both the law seminar series and the media training workshops received highly favorable reviews.
        Since 2003, the CT DPH has developed MOAs with the program for training the public
workforce in CT through a variety of continuing education efforts: a 6-session bioterrorism
seminar series, a 5-topic continuing education program and a mini public health school for
training bioterrorism staff and other public health professionals in core public health skills.
Seminars addressed topics of “Strategic Issues in Bioterrorism Preparedness” (Donna Barbisch,
MPH, DHA, President of Global Deterrence Alternatives); “The Psychological Effects of
Bioterrorism” (Lt. Col. Ross H. Pastel, MSC, Chief of Education and Training, Operational
Medicine Division, US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease); “Biological



                                               95
Weapons: Threat and Defense” (Kenneth Alibek, MD, PhD, ScD, Executive Director of The
Center for Biodefense, George Mason University); “How to Operationalize Your Weapons of
Mass Disaster Plan” (Kent LaGasse, MD, PhD, Associate Professor, New York Institute of
Technology, NYCOM; Adjunct Faculty, National Center for Emergency Preparedness,
Vanderbilt Medical School and National Terrorism Preparedness Institute, St. Petersburg
College); “The Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: Impact on HIV Risk Behavior in
Lower Manhattan” (Patricia Case, MPH, ScD, Instructor in Social Medicine, Department of
Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School); and “Ricin and Botulinum Toxin as Biological
Weapons” (Anthony Carbone, MD, MS, MPH, Fellow, Harvard Center for Public Health
Preparedness). More than 200 persons attended these sessions. Seminars were taped, copied and
distributed to the CT DPH and UCHC library.
         Continuing education modules addressed “Organizing Volunteers for Emergency
Preparedness” (Jeannette Hodge, Director, Volunteer Services and Patient Relations, Yale New
Haven Hospital); “Stress Management: Behavioral Health Disaster Response” (Kathryn Dean,
LMSW, Administrator, Center for Trauma Response, Recovery and Preparedness, UCHC);
“Public Health Law and Bioterrorism” (Barbara Blechner, MEd, JD, UCHC); “Environmental
Bioterrorism Risks: Air, Food and Water” (Paul M. Schur, MPH, Director (retired), Division of
Environmental Health, DPH); and “Disease Outbreaks: Investigation and Surveillance”
(Ruthanne Marcus, MPH, Director, CT FoodNet/CT Emerging Infections Program, Yale
University School of Medicine). Total attendance for the modules was 241 participants.
         A 4-session mini public health school took place at CT DPH which covered topics of
“Epidemiology/Biostatistics” (David Gregorio, PhD, MS and Scott Wetstone, MD, UCHC);
“Assessment” (Karen Spargo, MPH, MA, Director of Health/Executive Director, Naugatuck
Valley Health District and Susan Nappi, MPH, Director of the Center of Excellence in Women’s
Health, Griffin Hospital); “Policy Development and Planning” (Christine Hager, JD, MPH,
Associate Director of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health); and
“Communication Skills” (James Walter, Associate Vice President of Communications, UCHC
and Maureen McGuire Scheinblum, MA, Clinical Marketing Manager, UCHC). Total
attendance for the mini public health school was 72 for all sessions combined.
         During 2004-05, continuing education efforts included a 4-session bioterrorism seminar
series, and the start of an annual Summer Institute for Public Health Practice and Preparedness.
Seminars focused on “SARS in the City: The Toronto Experience” (Bonnie Henry, MD, MPH,
FACPM, FRCPC, Associate Medical Officer of Health, Toronto Health Department);
“Bioterrorism: The Current Threat, Important Biological Agents and Medical Countermeasures”
(Robert Darling, MD, FACEP, Captain, Medical Corps, Flight Surgeon, United States Navy and
Senior Medical Advisor, Navy Medicine Office of Homeland Security); “Management of
Victims of a Mass Casualty Radiation Event” (Jamie Waselenko, MD, FACP, Armed Forces
Radiobiology Research Institute and Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland); and
“The Role of a Hospital-Based Center of Excellence for Bioterrorism in Statewide Disaster
Preparedness” (Lenworth Jacobs, MD, MPH, FACS, Chairman, EMS/Trauma Program/Lifestar/
Rehabilitation, Hartford Hospital). Total attendance for the 4 lectures was 148.
         The Summer Institute for Public Health Practice and Preparedness offers continuing
education opportunities with both non-credit/no charge (for public health professionals) and for-
credit/fee based options. Non-credit students register on TRAIN Connecticut, the learning
management system used by DPH to track training of the state’s public health workforce.
Courses taken/scheduled through the Summer Institute for continuing education purposes (non-




                                           96
credit, no fees) from 2004 through 2007 included Introduction to SPSS, Visual Presentation of
Public Health Data, Using Census Data, Understanding Air Quality, Cultural Competency,
Radiation Preparedness & Response, GIS for Emergency Preparedness, Legal Aspects of
Emergency Preparedness, International & Immigrant Health, Traumatic Stress Management,
Disability & Emergency Preparedness, Behavioral Health: Disaster Response and Recovery and
Introduction to ACCESS. A few matriculated students employed by DPH or local health
departments enrolled for credit and their numbers are not included in the registration numbers.

3.3.d. Other educational institutions or public health practice organizations with which
the program collaborates to offer continuing education
       As described in 3.3.c., the UConn MPH program partners with DPH in many of its
continuing education endeavors. The program has also partnered with the CT Partnership for
Workforce Development, based at Yale, and remains an academic member of that organization.
We also have collaborated with Eastern Connecticut State University (ECSU) in the
development of public health undergraduate courses at that institution.

3.3.e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertinent to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 7: Offer continuing and interdisciplinary education opportunities.
Performance Target:      Enrollment is offered to persons pursuing DPH certificate in core
                         public health knowledge
Annual Assessment:
                2004-05                                2005-06                                2006-07
To date, two students have             To date, two students have             To date, two students have
completed the certificate program,     completed the certificate program,     completed the certificate program,
one of whom matriculated as a          one of whom matriculated as a          one of whom matriculated as a
degree student in fall 2007. Another   degree student in fall 2007. Another   degree student in fall 2007. Another
five are actively pursuing the         five are actively pursuing the         five are actively pursuing the
certificate in good standing and 4     certificate in good standing and 4     certificate in good standing and 4
more will begin in fall 2007.          more will begin in fall 2007.          more will begin in fall 2007.


Educational Objective 7: Offer continuing and interdisciplinary education opportunities.
Performance Target:      Tuition waivers are available to non-degree to persons holding CEPH-
                         accredited degrees.
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                                2005-06                                 2006-07
                                                                              9 tuitions waivers were granted to
                                                                              students holding CEPH-accredited
N/A                                    N/A                                    degrees

Educational Objective 7: Offer continuing and interdisciplinary education opportunities.
Performance Target:      Enrollment is available to non-degree students
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                                2005-06                               2006-07
82 non-degree enrollments in 3         68 non-degree enrollments in 3
credits courses and 2 non-degree       credits courses and 3 non-degree       85 non-degree enrollments in 3
enrollments in 1 credit courses        enrollments in 1 credit courses        credits courses
Educational Objective 7: Offer continuing and interdisciplinary education opportunities.



                                                   97
Performance Target:             Tuition-free workshops offered to public workforce through a Summer
                                Institute in Public Health Practice & Preparedness
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                                 2005-06                                2006-07
                                                                               21 students enrolled in the tuition-
155 students enrolled in the tuition-   34 students enrolled in the tuition-   free workshops offered to the public
free workshops offered to the public    free workshops offered to the public   health workforce and 58 participated
health workforce.                       health workforce.                      in 2007.



