Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Academic Program Review Public Affairs and Administration, Doctorate of Public Administration
University: University of Illinois at Springfield
College: College of Public Affairs and Administration
Program: Doctorate of Public Administration
CIPS 44.0401 Classification Code: Public Administration (DPA). A program that prepares individuals to
serve as managers in the executive arm of local, state, and federal governments; and that focuses on the systematic study of executive organization and management. Includes instruction in the roles, development, and principles of public administration; the management of public policy; executive-legislative relations; public budgetary processes and financial management; administrative law; public personnel management; professional ethics; and research methods.
Submitted for: Results Report 2008-2009
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009
2
Sections
Contents I. Program Objectives and Structure ......................................................................................................... 5
Date of Initiation ................................................................................................................................... 5
Conceptual Design ................................................................................................................................ 5
Mission and Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 5
Curricular Requirements and Coherence .............................................................................................. 6
Qualifying Exam .................................................................................................................................... 7
Electives ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Closure/Dissertation ............................................................................................................................. 7
For Accredited Programs and Programs Seeking Accreditation: .......................................................... 8
For Programs without Accreditation .................................................................................................... 8
II. Assessment of Learning Outcomes and Curricular Revision ................................................................. 8
Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Curricular Revisions during the Review Period ................................................................................... 10
Core Courses ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Research Methods Courses: (3 courses: 12 hours) ............................................................................. 12
Concentrations .................................................................................................................................... 13
Comprehensive Examination .............................................................................................................. 13
Dissertation ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Future Assessment Goals and Methodology ...................................................................................... 16
Career Objectives and Job Placement ................................................................................................ 17
Student Satisfaction ............................................................................................................................ 18
Student Achievements ........................................................................................................................ 18
III. Student Characteristics and Academic Support ................................................................................. 18
3
Demographics ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Transfer Characteristics/Feeder Institutions ...................................................................................... 20
Recruitment Activities ......................................................................................................................... 20
Admissions Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 20
Advising and Other Communication to/with Students ....................................................................... 21
Retention ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Demographics ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Fit with Program ................................................................................................................................. 24
Faculty Achievements ......................................................................................................................... 26
Technology .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Faculty Development .......................................................................................................................... 26
V. Learning Environment and Support Services ...................................................................................... 27
VI. Student Demand and Program Productivity ...................................................................................... 27
Program Productivity and Analysis ..................................................................................................... 28
Credit hours, enrollments, and degree production of UIS to other Illinois’ programs ....................... 28
Doctoral Programs Degrees Conferred ............................................................................................... 29
Doctoral Programs Fall Enrollments ................................................................................................... 29
DPA Enrollment Generated in Doctorate of Public Administration Courses (Fall of FY) .................... 30
Demand for Concentrations................................................................................................................ 30
Minors ................................................................................................................................................. 30
VII. Centrality to Campus Mission ........................................................................................................... 31
Support of the Campus Vision ............................................................................................................ 31
Relationship to Other Campus Instructional Programs ...................................................................... 31
Service to Non-Majors ........................................................................................................................ 31
Support for General Education ........................................................................................................... 32
4
Support for Campus Initiatives ........................................................................................................... 32
VIII. Costs ................................................................................................................................................. 32
Analysis of Costs .................................................................................................................................. 32
IX. Summary and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 33
Previous Program Review Recommendations .................................................................................... 33
Proposal for Doctoral Degree Modification: Doctorate of Public Administration .............................. 34
Current Program Strengths ................................................................................................................. 35
Areas of Concern ................................................................................................................................. 36
Program’s Recommendations for the Current Review ....................................................................... 36
X. Statistical Data .................................................................................................................................... 37
5
I. Program Objectives and Structure
Date of Initiation The Public Administration’s Doctoral Program (DPA) was initiated in the fall of 1998. The
program was created to remedy the absence of a doctoral program in public affairs in the state of Illinois. While numerous political science and public policy programs were already in existence at this time, few emphasized public administration or public affairs. Hence, the Doctorate of Public Administration was specifically designed as a practitioner-oriented program in order to meet the educational needs of professionals in administrative and governmental positions at the state and local levels. To date, this has existed as the only doctoral program to be offered at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
Conceptual Design The educational intent of the Doctorate of Public Administration Program has undergone several changes. Initially, the program was practitioner oriented. The program’s objective was to provide an advanced practitioner-oriented degree primarily to professionals who worked in public and non-governmental organizations and had an interest in conceptual development and research in public policy and administration. The program was specifically structured to develop a high level of competence in current and future public policy professionals. Consequently, the core of the original curriculum centered on increasing individual knowledge of public issues and processes and improving student ability to use and apply research. It was anticipated that graduates of this program would be able to contribute significant new perspectives and knowledge about the conduct of state government and the management of non-governmental organizations and also obtain an advanced understanding of comparative state policy and administration.