We believe Criterion 3.3 is met.
• Our program plays a meaningful role in public health workforce development in Connecticut.
• Our program’s maintains a strong relationship to the State’s workforce, with 35 who work
  for the CT DPH, including several in leadership roles (e.g., the Commissioner of Public
  Health, the Chief of the Local Health Administration Branch, the Epidemiology Program
  Coordinator). Almost one-third of the 50 full-time health departments and districts in the
  state have UConn MPH alumni as directors. Other alumni hold leadership positions within
  these departments . The Executive Director, President, and Immediate Past President of the
  CADH are alumni of our program. The President, President Elect and several board
  members of the CPHA are also alumni of the program. Alumni play leadership roles in
  community-based agencies and for-profit entities in the state and beyond.
• Our efforts to offer continuing education to the public health workforce and MPH graduates
  are well received.

3.3.f. Future Considerations
        The program will work on enhancing its system for tracking the leadership roles played
by UConn alumni in the public health workforce not only in Connecticut but elsewhere. The
program needs to expend greater effort in publicizing the opportunities for continuing education
offered through the program. The program and the Center will continue to work to clearly
articulate their roles and responsibilities in workforce development in accordance with CEPH
expectations.




                                                    98
Criterion 4.1 Faculty Qualifications. The program shall have a clearly defined faculty which, by
virtue of its distribution, multidisciplinary nature, educational preparation, research and teaching
competence, and practice experience, is able to fully support the program’s mission, goals and
objectives.

Required documentation:
a. A table showing primary faculty who support the degree programs offered by the program.
b. Summary data on the qualifications of adjunct, part-time and secondary faculty.
c.. Description of the manner in which the faculty complement integrates perspectives from the field of
    practice, including information on appointment tracks for practitioners, if used by the program..
d. Identification of outcome measures by which the program may judge the qualifications of its faculty
    complement, along with data regarding the performance of the program against those measures for
    each of the last 3 years.
e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

4.1.a. Primary faculty who support the degree programs
        The Department of Community Medicine is the academic home for 11 of our 12 primary
faculty. Secondary faculty are drawn from departments across the Heath Center (e.g., Medicine,
Pediatrics), and to a lesser degree from across the University (Anthropology, Business). Faculty
of the program are designated by the Graduate School.
        At the present time, primary faculty are in place to address content in epidemiology,
biostatistics, occupational health, social and behavioral sciences and law/policy. The program
relies heavily on secondary faculty and/or adjuncts to address curriculum pertaining to health
systems administration.
        Tenure is held by 5 individuals, 1 is on the tenure track stream, and 6 individuals hold
non-tenured track appointments. There are 3 individuals holding the rank of Professor, 5 who
hold the rank of Associate Professor and 4 who are Assistant Professors. Six individuals hold
PhDs, 2 have MDs, 1 a DrPH, 1 a JD and 2 have Masters degrees. Public health degrees held by
primary faculty include 3 PhDs (Epidemiology, Biostatistics), 1 DrPH, 2 MPH, 1 MS
(Epidemiology) and 1 MS (Community Health). Current and past public health practice activities
of our primary faculty is listed in Appendix 3.2.b.1. Seven of 12 primary faculty are males, all
are white.

Table 4.1.a.1 Characteristics of MPH Program Primary Faculty.
                                    Gender
                                             Race




              Degree, Discipline                                Tenure    Teaching
Name          (Institution, year)                   Rank        Status    Area            Research Interests
              PhD, Sociology
              (Buffalo, 1980) MS,                                                         Chronic disease
Gregorio,     Epidemiology                     Associate                  Social          surveillance, health
David         (Buffalo, 1983)     M          W Professor        Tenured   epidemiology    disparities
                                                                                          Public health law,
              JD (California,                                                             privacy/confidentiality, end
Lazzarini,    1983) MPH                        Associate                  Public health   of life decision-making,
Zita          (Harvard, 1991)       F        W Professor        Tenured   law             HIV prevention
                                                                Non-
Lewis,        MPhil, Sociology                                  tenured   Applied         Medical sociology, MCH,
Judy          (Yale, 1973)          F        W Professor        track     practice        medical education




                                                           99
                                  Gend

                                  Race
            Degree, Discipline                        Tenure    Teaching




                                  er
Name        (Institution, year)          Rank         Status    Area            Research Interests
                                                      Non-
Meyer,      MD (Cornell, 1985)          Assistant     tenured   Occupational    Occupational epidemiology,
John        MPH (Boston, 1995) M      W Professor     track     health          reproductive hazards
                                                                                Occupational disease
                                                      Non-                      surveillance. work-related
Morse,      PhD, Sociology            Associate       tenured   Occupational    musculoskeletal disorders,
Timothy     (UConn, 1987)         M W Professor       track     health          ergonomics

                                                                                Community development
Schensul,   PhD, Anthropology                                   International   and sexual risk, applied
Steven      (Minnesota, 1969)     M W Professor       Tenured   Health          health research,
            MA, English
            (NYU, 1966) MS                            Non-
Segal,      Comm. Health                Assistant     tenured   Applied         Gerontology, applied public
Joan        (UConn, 1982)         F   W Professor     track     practice        health practice


Stevens,    PhD, Epidemiology
Richard     (Washington, 1985)    M W Professor       Tenured   Epidemiology    Cancer epidemiology
            MS, Occ. Health
            (Buffalo, 1984)                                                     Cancer biomarkers,
Swede,      PhD, Epidemiology           Assistant     Tenure-                   disparities, molecular
Helen       (Buffalo, 2000)       F   W Professor     track     Epidemiology    epidemiology

                                                      Non-
Ungemack,   DrPH                        Assistant     tenured   Health          Substance abuse treatment
Jane        (Columbia, 1991)   F      W Professor     track     Services        and prevention
            MTS, Theology
            (Harvard, 1981);
            ScM, Applied Math
            (Brown, 1985) ScD,
Walsh,      Biostatistics               Associate                               Chronic disease
Stephen     (Harvard, 1989)    M      W Professor     Tenured   Biostatistics   surveillance, clinical trials



                                                      Non-
Wetstone,   MD                        Associate       tenured
Scott       (UConn, 1979)         M W Professor       track     Biostatistics   Instructional methods

4.1.b. Summary data on the qualifications of secondary faculty
        Among the program’s secondary faculty (n=24), tenure is held by 13 individuals, with 9
holding non-tenured track positions and 2 who are retired. There are 13 who hold ranks of
Professor, 7 who are Associate Professors and 4 who are Assistant Professors. Seventeen
individuals hold PhD/EdD/ScD degrees, while 3 have MDs, 2 have JDs and 1 has a DrPH. All
indicated secondary faculty members have appointments through the University of Connecticut.
FTE or % time allocated to teaching program of each secondary faculty members is indicated in
Table 1.6.d.2.




                                                100
Table 4.1.b.1 Characteristics of MPH Program Secondary Faculty.




                                     Gender
                                              Race
               Degree, Discipline                            Tenure    Teaching
Name           (Institution, year)       Rank                Status    Area             Research Interests
Affleck,       PhD, Ed Psych             Professor                     Social           Stresses and chronic illness,
Glenn          (UConn, 1975)         M W Emeritus            Retired   psychology       daily coping efforts
Aseltine,      PhD, Sociology            Associate
Robert         (Michigan, 1992)      M W Professor           Tenured   NA               Health Sociology
               PhD, Soc Psych
               (Arizona, 1971)
Babor,         MPH                                                     Health           Alcohol and drug abuse
Thomas         (Harvard, 1981)       M W Professor           Tenured   Services         prevention

               Med
               (Gaucher, 1957)                               Non-
Blechner,      JD                               Associate    tenured   Public health    Patient rights, end of life
Barbara        (UCONN, 1988)         F        W Professor    track     law              decision-making

               PhD, Devel
Bruder,        Disabilities                                  Tenured                    Early intervention for
Mary Beth      (Oregon,1983)         F        W Professor              Disabilities     children with special needs
                                                             Non-
Burleson,      PhD, Psychology           Assist              tenured
Joseph         (Texas, 1982)         M W Professor           track     Measurement      Research design and analysis
                                                             Non-
Chapman,       M.A., Ph.D.,                                  tenured                    Human rights and health,
Audrey         Columbia              F        W Professor    track     Ethics           intellectual property
               MD
               (Stanford, 1979)                                                         Occupational health,
Cherniack,     MPH                                                                      ergonomics, environmental
Martin         (Berkeley, 1980)      M W Professor           Tenured   Epidemiology     epidemiology
                                                             Non-
                                                             tenured
                JD                              Assistant    track
Eberle, Mary   (Michigan, 1976)      F        W Professor              Disability law   Disability law & rights
               DrPH
               (UCLA, 1988)
Erickson,      PhD, Anthro                      Associate              Medical          Ethnomedicine, reproduction
Pamela         (Buffalo, 1993)       F        W Professor    Tenured   anthropology     and MCH

                                                                                        Community nutrition, iron-
Ferris,        PhD, Nutrition                                Tenured                    deficiency anemia, health
Ann            (UMass, 1978          F        W Professor              NA               disparities

Fortinsky,     PhD Sociology                                 Tenured                    Health services research,
Richard        (Brown, 1984)         M W Professor                     Gerontology      health policy
Handwerker,    PhD, Anthro                                                              Ethnographic methods, social
Penn           (Oregon, 1971)        M W Professor           Tenured   Anthropology     relations

               PA
               (Wake Forest, 1976)                           Non-
Huntington,    MPH                              Assistant    tenured   Program          Health policy, public health
Charles III    (GWU, 1988)         M          W Professor    track     evaluation       workforce, strategic planning




                                                       101
                                                    Tenured
Kramer,      MBA, UConn              Associate                                Long-term care; international
Jeffrey      EdD, UConn          M W Professor                Finance         health systems; managed care
                                                                              Perinatal depression, mental
Kurz,        PhD, Epidem.              Associate    Tenured                   health among low-income
Brenda       (UNC, 1986)         F   W Professor              MCH             women.
Perez-
Escamilla,   PhD, Nutrition                                                   Community nutrition,
Rafael       (UC Davis, 1991)    M O Professor      Tenured   Nutrition       breastfeeding, Latino health

Santerre,    PhD, Economics                         Tenured                   Health economics and health
Rexford      (UConn, 1979)       M W Professor                Finance         insurance
Sheehan,     PhD, Education          Professor      Retired                   Statistical modeling of health
Joe          (Chicago, 1965)     M W Emeritus                 Measurement     interventions.
                                                    Non-
Storey,      MD/MPH                                 tenured                   Occupational/environmental
Eileen       (Harvard, 1978)     F   W Professor    track     NA              health, pulmonary disease

                                                                              Stress and coping; daily
Tennen,      PhD, Psychology                        Tenured   Health          patterns and correlates of
Howard       (UMass, 1976)       M W Professor                psychology      alcohol use
             PhD, Human                             Non-                      Health services research
Tikoo,       Ecology, (Kansas          Assistant    tenured   Mental Health   Outcome and quality
Minakshi     State Univ.,1995)   F   O Professor    track     Systems         value of services.

             MD(UConn, 1992)                        Non-
Van Hoof,    PhD, Education          Associate      tenured   Health
Thomas       (UConn, 1996)       M W Professor      track     services        Quality Improvement
                                                    Non-
Warren,      ScD, Ergonomics         Associate      tenured                   Organizational and work
Nick         (UMass, 1967)       M W Professor      track     Ergonomics      environments

4.1.c. Description of the manner in which the faculty complement integrates perspectives
from the field of practice
        Several members of our program’s faculty have held/hold positions within the public
health practice community. For example, Helen Swede joined the faculty after working at the
CT Tumor Registry. Audrey Chapman was recruited to the faculty after working at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science and various international health
programs. Richard Stevens previously worked at Pacific Northwest Laboratories and David
Gregorio has experience working as a health systems planner. Tim Morse formerly worked at
the CT Department of Labor. Similarly, our faculty have experience working closely with
community-based practitioners. Judy Lewis is responsible for community education of
medical/dental students. Jane Ungemack and Tom Babor’s work is linked to state and regional
substance abuse service providers. Mary Beth Bruder works closely with statewide disability
service providers and advocates. Steve Schensul has considerable experience working with
community-based health providers for underserved communities in the U.S. and abroad.

4.1.d Outcome measures by which the program may judge the qualification of its faculty
       Program faculty are recruited to the University through Departments and Centers where
they hold primary academic appointments. Qualification of individuals for appointment and
promotion on the faculty are determined by department heads (in consultation with faculty) who



                                              102
are aware of national trends in scholarship and employment. UConn attracts high quality
applicants for its vacancies on the basis of its environment (teaching and research potential)
along with competitive compensation packages.
       The program monitors faculty performance through student feedback in course
evaluations and occasional focus groups. Students are invited to comment anonymously about
the quality of instruction they receive, including their perceptions regarding the qualifications of
individuals to teach within the program, both through on-line course evaluations and confidential
feedback.

4.1.e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 1: Identify and retain qualified faculty
Performance Target:      90% of faculty hold appropriate terminal degrees.
Annual Assessment:
             2004-05                             2005-06                             2006-07
  97% of faculty held appropriate     97% of faculty held appropriate     97% of faculty held appropriate
             degrees                             degrees                             degrees

Service Objective 1:          Offer coursework and service-learning experiences focused on health
                              and well-being in Connecticut
Performance Target:           40% of primary faculty have significant community-based projects.
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                              2005-06                            2006-07
   100% of primary faculty had          100% of primary faculty had        100% of primary faculty had
   significant community-based          significant community-based        significant community-based
             activities                           activities                         activities

Educational Objective 7: Identify and retain qualified faculty
Performance Target:      25% of primary faculty will be recognized for exemplary contributions
                         to the field.
Annual Assessment:
               2004-05                             2005-06                             2006-07
50% of primary faculty were         50% of primary faculty were         50% of primary faculty were
recognized for exemplary            recognized for exemplary            recognized for exemplary
contributions to the field.         contributions to the field.         contributions to the field.
                                                                        .

We believe criterion 4.1.is substantially met.
• More than 90% of our program’s faculty hold appropriate terminal degrees (MD, PhD, DrPH
• Faculty exhibit significant productivity in publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts and
  presentations.
• More than 25% of our primary faculty have been recognized for their contributions to the
  field of public health
• Over time, our curriculum emphasizes service learning and community-based experiences
  and interaction by students.
• There remains a need for faculty with expertise in biostatistics and public health system
  administration.




                                               103
4.1. f. Future considerations regarding faculty research
        The program director will work with the University administration to secure necessary
funds and identify qualified personnel to support curriculum and research in areas of health
systems administration and applied public health practice.