Although the DPA existed as a practitioner oriented degree program, the original intent of this program was later revised and expanded to include educational requirements for students with a possible future in academia. Thus, while the DPA program was designed to be principally practitioner-oriented, it was reformed to prepare students for careers in research or teaching at a university, or as professionals in governmental or nonprofit organizations where research and conceptual skills are valued. The ultimate program goal was to equip graduates with the skills necessary to contribute and utilize significant new knowledge about state government. In 2006, the DPA Program was revised once again. The new DPA program shifted back to the program’s original intent in providing a practitioner-oriented degree.
Mission and Objectives
New DPA Program
During the 2004/2005 academic year concerns arose about the continuing viability of the existing DPA Program. As the result of student concerns expressed to the Interim Dean, and consequent analysis of the program, program modifications were developed to be implemented in the Spring Semester of 2008.
The new design for the doctorate program focuses on the spirit of UIS’s initial proposal for a
degree program aimed at practitioners. The mission of the new DPA program is to develop graduates who are recognized for their excellence in meeting public challenges and advancing the field through the rigorous integration of theory, research and practice.
6
Below is a list of the most recent (revised) student learning objectives. Students who complete the new DPA Program should be able to:
1. Analyze, synthesize and evaluate the theoretical literature from a range of public affairs
disciplines as they apply to issues commonly addressed in public administration and relate public affairs disciplines;
2. Draw connections between that theoretical literature and real world problems in public management and public policy;
3. Demonstrate mastery of the core subject matter of the student’s area of concentration in either public management or public policy;
4. Critically evaluate the literature in a range of public affairs disciplines; 5. Design and conduct high quality independent research and analysis of real world phenomena
in government and the nonprofit sector; 6. Demonstrate sufficient statistical knowledge to be able to evaluate the quantitative
information in scholarly articles and practitioner communications; and 7. Prepare unique contributions to the body of disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge
about public management and public policy.
Curricular Requirements and Coherence Currently, the DPA degree requires completion of 52 credit hours of graduate course work. The 52 hours include 20 hours of required core courses at the 600-level, 20 hours of electives at the 500-level, which must include one 4 hour quantitative analysis course, and 12 hours of dissertation work at the 600-level. Students are admitted and progress through the program as a cohort and a new cohort begins once every two years. The cohort takes the five required courses (DPA 651, 652, 653, 654, and 655) in sequence during the first two years of the degree. Below is a list of the required core courses:
Doctorate of Public Administration Core: (5 courses = 20 hours)
DPA 651 Conduct of Inquiry & Theoretical Foundations of the Field 4 hrs. DPA 652 Public Management 4 hrs. DPA 653 Public Policy 4 hrs. DPA 654 Research Design 4 hrs. DPA 655 Research Design Practicum 4 hrs.
• DPA 651 (Conduct of Inquiry & Theoretical Foundations of the Field) The goals of this course are to introduce students to the standards of scholarly discourse, to begin to assist them to bridge the theory/practice distinction, and introduce them to selected major paradigms in public administration research.
Offered: Fall semester of the first year • DPA 652 (Public Management) Introduces students to the major subfields in public management
and guides them in developing an understanding of the connection between practitioner experience and scholarly inquiry. The instructor will draw connections between the paradigms covered in DPA 651 and the major directions in public management research.
Prerequisite: DPA 651 Offered: Spring semester of the first year
• DPA 653 (Public Policy) Introduces students to the major subfields in public policy and guides
them in developing an understanding of the connection between practitioner experience and
7
scholarly inquiry. The instructor draws connections between the paradigms covered in DPA 651 and the major directions in public policy research.
Prerequisite: DPA 652 Offered: Summer semester of the first year
• DPA 654 (Research Design) Provides students with an understanding of the essential elements of research design so students can design a research project that meets the scholarly standards for knowledge. Students will be encouraged to identify commonalities between scholarly research practices and the best practices practitioners use to ensure they are dealing with trustworthy information.
Prerequisite: DPA 653 Offered: Fall semester of the second year • DPA 655 (Research Design Practicum) Students work under faculty direction on the design of a
research project allowing them to put into practice the knowledge they have acquired during their first four core courses. The instructor will guide the students to select a research question of interest to both the management and policy fields that can be pursued by the students acting as a research team.