                                          104
Criterion 4.2 Faculty Policies and Procedures. 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.

Required documentation:
a. A faculty handbook or other written document that outlines faculty rules and regulations.
b. Description of provisions for faculty development, including identification of support for faculty
    categories other than regular full-time appointments.
c.. Description of formal procedures for evaluating faculty competence and performance.
d. Description of the processes used for student course evaluation and evaluation of teaching
    effectiveness.
e. Description of the emphasis given to community service activities in the promotion and tenure
    process.
f.. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

4.2.a. Faculty rules and regulations
        Policies governing recruitment, retention and promotion of University-based faculty rests
with the Departments where individuals have primary academic appointments. Faculty affairs
are governed by the statutes of the University and the by-laws of the School of Medicine. The
program director, when requested, provides input to Department Heads about the level and
quality of faculty participation as teachers, advisors and contributors to program administration.
School of Medicine By-Laws providing guidelines on appointment and promotion of faculty
members are found at http://www9.uchc.edu/faculty_staff/pdfs/bylaws.pdf . The program
director has responsibility for recruitment, retention and promotion of community-based faculty.

4.2.b. Faculty development
        While the locus of faculty development is within academic departments, the program
supports professional growth and development of individuals by providing opportunity for
students to work as graduate assistants with faculty and through expenditures to cover some of
their academically related expenses (e.g., textbook and software acquisition, AV equipment,
professional dues and travel reimbursement).

4.2.c. Procedures for evaluating faculty competence and performance.
        Faculty performance is evaluated by department heads where individuals hold primary
appointments. The MPH program director provides information, when requested, relative to an
individual’s involvement and success teaching, advising or supporting program activities.
        Evaluation of competency and performance occur at the time a person is recruited to the
University, annually through their probationary period, and (where appropriate) when considered
for promotion and/or tenure. Recent by-laws changes call for periodic post-tenure review of
academic performance. Concurrent with such evaluations, every member of the faculty
participates in annual performance reviews that provide a basis for salary decisions. At the
beginning of each academic year, individuals and their Department heads specify a distribution
of time/effort across research, education, service and miscellaneous functions and set
expectations (i.e., number of grant applications to be submitted, number of peer-reviewed papers
to be published, hours of institutional and community service, etc.) for assessing performance.
Determinations that individuals “fail to meet” expectations trigger ongoing review and




                                               105
advisement; determinations that individuals “meet” or “exceed” expectations are the basis for
merit salary awards.

4.2.d Processes used for student course evaluation and evaluation of teaching
       effectiveness.
       All courses are monitored through end-of-semester course evaluations and student
feedback. Anonymous questions, completed at the end of each semester allow students to assess
the quality and scope of the curriculum, the value of class activities and the quality of program
supports. Feedback is routinely provided to instructors and, as conditions warrant,
concerns/issues are communicated directly to instructors by the program director. Summaries of
semester evaluations are reviewed by the Program’s Advisory Committee. The process has
served the program well, both as a quality improvement device and as a way to acknowledge
performance excellence. Information from course evaluations is shared by the program with
department heads in merit and other performance assessments of individual faculty.

4.2.e. Description of the emphasis given to community service activities in the promotion
and tenure process
        Promotion and tenure decisions at UConn are the responsibility of the School within
which an individual holds a primary academic appointment. As requested, the program director
will provide an assessment of the extent and quality of contributions an individual makes to
teaching, advising and supporting program functions. Service, whether within the University or
across the community is expected of all faculty. The manner by which it is to be measured and
judged is described in the School of Medicine’s Promotion and Tenure guidelines (See
http://www9.uchc.edu/faculty_staff/pdfs/bylaws.pdf)

4.2.e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 1: Nurture diversity of experience and interest among faculty and
                         program staff.
Performance Target:      All faculty, staff and students understand UConn policies regarding
                         fair and ethical practice.
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                          2005-06                           2006-07
No specific action taken         No specific action taken.        All UConn faculty and staff
                                                                  complete required training on fair
                                                                  and ethical practices. Advisory
                                                                  Committee recommends
                                                                  modification of program handbook
                                                                  to advise students of UConn policies
                                                                  and procedures to assure fail and
                                                                  ethical treatment.

We believe Criterion 4.2 is met.
• The School of Medicine maintains procedures for appointment, promotion and tenure of its
  faculty.
• Faculty development occurs within given departments and is supported to the extent possible
  by resources within the MPH program.




                                             106
•   Mechanisms are in place for input from the program on the performance of faculty when being
    considered for appointment, promotion and/or tenure.




                                             107
Criterion 4.3 Faculty and Staff Diversity. The program shall recruit, retain and promote a diverse
faculty and staff, and shall offer equitable opportunities to qualified individuals regardless of age,
gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or national origin.

Required documentation:
a. Summary demographic data on the programs faculty.
b. Summary demographic data on the program’s staff.
c. Description of policies and procedures regarding the program’s commitment to providing equitable
   opportunities without regard to age, gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or national
   origin.
d. Description of recruitment and retention efforts used to attract and retain a diverse faculty and staff,
   along with information about how these efforts are evaluated and refined over time.
e. Description of efforts, other than recruitment and retention of core faculty, through which the
   program seeks to establish and maintain an environment that supports diversity.
f. Identification of outcome measures by which the program may evaluate its success in achieving a
   diverse faculty and staff, along with data regarding the performance of the program against those
   measures for each of the last 3 years.
g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

4.3.a   Demographic data on program faculty
        Connecticut is a state of 3.4 million residents. Whites compromise roughly 83% of the
population; Black/AAs are roughly one-half of the remaining non-whites who currently live in
the State. Persons of Spanish background, regardless of race, comprise about 10% of
Connecticut’s population.

Table 4.3.a.1 Summary Demographic Data for Current Primary and Secondary Faculty
                                    Primary faculty       Secondary Faculty                Total
                                      #         %            #          %             #             %
Male                                  7         58           15        62.5           22           61.1
  African American                    0         0            0          0             0              0
  Caucasian                           7         58           14        58.3           21           58.3
  Hispanic/Latino                     0         0            1         4.2            1            5.6
  Other race/ethnicity                0         0            0          0              0             0
Female                                5         42            9        37.5           14            39
  African American                    0         0            0          0             0              0
  Caucasian                           5         42            8        33.3           13           36.1
  Hispanic/Latina                     0         0            0          0             0              0
  Other race/ethnicity                0         0            1         4.2             1            2.8
Total                                12        33.3          24        66.6           36           100

        At the present time, all 12 members of our primary faculty are white. Seven are males
and 5 are females. Among the program’s 24 members of the secondary faculty, 23 are white
with 15 males and 9 females. There are 1 Hispanic/Latino male and 1 Asian/Pacific Islander
female on the secondary faculty. Thus, our faculty is dissimilar from the State’s gender and
race/ethnic composition. However, we have had success recruiting 2 females to our faculty
(Professors Audrey Chapman and Helen Swede). We have also utilized opportunities for adjunct
faculty of diverse backgrounds who work in community-based settings to participate in the
program (e.g., Stacey Brown (African-American), Cross Cultural Issues in Public Health;
Christine de la Paz (Asian/Pacific Islander), Health Communication; Roman Rojano (Hispanic),




                                                108
Urban Health and Community Mental Health; Hongie Wong (Asian/Pacific Islander), Public
Health Informatics; and Rene Coleman-Mitchell (African-American), Maternal & Child Health
Services). This strategy, though insufficient, brings important topics, perspectives, backgrounds,
experiences and expectations to our curriculum and interaction.

4.3.b Demographic data on program staff
       Currently, there the MPH program has a total of 6 staff members, 4 employed part-time
and 2 full-time. There is 1 white male (16.7%) and 5 white females (83.3%). Thus, our staff is
dissimilar from the State’s gender and race/ethnic composition.