Prerequisite: DPA 654 Offered: Spring semester of the second year
Qualifying Exam After completion of the core courses, students are required to take a qualifying exam. This exam is a take-home exam that covers the material in the five required courses. Students who do not pass the qualifying exam the first time are allowed to take the exam again; however, students who do not pass the exam the second time are not allowed to continue in the DPA program.
Electives Doctoral students are required to take 20 hours of electives at the 500-level which must include
one 4-hour quantitative analysis course. Students are required to complete a degree plan in their first semester. Desired electives are first sent to the student’s advisor for initial screening of acceptability and then forwarded on to the Program Committee for final approval.
Closure/Dissertation After successful completion of the qualifying exam and the 20 hours of elective coursework, the
student is admitted to candidacy and may officially begin working on a dissertation proposal. The student’s advisor will assist with selection of the dissertation committee from among the graduate faculty of the university. A written dissertation proposal must be formally approved by the student’s dissertation committee before dissertation work proceeds. Students must complete 12 hours of dissertation credit. University policy requires that a student who has been admitted to candidacy must be continuously enrolled in at least one semester hour of dissertation coursework each fall and spring until the dissertation is completed, defended, and accepted. An oral examination on the dissertation will be conducted by the dissertation committee. The dissertation advisor will chair the oral dissertation defense which will be open to the campus community. A more in-depth discussion of the dissertation and qualifying examination is presented in the Assessment Section (Section II).
8
For Accredited Programs and Programs Seeking Accreditation:
Accreditation
There are no accreditation options available for Doctorate of Public Administration Programs.
For Programs without Accreditation
Comparison with Similar Programs
The most detailed data compiled by the Department of Public Administration on programs at other universities comparable to the Doctorate of Public Administration offered at UIS is from 1996. Because this research is dated, only a brief notation of other similar programs will be provided here.
• Penn State-Harrisburg • Ohio State • Arizona State • SUNY-Albany • Virginia Commonwealth • University of Colorado-Denver • Florida State • Western Michigan/Lansing
The most recent data available (as of 2005) regarding Public Administration Programs similar to
the DPA offered at UIS reveals that there are still a limited number of doctoral public administration programs in Illinois and surrounding states. The following colleges and universities offer either a Masters or a Ph.D. in Public Administration:
• Governor’s State University o Master’s of Public Administration
• Northern Illinois University o Master of Public Administration
• SIU Carbondale o Master of Public Administration
• SIU Edwardsville o Master of Public Administration
• U of I Chicago o Master of Public Administration o Ph.D. in Public Administration
II. Assessment of Learning Outcomes and Curricular Revision The DPA program uses several different types of assessment mechanisms to evaluate whether the
student learning outcomes have been achieved. The Department of Public Administration currently uses results from the comprehensive exam as the primary assessment mechanism for the old (DPA) program. Students in the old DPA program were required to take a comprehensive exam after completion of all of their coursework and prior to starting work on their dissertation. Under the new program, students will take a qualifying exam after completion of the five required core courses. The DPA program uses results
9
from the exams to identify the extent to which the students are demonstrating achievement of the DPA student learning objectives.
The DPA program also examines external indicators of student learning including DPA student scholarly publications and presentations and job placement of DPA graduates. Other assessment mechanisms include course-level assessments undertaken by individual professors.
Assessment
The Comprehensive Examination under the Old Program
The comprehensive examination was given at the completion of a student’s coursework. Each faculty member in the DPA program read and scored each exam on the basis of the four student learning objectives (see the rubric in Appendix A). The faculty then met as a group to decide a rating for each student’s exam for each of the learning objectives. Looking across student performance on the exams allowed the faculty to identify areas in which students generally are satisfying the learning objectives and other areas in which they are having difficulties. This analysis helps the faculty identify areas in which the program may need to be revised to help students master the student learning objectives. See Appendix A.
Course Level Assessments
Most of the required DPA courses have stated objectives regarding what students are expected to know or be able to do following completion of the course. Throughout the semester, faculty members keep track of performance and grades for individual students. Looking at the performance across students allows the faculty to identify areas where the majority of students may be doing particularly well or may be encountering difficulties. The faculty member can then assess what types of changes to the individual course or, in some cases, to other aspects of the DPA program may be helpful in addressing student weaknesses.
Student Products and Other Accomplishments
An additional means of assessment focuses on student products or other types of accomplishments. This includes dissertations, presentation of scholarly work at national conferences, publications, and placement of graduates. The second year review includes a review of the students academic portfolio (significant papers from core courses) by the student’s advisor, a review committee and then as a discussion in the program faculty meeting.