Table 4.3.b.1. Summary Demographic Data for Program Staff
                                     Part time          Full-time              Total
                                     #       %          #       %          #        %
Male                                 1      16.7        0       0          1       16.7
    African American                 0       0          0       0          0        0
    Caucasian                        1      16.7        0       0          1       16.7
    Hispanic/Latino                  0       0          0       0          0        0
    Other                            0        0         0       0          0        0
Female                               3       50         2      33.3        5       83.3
    African American                 0       0          0       0          0        0
    Caucasian                        3       50         2      33.3        5       83.3
    Hispanic/Latina                  0       0          0       0          0        0
    Other                            0        0         0       0          0        0
Total                                4                  2                  6       100

4.3.c. Policies and procedures regarding the program’s commitment to providing
equitable opportunities to faculty and staff.
        The UConn Health Center has a strong equal opportunity program, reflected in policy
statements that prohibit discrimination and provide for grievance procedures through the Office
of Diversity and Equity. The MPH program adheres to the UCHC policies and is committed to
providing equitable opportunities to faculty and staff.
        The program is strongly committed to expanding and supporting faculty and staff
diversity, particularly with respect to ethnicity and gender. The program has actively sought
women, minorities, and underrepresented minority professionals to join the ranks of faculty. The
program has been successful in attaining women, with the addition of Drs. Helen Swede, Audrey
Chapman, and Minaksi Tikoo.

4.3.d. Recruitment and retention efforts used to attract and retain a diverse faculty and
staff
         Recruitment and retention of primary and secondary faculty is a departmental
         responsibility.
However, the MPH program administration actively engages in activities and strategies to
improve the diversity of its faculty through the recruitment of women and minority professionals
to join the ranks of its adjunct faculty.

4.3.e. Efforts, other than recruitment and retention of core faculty, through which the
       program seeks to establish and maintain an environment that supports diversity
       To achieve our educational objective of nurturing diversity of experience and interest
among faculty and program staff, the program expects that all program committees will include



                                            109
relevant stakeholders and diversity in its membership. The MPH program includes 4 standing
committees: Admissions, Advisory, Curriculum, and Executive, two of which include
representation of minorities. The Advisory Committee currently has 3 minority members,
including 1 male and 1 female Asian/Pacific Islander and 1 Hispanic female, and the Admissions
Committee currently has 1 female African-American. Historically, the Assistant Dean of Health
Career Opportunity Programs (position currently vacant) has also been a member. When this
position is filled, we anticipate having additional minority representation on the committee.
Faculty, staff and students all understand UConn policies regarding fair and ethical practices.
Beginning with the fall 2007 semester, all course syllabi will include explicit guidance on
available protections to individuals pertaining to harassment, discrimination, safety and
disabilities. In accordance with UConn policy, all faculty and staff must participate in code of
ethics training.
        The MPH program continues to incorporate much of its educational and scholarly focus
on health disparities, an area of particular interest to many underrepresented minorities. To
achieve our research objective of promoting research focused on causes and control of health
disparities we anticipate that at least 5 ongoing service projects by students will address health
and health care issues of underrepresented minorities.
        In 2004 the program initiated a short course (1 credit) on cultural competency. A second
short course on cultural competency issues is being offered in summer 2007 and a faculty
development initiative to enhance the cultural competency of instructors and advisors is being
planned.

4.3.f. Outcome measures by which the program may evaluate its success in achieving a
        diverse faculty and staff
        The MPH program is committed to diversity and is further committed to increasing
recruitment of underrepresented minorities and women. Currently, nearly half (42%) of our
primary faculty and nearly one-third (37.5%) of secondary faculty are women. Two members
(8.3%) of our secondary faculty are from underrepresented minorities. The program will
continue its existing efforts, and develop and evaluate new techniques to diversify the staff.

4.3.g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 1: Nurture diversity of experience and interest among faculty and
                         program staff.
Performance Target:      All faculty, staff and students understand UConn policies regarding
                         fair and ethical practice.
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                          2005-06                            2006-07
No specific action taken         No specific action taken.         All UConn faculty and staff
                                                                   complete required training on fair
                                                                   and ethical practices. Advisory
                                                                   Committee recommends
                                                                   modification of program handbook
                                                                   to advise students of UConn policies
                                                                   and procedures to assure fail and
                                                                   ethical treatment.




                                             110
Educational Objective 1: Nurture diversity of experience and interest among faculty and
                         program staff.
Performance Target:      Faculty, staff and student groups reflect demographic profile of
                         Connecticut
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                         2005-06                          2006-07
Staff: 62.5% Female/37.5 % Male
                                  Staff:70% Female/30% Male; 20%   Staff:75% female/25% male; 12.5%
25% African American/75%
                                  African American/80% Caucasian   African American/ 87.5 Caucasian
Caucasian
                                  Total Faculty: 61.1% Male/39%    Total Faculty: 61.1% Male/39%
Total Faculty: 61.1% Male/39%
                                  Female 94.4% Caucasian/5.6%      Female 94.4% Caucasian/5.6%
Female 94.4% Caucasian/5.6%
                                  Latino/ 2.8% Other               Latino/ 2.8% Other
Latino/ 2.8% Other
                                  New Students: 17% African        New Students: 10% African
New Students: 6% African
                                  American;44% Caucasian;9%        American; 65% Caucasian;12%
American; 63% Caucasian;3%
                                  Latino; 9% Other;15% unknown;    Latino; 3% Other;10% unknown;
Latino; 6.2% Other;18% unknown;
                                  6% international                 0% international
3% international

We believe Criterion 4.3 is partially met
• Through our handbook, orientation materials and course syllabi, faculty, staff and students
  are made aware of UConn policies regarding fair and ethical practices.
• Our efforts to achieve a diverse faculty and program staff have made gains since our prior re-
  accreditation but remain inadequate.

4.3.h. Future considerations regarding faculty and staff diversity
        The program will continue to advocate before the UConn Administration and the Center
for resources needed to recruit and retain colleagues of diverse racial, ethnic and social
backgrounds.




                                            111
Criterion 4.4 Student recruitment and admissions. The program shall have student recruitment and
admissions policies and procedures designed to locate and select qualified individuals capable of taking
advantage of the program’s various learning activities, which will enable each of them to develop
competence for a career in public health.

Required documentation:
a. Description of the programs recruitment policies and procedures.
b. Statement of admissions policies and procedures.
c. Examples of recruitment materials and other publications and advertising that describe, at a
   minimum, academic calendars, grading and the academic offerings of the program.
d. Quantitative information on the number of applications, acceptances and enrollment, by specialty
   area for each of the last 3 years.
e. Quantitative information on the number of full-time and part-time students and a full-time equivalent
   conversion for each of the last 3 years.
f. Identification of outcomes measures by which the program may evaluate its success in enrolling a
   qualified student body, along with data regarding the performance of the program against those
   measures for each of the last 3 years.
g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

4.4.a. Program recruitment policies and procedures
        Our student recruitment efforts focus on practicing professionals whose ongoing
activities and interests offer opportunities to implement public health principles and exert
leadership in the field. In particular, we encourage applicants whose professional experiences
and programmatic responsibilities have fostered a working knowledge of the health system and a
growing appreciation of public health perspectives. Such individuals may have had limited
formal exposure to the public health sciences during their prior education and training and view
graduate work in the field as a means to broaden their existing specialty-oriented training base
and professional identity. In addition, they are open to acquiring skills that will enhance their
on-the-job problem-solving abilities, and that will increase their potential to exercise leadership
within the health care system.
        Our program also considers other applicants whose prior training, professional
experiences, and career goals would enable them to benefit from the program. Included in this
group are recent graduates of health-related baccalaureate degree programs and international
applicants seeking a concentrated program of full-time study. Increasing the diversity of our
applicant pool has also resulted from increasing outreach to undergraduate students.
        Through print and electronic announcements regarding the program, information sessions
held throughout the year and meeting with community providers, and exhibits at regional and
national public health meetings, the program receives a pool of well-qualified applicants each
year.