Use of Assessment Results
In the past, the assessment results from the comprehensive exam have been used by the faculty to make revisions to the curriculum. For example, the faculty observed that many of the students were more familiar with the classic literature than the more recent literature. Therefore, an effort was made to integrate more recent literature into the courses and let students know they are expected to stay current on the public administration literature. See Appendix C.
10
The assessment results for the research skill learning objective also prompted faculty to re-examine the admissions criteria. An effort was made to try to admit students whose interests more directly corresponded to those of the faculty with the intent of fostering a better faculty-student mentoring relationship, especially in the area of research.
Curricular Revisions during the Review Period Two major types of curricular revisions have occurred during the review period. The first type of
revisions were changes that were made to the old DPA program based on assessment results and an evaluation of the curriculum by the program faculty. The second type of revisions were made as a result of the decision to return to a more practitioner-oriented doctoral program.
Revisions to the Old DPA Curriculum
Two courses, Public Ethics and Qualitative Methods, were added to the DPA curriculum after the initial creation of the curriculum. The ethics course was added to address the increasing importance of this topic in the public sector and in the State of Illinois. The qualitative course was added in recognition the recognition that qualitative research is a viable and important component of public administration scholarship. Students previously had not obtained sufficient knowledge about qualitative methods because there was too much material to be covered in the advanced research methods course.
In addition to these changes, the public policy course offered was revised to present a more balanced approach to the economic and political aspects of public policy analysis and processes. Previously, the course focused primarily on the political aspects. Following the revisions, students were exposed to how microeconomic concepts can be applied to public policy issues and challenges.
Course-level and comprehensive exam assessments also led to other changes in the curriculum. For example, the faculty noted that some students had difficulties in critiquing research articles. As a consequence of this deficiency, particular courses were redesigned to offer more guidance and practice in the critique of research articles. Students were also asked to critique research papers in a variety of classroom formats, including class discussions, individual presentations, and the preparation of written critiques. These approaches provided the faculty with the opportunity to provide individual students with necessary feedback regarding their performance.
Finally, faculty noted that some of the comprehensive exams indicated that students were having difficulties applying the material they were learning. These students were usually able to provide definitions and descriptions of the theories and concepts, but were less proficient in applying this knowledge to particular public administration or public policy issues. Faculty addressed this issue in a variety of ways. For example, one professor decreased the required readings for her course, choosing to focus more on an in-depth examination of critical concepts rather than cover a broad scope of topics. Another professor revised her course to include more articles and research reports that focused specifically on the application of concepts and theories to particular policy issues.
Return to a More Practitioner-Oriented Curriculum
11
In Spring 2005, an external consultant was brought to campus to review and prepare a report on the UIS DPA program. The consultant’s recommendations, along with input from faculty and students, served as the basis for a major revamping of the DPA program. This section describes the old DPA curriculum.
The old Doctorate of Public Administration curriculum consisted of courses in public administration theory, organizational behavior, financial management, public policy, and ethics. There also were three required research courses, including courses on quantitative methods, qualitative methods and research methods. In addition, students took 20 hours (five courses) in a concentration. The concentrations consisted of nonprofit management, state government, or a special interest concentration in which the student could work his/her committee to identify courses related to the student’s individual interests. Most of the students pursued the last option.
The old DPA curriculum required at least 54 hours of doctoral level coursework beyond the master’s degree plus a minimum of 12 hours dissertation credit. The 54 hours included eight required courses (20 hours of core courses and 12 hours of research methods courses), five concentration courses (20 hours) and a two-hour dissertation proposal seminar. To ensure the quality of courses at the doctoral level, the DPA Program adopted standards for course offerings. DPA courses, by virtue of their doctoral-level academic status, were more demanding both intellectually and in terms of the workload than master’s level courses.
Core Courses PAD 601 Advanced Seminar in Public Administration Theory and Organizational Analysis 4 hrs.
PAD 602 Advanced Seminar in Organizational Behavior in Public Systems 4 hrs.
PAD 603 Advanced Seminar in Financial Policy Management and Fiscal Policy 4 hrs.
PAD 604 Advanced Seminar in Public Policy Processes and Analysis 4 hrs.
PAD 605 Administrative Ethics and Public Service 4 hrs.
TOTAL CORE COURSE HOURS: 20 hrs.
• PAD 601 (Advanced Seminar in Public Administration Theory and Organizational Analysis) Exploration of the intellectual and theoretical foundations, historical contexts, and contemporary arguments about public administration as both a field of practice and academic discipline. Intensive readings in original works in the foundation of the field and relevant collateral fields equip the student to analyze the assumptions underlying and framing public administration as well as the current discussions of scholarship in the field and the theoretical underpinnings of government leadership.
Prerequisite: a graduate-level course on the American political system or a graduate degree in public administration, political studies, or an equivalent course.
• PAD 602 (Advanced Seminar in Organizational Behavior in Public Systems) Organizing processes; the connections and interactions between elements and parts of organizations; diagnosing organization problems and managing change; leadership behavior and effectiveness; expectations and values; job satisfaction and individual performance; organizational culture; and norms and values.
Prerequisite: PAD 502 or an equivalent course.
12
• PAD 603 (Advanced Seminar in Financial Management and Fiscal Policy) Historic development and trends in public revenues and expenditures; political, economic, and administrative significance of decisions in the field of public financial management, the limitations of financial policy as a mechanism of social policy and management control.
Prerequisite(s): PAD 504 (Budget and Finance) or an equivalent course and a one-semester economics course, preferably one that addresses microeconomics, such as ECON 315 (Economics for Administration).
• PAD 604 (Advanced Seminar in Public Policy Processes and Analysis) Critical analysis of the policy field; integration of quantitative, normative, organizational, and political considerations in policy formulation; policy research; analytic frameworks in diverse substantive policy formation; policy formation; analytic frameworks in diverse substantive policy areas; ethics and values.
Prerequisite(s): PAD 531 or POS 518, or equivalent and a one-semester undergraduate or graduate course in economics.
• PAD 605 (Administrative Ethics and Public Service) Overview of research and theory development about ethical issues in the management of governmental services; utilitarian, deontological, and moral considerations of ethical controversies; normative traditions of public administration ethics; practical solutions and applied and empirical research about questions of government ethics.
Research Methods Courses: (3 courses: 12 hours) In addition to the twenty hours of required core courses, students in the Doctorate of Public Administration Program were required to take 12 hours of research methods classes. These courses provided students with the quantitative and qualitative methods knowledge and skills for future work on dissertations and in subsequent professional, teaching, and research positions. These courses were:
PAD 611 Advanced Seminar in Quantitative Methods 4 hrs.
PAD 612 Advanced Seminar in Qualitative Methods 4 hrs.
PAD 613 Advanced Seminar in Research Methods 4 hrs.
TOTAL CORE COURSE HOURS: 12 hrs.
• PAD 611 (Advanced Seminar in Quantitative Methods) Advanced multivariate techniques, including multiple regression; path analysis; multiple classification analysis; analysis of variance models; and forecasting models. Prerequisite: PAD 503, POS 503, or equivalent course completed within the last five years and proficiency in elementary multivariate statistics and data analysis techniques.
• PAD 612 (Advanced Seminar in Qualitative Methods) This seminar further develops the methods necessary for public administration qualitative research, focusing on participant observation, interviewing, writing field notes, and transforming these field data into documents. Recent literature on the theoretical and ethical aspects of qualitative methods will be covered. The formulation of a research project to be carried out during the semester is required. Prerequisite: PAD 503, POS 503 or equivalent.
• PAD 613 (Advanced Seminar in Research Methods) The role of the scientific explanatory research and prescription research in the action-oriented field of public administration is explored. Critiques of current research in the field help identify the choices regarding theories, methods, and techniques of the research process. Seminar readings on advanced quantitative and qualitative methods will contribute to the
13
formulation of a research project to be carried out during the semester. Prerequisite(s): PAD 611 and PAD 612.
Concentrations
• In addition to the core public administration and research courses, students were required to complete a minimum of 20 credit hours in a concentration of study. Two concentrations were offered: Nonprofit Management and State Government. Alternatively students could develop a concentration based on their particular interests. With this option students could work with their Plan of Study Committee to identify the classes most appropriate to the student’s individual interest.
Prerequisites:
The DPA Program also required five prerequisite courses to ensure that students had the background in theory and practice necessary to be successful in the core courses. Prerequisite course requirements included satisfactory completion of the following:
• A one semester undergraduate or graduate course in economics, preferably microeconomics (e.g. Econ. 315);
• A graduate course on the American political system (or a graduate degree in public administration, political studies, or the equivalent)
• A graduate level course in analytical tools (PAD 503, POS 503, or the equivalent) completed within the past five years
• A graduate course in budgeting and finance (PAD 504, or the equivalent); and
• A graduate course in public policy (PAD 531 or POS 518 or the equivalent)
Comprehensive Examination Students were also required to complete a comprehensive examination (see previouis
description).