4.4.b. Admissions policies and procedures
       Admissions procedures, set by the UConn Graduate school, and outlined in the Graduate
Catalog and online, include a standard Graduate School application, personal statement, letters
of recommendation, transcripts and application fee. Our program also strongly encourages (but
does not require) applicants to report scores from the General GRE exam or an equivalent (e.g.,
MCAT, DMAT, LSAT, GMAT).




                                              112
        Applications are received throughout the year, but without extenuating circumstances, are
reviewed each spring for fall enrollment (applications must be in hand by February 1 to be
considered; January 1 for international students). For applicants to be considered at another time
of the year, they must be considered to be highly qualified with significant reason requiring out-
of-cycle review. Admissions decisions generally are made by May of each year and classes are
set by early summer.
        Every application is rated by the Admissions Committee (See 1.5.c.3) following detailed
presentation of candidates by 2-3 committee members. Criteria guiding decisions are:
        a. Academic ability to complete program requirements
        b. Relevant work experience or background/potential contribution to program
        c. Appropriateness of MPH degree to career goals
        d. Commitment to health of the community

       Candidates receive overall scores of 1 (unacceptable) to 5 (excellent). Scores of 4.5 or
5.0 and 2.5 or less by both reviewers are given an expedited review at the beginning of each
meeting: those with overall scores of 4.5 or 5.0 by both reviewers are recommended for
admission and those with scores of 2.5 or below by both reviewers are refused admission,
usually without further discussion. Extended deliberation is afforded applications scored
between 2.6 and 4.4. Three possible decisions are made after the discussion of each candidate:
“accept,” “refuse” or “hold.” Candidates who are ineligible for admission to the Graduate
School on a provisional basis (cumulative GPAs below 2.6) are reviewed by the chair of
admissions and the associate program director to determine whether there are extenuating
circumstances that warrant encouragement or further deliberation .

4.4.c. Examples of student recruitment materials
        The University of Connecticut Graduate Catalog, which is updated annually and
available online at http://catalog.grad.uconn.edu/PDF/grad_catalog_0607.pdf, includes the
academic calendar, grading information, and the academic offerings of the program. The
program also has its own brochure (Appendix 2.1.b.1) as a supplement to the catalog. A website
for recruitment is maintained: http://publichealth.uconn.edu/acprgms_mph_admission.php.

4.4.d. Characteristics of applicants, acceptances and enrollment
        Applicants to the program have declined from 167 in 2003 to 110 in 2006. We believe
this decrease has resulted, in part, from the program’s expectation that students complete 2
courses per semester. Despite this, admission to the program remains competitive. During this
period, admission was offered to 47% of applicants (239 of 508).

Table 4.4.d.1 Acceptance and enrollment rates: 2003-06
                                    Fall 2003         Fall 2004   Fall 2005    Fall 2006
Acceptance rate (of applications)     36%               44%         50%          64%
                                    (60/167)          (51/115)    (58/116)     (70/110)
Enrollment rate (of acceptances)      78%               63%         59%          44%
                                     (47/60)           (32/51)     (34/58)      (31/70)




                                                113
4.4.e. Full-time and part-time students, and full-time equivalents
        As of spring 2007, there were a total of 111 students enrolled in the program; 21 (18.9%)
were full-time, 56 (50.4%) were part-time, and 34 (30.7%) registered for no credits or continuous
registration.
        Table 4.4.e.1 shows the number of students who were accepted and enrolled in 2003 -
2006. No more than half of the accepted full-time students enrolled in the program. In contrast,
the yield for part-time students is high: 89% (2003), 75% (2004), 94% (2005) and 68% (2006) of
accepted part-time students have enrolled in the program over the last 4 years.

Table 4.4.e.1 Accepted and enrolled students, 2003-07.
                        2003                     2004                     2005                     2006
             Accepted      Enrolled   Accepted      Enrolled   Accepted      Enrolled   Accepted      Enrolled
Full-time      16             8         19             8         27             5         36             8
Part-time       44           39          32           24          31           29         34            23
Total students 60            47          51           32          58           34         70            31

        Because part-time students are expected to enroll in 2 courses per semester, we assume
that 2 part-time students are equivalent to 1 full-time student. The FTEs for the incoming
students in the 4 years are as shown in Table 4.4.e.2 below.

Table 4.4.e.2 Students and FTE Students, 2003-07.
                        2003                     2004                     2005                     2006
Full-time                8                        8                        5                        8
Part-time                39                       24                       29                       23
Total students           47                       32                       34                       31
FTE students            27.5                     20.0                     19.5                     19.5

4.4.f. Outcome measure by which the program evaluates its success in enrolling a
        qualified student body
        GPAs of enrolled students offer a measure of the quality of our students. By this account,
the program successfully enrolls a well-qualified student body. The average annual cumulative
GPA of students was 3.74 in 2003, 3.60 in 2004, and 3.61 in 2005 and 2006. A second measure
of success is the proportion of students accepting admission offers to the program. Between
2003-07, 60% of students offered admission to the program went on to enroll; 82% of applicants
who sought part-time and 30% of those who sought full-time status.
        By its focus and schedule, our program primarily is designed for part-time students,
mainly professionals employed full time, with most courses scheduled in the evening to
accommodate this constituency. While welcoming a component of full-time students to the
program, we did not historically seek many within incoming classes. Accordingly, our yield of
full-time students has been low compared to that for part-time students. The program is afforded
one graduate student stipend (with an accompanying tuition waiver); all other graduate support is
drawn from faculty research/contract activities. In 2007, the incoming class consisted of more
full-time than part-time students, reflecting greater availability of graduate student support at that
time. We have also nurtured an environment that is more conducive to younger full-time
students (e.g., development of an active MPH student organization and application to form a
Delta Omega Chapter). We will continue to monitor this data over time to determine if further
action is warranted.




                                                    114
4.4.g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objectives pertaining to this criterion are:
Educational Objective 1: Design, implement and evaluate a competency-based core curriculum
Performance Target:      Applicants will have strong academic records and commitment to
                         health of the communities.
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                              2005-06                              2006-07
82% of applicants had a GPA of 3.0   82% of applicants had a GPA of 3.0   85% of applicants had a GPA of 3.0
or better; 35% of applicants had a   or better; 28% of applicants had a   or better; 47% of applicants had a
commitment to the health of          commitment to the health of          commitment to the health of
communities                          communities                          communities

We believe Criterion 4.4 is met.
• Our pool of applicants is sufficiently large and of high quality. Admission to the program is
  competitive.
• A substantial proportion of students who are accepted into the program enroll.
• Enrolled students perform well in the program.

4.4.h. Future considerations regarding student recruitment and admissions
       The program needs to work with the UConn Administration and the Center to secure
funding to make application and enrollment in the program attractive to students desiring to
pursue graduate education.




                                                115
Criterion 4.5 Student Diversity. Stated application, admission, and degree-granting requirements
and regulations shall be applied equitable to individual applicants and students regardless of age,
gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or national origin.

Required documentation:
a. Description of the policies, procedures and plans to achieve a diverse student population.
b. Description of recruitment efforts used to attract a diverse student body, along with information
   about how these efforts are evaluated and refined over time.
c. Quantitative information on the demographic characteristics of the student body, including data on
   applications and admissions, for each of the last 3 years.
d. Identification of measures by which the program may evaluate its success in achieving a
   demographically diverse student body, along with data regarding the program’s performance against
   these measures for each of the last 3 years.
e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

4.5.a. Policies, procedures and plans to achieve a diverse student population.
        Consistent with our value statement, the MPH program has set a target the admission and
retention of students so as to reflect the sex and race/ethnic profile of Connecticut residents.
Promising minority candidates whose academic records do not meet the admission requirements
of the Graduate School are encouraged to improve their standing by taking MPH courses as non-
degree students. Admitted minority students who do not enroll are followed up on by Program
Administration to determine factors contributing to their decision. The Program offers assistance
to minority and disadvantaged students to enable them to succeed including targeting
economically underprivileged students for graduate assistantships and informing them of other
potential funding opportunities.