Dissertation As the final component of the D.P.A. Program, students were required to take a minimum of 12 hours dissertation credit and a 2 hour proposal seminar. These courses were:
PAD 687 Dissertation Proposal Preparation Seminar 2 to 4 hrs.
PAD 690 Dissertation 1 to 12 hrs.
TOTAL DISSERTATION HOURS: 14 hrs.
The purpose of the Comprehensive Examination under the old curriculum was to certify that the student had a comprehensive knowledge of the field of public administration, as represented by the public administration core and research courses, and a thorough knowledge of his or her concentration area. The examination was used to determine whether a student was prepared to write a dissertation in the concentration area. The purpose of the examination was to provide an opportunity for students to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the field and competence as researchers in public administration and their chosen concentration.
14
The Comprehensive Examination covered the core courses, research courses, and concentration courses. The exam consisted of both a written and a verbal component. The written portion was a take-home exam that consisted of two parts. The first part addressed the core and research courses and the second part addressed a student’s concentration area. The core and research component of the exam was the same for all students who took the exam at the same time; however, the concentration portion was tailored for the individual student. Upon satisfactory completion of the written examination, students took the oral examination. Upon satisfactory completion of the written and oral examinations, the student was certified for advancement into candidacy for the DPA.
Students who did not pass one or more portions of the written comprehensive exam were allowed to retake the portion(s) that they did not pass. There was no limit on the number of times an examination could be retaken, however, the student had to wait until the next regularly scheduled exam in either the next fall or spring semester to retake all or part of the examination. Students who did not pass the oral examination similarly were allowed to retake it in the next regularly scheduled examination time.
The new DPA curriculum is more practitioner focused and more interdisciplinary. In the research courses there is more emphasis placed on the relationship between theory and practice, Students are encouraged to use their experience and knowledge from the practitioner arena to critically examine the literature and to develop important research questions. The courses are designed in a manner that encourages lively discourse among experienced practitioners.
a. Past Policy Changes
A review of the dissertations produced by DPA students led to discussions among the faculty about what constitutes a good dissertation. The program decided to conduct research on this issue and to develop a set of dissertation policies. The discussions also addressed what is the appropriate role of the dissertation chair, committee members, and the Dean’s representative who serves as a dissertation committee member.
The development of the dissertation policies involved the following steps: (1) research was conducted on the dissertation policies of other public administration programs; (2) the public administration faculty met to provide their input on policy and procedural issues related to the dissertation, and (3) a draft of the dissertation policies was prepared and distributed to the faculty, the dean, and the Associate Chancellor for Graduate Education. After considerable discussion and revisions, the dissertation policies were formally adopted by the public administration faculty. Highlights of the dissertation policies are listed below.
The public administration faculty has identified the following criteria for DPA dissertations:
• The dissertation should make an original, significant contribution to the scholarly literature of public administration.
• The dissertation must demonstrate a clear understanding of the research issues and the relevant literature.
• The dissertation must utilize a research approach that is appropriate for the research question and the state of the related research.
15
• The dissertation must be presented in a clear and professional manner, with documentation and references that adhere to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) and UIS formatting instructions.
• The dissertation is the threshold of the student’s career and therefore should be of sufficient quality and importance to merit publication in a refereed journal or to form the basis for a book or monograph which other scholars may build on in subsequent work.
• The dissertation must be the work of a single author- the student.
b. Other Types of Changes
Several other changes were made to the DPA Program in response to assessment feedback from the comprehensive examinations and from individual courses. The faculty strove to be more diligent in their review of student applications for the DPA Program. The new goal was to admit students whose interests were a good match for the DPA Program and who had a good chance of being successful in the program. Faculty paid more attention to factors such as GRE scores and to the statement of interest and career goals. The faculty observed that very low GRE scores may increase the likelihood that students will struggle with particular courses and may have difficulty succeeding in the program. Statements of interest and career goals that did not reflect an appreciation and interest in research were also looked upon as indicators that students were not sufficiently prepared or informed for the rigors of a doctoral program. In addition, faculty worked to assess whether a good match existed between the student’s interest and the expertise of the faculty in determining student admission.
Faculty also placed more attention on the importance of advising. For example, after the assessment, students were asked to take more prerequisites if needed (e.g. international students who needed more courses in American Government), and to take additional courses to strengthen their expertise in their concentration area, and, in one case, a student was counseled to consider leaving the DPA program due to his poor performance.
The DPA Program, with its new curriculum and outlook has developed a new framework for assessment. This new assessment focuses on advising and review of student progress. The following section will describe this assessment plan in more detail under “Future Assessment Goals and Methodology” section.
Other Factors:
Background Information
During the 2004/2005 academic year, a contingent of graduate students in the DPA Program at UIS met with the Interim Dean and expressed concerns about the continuing viability of the program. Enrollment was declining and additional departmental resources, including more faculty and faculty members at senior rank, were needed to continue the DPA Program. Members of the DPA faculty argued that the program could not thrive without a substantial increase in university resources. On the basis of this argument, in the fall of 2004, the Public Administration Department, the Interim Dean of the College
16
of Public Affairs & Administration, and the Provost agreed that an outside evaluator was needed to come in and examine the program in order to provide suggestions on possible alternative courses of action.
In late January of 2005, Professor David Schultz from the Hamline University Graduate School of Management was chosen to come in to examine the program and suggest possible courses of action for the DPA Program. On March 4, 2005, Professor Schultz delivered his report which focused on three questions:
1. Is the DPA Program implementing its original academic vision, and if it is not, what reasons existed for the departure?
2. Is there sufficient financial, staff, and leadership support at UIS for the DPA Program?
3. Does the DPA Program need revision given the academic vision and the amount of support at UIS for the program?
Professor Schultz’s findings in regards to these questions served as the basis for revamping the DPA Program. He recommended that the program be redesigned to return to its original vision as an interdisciplinary, practitioner-oriented degree that drew on the faculty of multiple departments to provide a sufficient base for student mentoring and course offerings. It was because of this latter suggestion that the DPA curriculum was revised to be more interdisciplinary and practitioner-oriented. A more in-depth discussion will be related in the “Summary and Recommendations” section at the end of this document.
In 2005, a proposal was developed to modify the Doctorate of Public Administration Program. The proposal involved a revision of the doctoral degree from a degree offered by the faculty of a single department to an interdisciplinary degree offered by the faculty of the College of Public Affairs and Administration which was housed in the Department of Public Administration. Changes were implemented in the Spring semester of 2006.
Future Assessment Goals and Methodology The DPA Program does not yet have significant assessment data on its current program due to the curriculum changes and the new assessment process. Future reviews, however, plan to focus on key aspects of student assessment and achievement using tools such as student portfolios, individual student evaluations based on coursework and grades, and analysis of the student’s qualifying exams.
A more detailed plan of the new process for the first year review of students is presented below.
The Role of Advisors
The advisor will provide a formative evaluation in writing of the student’s progress during the first year of coursework and will assist in the preparation and grading of the student’s qualifying exams at the end of the core courses.
During the month of May in their first year of courses, there will be a meeting between each student and his/her advisor to identify strengths and weaknesses the student has shown during the first year of coursework. The advisors will produce a written evaluation of each student on a form agreed upon by the Program Faculty. There will be a meeting of advisors with DPA Program Faculty to examine
17
progress of all students and perform program assessment tasks. This first year assessment will provide faculty with an opportunity to assess students’ progress during the first year and provide students with feedback and direction beyond that provided by grades in individual courses.
Standards for Review
Students in the DPA program should provide evidence they are able to:
• Evaluate and integrate the theoretical literature from a range of public affairs disciplines as they apply to issues commonly addressed in public administration and related public affairs disciplines,
• Apply the theoretical literature appropriately to address real world problems in public management and public policy,
• Identify and describe the core subject matter content of the student’s area of concentration in either public management or public policy,
• Critically assess and evaluate the literature in a range of public affairs disciplines, • Assess and critique scholarly articles and practitioner communications as a consumer.
Process for Review
1. Advisors will read the students portfolio. A copy of the student’s DPA transcript will also be made available for review.
2. Each student, a subgroup of Program Faculty (usually consisting of a Program Faculty member and a DPA teaching faculty member) will first review the student’s portfolio and then will meet with the advisor for the students reviewed.
3. After meeting with the subgroup, the advisor should then draft an evaluation using the first year advisor evaluation form (see Appendix F) and share it with the Program Faculty subgroup by email to get consensus.
4. The student’s advisor will then meet with the student and share feedback orally. Student comments or problems raised during that meeting will be noted and forwarded with the evaluation form to the program director.
5. Subsequently, the Program Faculty subgroup will “present” the student evaluations at the program faculty meeting and will suggest additional comments as necessary to supplement the advisor form and student response.
6. The outcome of the review process will be summarized in a letter to the student from the program director. The intent of this evaluation is to suggest corrections so that the student may make progress towards learning objectives and successful completion of the dissertation. While in some cases a review may suggest to a student that continuance in the program may not be the best option, the review itself will not result in the program removing a student from the program. The review forms will also provide good assessment feedback for program evaluation and may serve to suggest changes in the DPA Program.