4.5.a. Policies, procedures and plans to achieve a diverse student population.
        Consistent with our value statement, the MPH program has set a target the admission and
retention of students so as to reflect the sex and race/ethnic profile of Connecticut residents.
Persons from under-represented communities expressing interest in the program are counseled,
when appropriate, on strategies to enhance credentials prior to review by the program’s
Admissions Committee (i.e., engagement in fieldwork/practice settings, enrollment in non-
degree and/or training classes, writing workshops, etc.) Those individuals who commit to
applying to the program are monitored during the application cycle to assure a complete and
timely application packet. Disadvantaged applicants are assisted in pursuing graduate
assistantships and other available sources of funding for their education (i.e., scholarships,
employment). Admitted students from underrepresented communities who decline to enroll are
contacted by Joan Segal to determine factors that contributed to that decision.

4.5.b. Recruitment efforts used to attract a diverse student body
        The MPH Program is especially interested in recruiting students from underrepresented
communities and is proactive in its recruitment of these students. The Program has taken such
measures as targeting advertisements to central Connecticut’s underrepresented populations;
providing informational sessions at urban community health agencies and the Department of
Public Health; presenting a public health lecture each summer to students enrolled in summer
enrichment programs at the University of Connecticut Health Center and counseling them on
careers in public health; participating in health careers programs for high school students (e.g.,



                                             116
the Bridge to the Future Science Mentoring Program) and college students, especially those at
the University of Connecticut and Eastern Connecticut State University (e.g.,The Science
Engineering & Health Professions Collaborative Symposium, sponsored by The National
Science Foundation’s Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation held at UConn); and
providing counseling to underrepresented students seeking enrollment in the program.

4.5.c. Demographic characteristics of the student body
        Connecticut’s population of 3.4 million residents consists of 83% Caucasians, 9%
Black/AA and 9% other non-caucasians. Persons of Spanish background, regardless of race,
comprise about 10% of Connecticut’s population.
        Our program has an ethnically diverse student body. There are currently 111 students
actively enrolled in the program; 24% self-describe themselves as minorities, 57% identify
themselves as Caucasian, and 19% are from unknown backgrounds. The characteristics of
persons applying to, admitted by and enrolling in the program generally reflect the race/ethnic
composition of CT. In 2003, 27 of the 167 applicants (16%) self identified themselves as
Black/AA, Latino or ‘other’. Equivalent proportions were 23% (27 of 115) in 2004, 27% (31 of
116) in 2005, and 16% (18 of 110) in 2006. The proportions of persons from one of these under-
represented groups admitted to the program were 17% (10 of 60) in 2003, 22% (11 of 51) in
2004, 29% (17 of 58) in 2005 and 19% (13 of 70) in 2006. The proportion of minority
applicants who enrolled in our program generally equaled or exceeded the proportion in the
overall applicant pool in all years except 2004. In 2003, 15% (8 of 47) new students were from 1
of the 3 under-represented groups. In 2004, the proportion was 16% (5 of 32). For 2005, it was
35% (12 of 34), and for 2006 the proportion of new students from under-represented groups was
26% (8 of 31).

Table 4.5.c.1     Characteristics of Applicant, Accepted and Enrolled Students, 2003-06.
                                   2003               2004              2005               2006
                               Male Female        Male Female       Male Female        Male Female
African American    Apply       1        7         3       9         8       8          0       6
                    Accept      1        4         2       2         4       4          0       4
                    Enroll       0       3          1       1        3       3          0        3
Caucasian           Apply       22       39        16      40        17      34         17      50
                    Accept      6       22         7       21        9       17         10      37
                    Enroll       6      17          6      14        6       9          6       14
Hispanic/Latino     Apply       0        5         0       1         4       4          2       5
                    Accept      0        1         0       1         3       2          1       5
                    Enroll       0       1          0       1        3       0          1        3
Other               Apply        7       7          4      10        1       6          1        4
                    Accept      2        2         1       5         1       3          1       2
                    Enroll       2       2          1       1        1       2          0        1
Unknown             Apply       10      40          6       6        8       4          0        5
                    Accept      1       14         5       2         4       2          0       5
                    Enroll       1      10         4       2         3       2          0        3
International       Apply       14       15         9       9         7      15         10      10
                    Accept      6        1         1       3         2       6          1       4
                    Enroll       4       1          0       1        0       2          0        0
Total               Apply       54      113        38      77        45      71         30      80
                    Accept      16      44         13      38        24      34         13      57
                    Enroll      13      34         12      20        16      18          7      24




                                                117
       The majority of applicants to our program are female, as are the proportions of accepted
and enrolled students.

Table 4.5.c.2 Female Applicants, Acceptances and Enrollments, 2003-06.
                                   Fall 2003         Fall 2004      Fall 2005      Fall 2006
Applicants                           68%               67%            61%            73%
                                   (113/167)         (77/115)       (71/116)       (80/110)
Acceptances                          73%               75%            59%            81%
                                    (44/60)           (38/51)        (34/58)        (57/70)
Enrollments                          72%               63%            53%            77%
                                    (34/47)           (20/32)        (18/34)        (24/31)

4.5.d. Measures by which the program evaluates its success in achieving a
        demographically diverse student body
        Each year the program reviews its admissions statistics to measure whether that target has
been met. The program monitors minority applications to assure that the pool is sufficiently
large and appropriately qualified and that the enrolled students are racially diverse. In 2006, the
Admissions Committee reviewed 18 minority applicants, who comprised 16% of the total pool of
110 applications. Seventy-two percent (72%) of underrepresented minorities who applied to the
program were accepted and 62% of the accepted minority students enrolled in the program.
Similarly, 74% of Caucasians that applied were accepted and 38% of them matriculated.

4.5.e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met
The program objective pertaining to this criterion is:
Educational Objective 1: Nurture diversity of experience and interest among faculty and
                         program staff.
Performance Target:      Faculty, staff and student groups reflect demographic profile of
                         Connecticut
Annual Assessment:
              2004-05                           2005-06                            2006-07
Staff: 62.5% Female/37.5 % Male
                                   Staff:70% Female/30% Male; 20%      Staff:75% female/25% male; 12.5%
25% African American/75%
                                   African American/80% Caucasian      African American/ 87.5 Caucasian
Caucasian
                                   Total Faculty: 61.1% Male/39%       Total Faculty: 61.1% Male/39%
Total Faculty: 61.1% Male/39%
                                   Female 94.4% Caucasian/5.6%         Female 94.4% Caucasian/5.6%
Female 94.4% Caucasian/5.6%
                                   Latino/ 2.8% Other                  Latino/ 2.8% Other
Latino/ 2.8% Other
                                   New Students: 17% African           New Students: 10% African
New Students: 6% African
                                   American;44% Caucasian;9%           American; 65% Caucasian;12%
American; 63% Caucasian;3%
                                   Latino; 9% Other;15% unknown;       Latino; 3% Other;10% unknown;
Latino; 6.2% Other;18% unknown;
                                   6% international                    0% international
3% international

We believe Criterion 4.5 is met.
● The race/ethnic composition of students reflects the race/ethnic composition of Connecticut.
• Retention in the program is near our performance target

4.5.f. Future considerations regarding student diversity
        The program will continue to monitor recruitment efforts focused on underrepresented
populations around the state and report on the yield from such efforts. Through the Community
Partnership Subcommittee and Graduate Student Organization we will seek additional ways to
encourage students of various backgrounds to apply, enroll and matriculate at UConn.



                                               118
Criterion 4.6 Advising and Career Counseling. There shall be available a clearly explained and
accessible academic advising system for students, as well as readily available career and placement
advice..

Required documentation:
a. Description of advising and career counseling services, including sample orientation materials.
b. Description of the procedures by which students may communicate their concerns to program
   officials.
c. Information about student satisfaction with advising and career counseling services.
d. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

4.6.a. Advising and career counseling services
         The Graduate Catalog spells out specific advising processes and procedures that all
UConn graduate programs follow. Once students are admitted to the program, they are
assigned1of 6 advisors, depending on their background and interest, to assist them through the
first 2-4 semesters of study. These advisors are expected to clarify academic expectations,
program organization and procedures, and degree requirements. Advisors assist in course
selection and monitor student progress while helping to resolve academic, professional or
personal problems that are brought to their attention.
         As students progress through the curriculum, they must select an advisory committee
consisting of a major advisor and 2 associate advisors. Associate advisors who are not members
of the UConn faculty must be approved by the Graduate School prior to their participation. An
advisory committee should reflect the students’ interests, particularly with regard to their
anticipated capstone project. A major advisor, together with the associate advisors, helps the
student prepare the formal plan of study for meeting the program’s requirements, guides the
development of the capstone project, conducts the oral examination and recommends conferral
of the degree.
         Each academic year begins with a half-day orientation for new students. The orientation
introduces key program and graduate school administrators and staff. Students also receive an
introduction to the library as well as an overview of the various navigation systems used by the
program (e.g., Blackboard®, PeopleSoft®, and Microsoft Outlook®). Most importantly,
program administrators outline major program academic expectations, rules and procedures,
while the registrar and bursar describe important graduate school policies (e.g, the need to
register every fall and spring semester to maintain active status). The students are also given a
tour of the Health Center, including the library, and the opportunity to obtain an identification
badge and parking sticker. Lastly, the students are given time to ask questions and socialize with
the other students. The orientation concludes with a convocation for the new students.
         Career and placement advice is provided by the students’ advisors and program
administrators. Services are sought infrequently, yet the program administrators regularly
inform students (and alumni) of employment, internship, fellowship, and other career
opportunities through the electronic newsletter, Public Health Happenings, and our bulletin
board. The program often distributes information to specific students (and alumni) when
opportunities match a particular student or alumnus interest and qualifications. Preadmission
counseling also occurs through group information sessions and individual appointments with
potential candidates. Such sessions not only focus on program and admission requirements, but
on career opportunities in public health.




                                              119
         Student satisfaction with advising and career counseling services Focus groups were
convened during spring of 2006 to address these and other aspects of the program (script
available upon request and in our on-site self-study resource file). One group was for 1st year
students, another of 2nd year students and a third of “advanced” students. Each group addressed
similar issues including: coursework, class instruction, advisement, career counseling,
communication within and about the program, and program administration/staff support. There
was also time allocated for a general discussion during which students could address any other
issues. To elicit feedback in a non-threatening environment and ensure anonymity, program
administrators and faculty did not lead or attend; a research assistant for the program served as
the scribe for each group and a member of the Advisory Committee served as a group facilitator.
         While concerns raised in the three groups differed somewhat according to the
participants’ time in the program, collectively the students had one major area of concern—
finding an appropriate advisor. They were unsure about how to select an advisor and how to
approach them. They believed the program should become more involved in matching them
with an advisor who shared their research interests. The students, however, were quite satisfied
with advisement once they had selected an advisor. The students uniformly felt their advisors
were highly knowledgeable and accessible. The decision to coordinate initial student advisement
among the program director, associate director, Professors Lazzarini/Blechner for students
focusing on public health law or policy, Professor Lewis for other interdisciplinary education
students and Professor Morse for students completing preventive medicine residencies has
greatly reduced problems of inconsistent advisement typical of prior years. In focus groups,
students expressed appreciation for the consistency of support/advice they are now receiving.
Students offered several suggestions including an “advising session” for 2nd-year students on
timelines and graduation requirements. Another initiative to offer training sessions for faculty
serving as project/thesis advisors has also reduced error/inconsistency. We believe these steps
are contributing to the decrease in time to complete the degree.
         Career counseling and placement services was a concern among a small number of
students. When asked, most students said that they did not need career counseling, while those
that articulated a need for career counseling said they felt they could easily get it. Several
students commented that much of their career advice emanated from fellow classmates. Students
suggested that a job fair that included community providers would be helpful. This suggestion
will be entertained by the MPH Graduate Student Association. Students did appreciate the
newsletters, newsflashes, and postings of job opportunities provided by the program. Students
also suggested that community practitioners who offer courses or guest lecturers should take
time to discuss their careers in public health, including the manner in which they entered their
particular field.

4.6.b. Description of the procedures by which students may communicate their concerns
to program officials
        Through our student handbook, orientation materials and individual course syllabi,
students are made aware of the University and program’s policies regarding fair and ethical
practices. Students with concerns regarding curriculum, procedures and encounters/experiences
within the program are advised how to register and monitor concerns.
        The program maintains a student complaint file. During the 2004 through 2007 period,
the program received a number of complaints covering a range of issues. Among those concerns
that were raised were: (a) MPH Program graduates were not sufficiently acknowledged during




                                           120
the UCHC commencement ceremonies (the official commencement is on the Storrs campus); (b)
the Program should offer graduate courses on regional campuses at Avery Point and Stamford,
CT; (c) the requirement to enroll in at least 2 courses per semester was onerous for working
professionals; (d) the quality of a 1-credit course/workshop offered by a new adjunct instructor
was poor; (e) treatment of an international applicant by the UCHC International Office was
inappropriate; (f) an advisor’s comments regarding a student’s capstone paper were inappropriate
and untimely; (g) university-wide administrative procedures that drop students from active status
for failure to register for classes were burdensome; and (h) the failure to offer select courses
when expected conflicted with a student’s plan of study. All such concerns receive a response
from the program director and/or higher University administrators. Each occasion provides an
opportunity to review and, where appropriate, modify procedures to enhance student
experiences.
        One formal complaint submitted to the ODE alleged discrimination by the program
director regarding a student’s performance in the program. Investigation of the complaint by the
University determined it was without merit.

4.6.c. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.
The program objective pertaining to this criterion is:
Educational Objective 6: Secure necessary institutional and extramural support to deliver an
                         excellent curriculum

We believe Criterion 4.6 is substantially met.
• More than 80% of individuals responding to course evaluations and alumni surveys judge the
  curriculum and support services positively.
• Students generally approve of advisement and career counseling offered by the program
• Retention of students has improved markedly over time.

4.6.d. Future considerations regarding advising and career counseling
        The program will plan career advisement activities (e.g., a career day with representatives
of DPH) during the coming year. We will continue to monitor our effort to streamline initial
advising of students and procedures to inform them of opportunities for advisement by other
program faculty on capstone projects. A panel of faculty advisors is scheduled for a fall meeting
of the MPH student organization. Panel members will discuss their research interests and
opportunities for student projects involving their research, as well as the manner by which
students should approach them about potential advisement. Working with the MPH student
organization, we will consider options for greater career/job counseling. We will work with
community-based course instructors and guest lecturers to determine effective methods for them
to share information on their careers/opportunities with interested students




                                            121
122

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:29
posted:12/14/2011
language:English
pages:130