Career Objectives and Job Placement
Career Objectives and Job Placement
18
Most of the students who enrolled in the old Doctorate of Public Administration Program aspired to improve their status within their respective government or nonprofit organizations. Others already were working in an academic environment or desired employment in an academic position at a college or university. The successful placement of DPA graduates in a variety of professional jobs suggests that the program has been successful in this respect. Students who have graduated from the DPA Program have secured various positions throughout the United States and overseas. See Appendix E: Dissertations & Job Placement for a list of current DPA alumni positions.
Student Satisfaction No existing data or information on this topic. The DPA Program plans to implement student satisfaction surveys and begin compiling data for the new program in the coming years.
Student Achievements
Conference Presentations
DPA students are encouraged to present their scholarly work at professional conferences. Usually students are better prepared and feel more comfortable doing this toward the latter part of their studies. Most conferences require the students to submit a proposal for review to a conference committee. The committee then evaluates the proposal and decides whether to accept the proposal. Although the criteria used by conference committees vary, the acceptance of a proposal usually indicates that the committee members found the research topic and approach to be worthy of presentation. See Appendix D. Publications
DPA students are also encouraged to submit their written scholarly work for review to journals. Many of these journals have a referee process in which manuscripts are subject to review by experts in a particular field. Having a manuscript accepted in a refereed publication or in other professionally recognized journals represents a scholarly accomplishment by a DPA student. See Appendix E.
III. Student Characteristics and Academic Support
Demographics Students in the Doctorate of Public Administration Program are older, as a whole, than most students at UIS. The mean age for DPA students has ranged from a high of 49.9 in 2006 to a low of 39 in 2008. DPA students are also more likely to be attending college as part-time students than UIS graduate and undergraduate students as a whole. Students tend to be primarily Caucasian, non-Hispanic individuals. Although there has been a slight decline in African American student enrollment in recent years, this ethnic class tends to comprise the highest minority enrollment within the program. The ratio of female to male students in the DPA Program is roughly equal. In recent years, however, the number of female students has risen in contrast to male students whose enrollment appears to have declined, particularly from Fall 2002 to Fall 2005.
19
The table below presents demographic information on DPA students for 2008 (For more detailed demographic information, see Section X: Statistical Data, Table 1).
Status Fall 2008
Full Time 1
Part Time 10 Total
11
Race/Ethnicity* Race/Ethnicity Unknown 0 White Non-Hispanic 8 Hispanic or Latino/a 0 Black/African Am./Non- 3
Hisp. Asian/Pacific Islander 0 Total 11 Age (Categorically)**
Less than 20 0
20-21 0
22-24 0
25-29 1
30-34 2
35-39 4
40-49 3
50-64 1
65 & over 0
Unknown Age 0 Total 11
Average Age***
Mean 39 Gender
Male
5
Female 6 Total
11
20
Transfer Characteristics/Feeder Institutions An analysis of active student files suggests that the majority of current DPA students come from
graduate programs in the state of Illinois. Past student files reveal a more diverse sampling of feeder institutions. DPA students have come from a variety of Illinois colleges and universities including SIU, Lincoln College, Southern Illinois University (SIU Carbondale & Edwardsville), Illinois State University (ISU), Western Illinois University (WIU), UIS, UIUC, Millikin University, City Colleges of Chicago, University of Chicago, Illinois College and Northern Illinois University. They also represent a number of out-of-state institutions including Arkansas State University, University of Michigan, Metropolitan State University, College of Denver, Truman State University, University of Arkansas, and Rutgers University. Finally, the international colleges and universities represented by DPA students include Sung Kyun Kwan University in Seoul, Korea and University of Quebec, Montreal in Canada.
Recruitment Activities The Doctorate of Public Administration Program has a variety of recruitment methods. The program responds to all requests for information about the program through either e-mail or personalized letters. Mailed responses include informational program packets and application materials. The program also provides an opportunity for students to come meet department members face to face. A department brochure and student handbook has also been created that contains detailed information about the program and is distributed to potential students either by mail or at recruitment events. In addition to recruitment through graduate fairs and letters sent to professional sites and organizations, potential students are also targeted through NASPAA (the Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration). An annual letter with a program brochure is sent to NASPAA colleagues for dissemination to program students. The program then replies to any student requests for information.
Admissions Criteria A cohort of up to 15 students will be admitted to the program in the fall once every two years,
however, the first cohort was admitted in a spring semester. Prospective students are asked to submit an application portfolio in addition to the application for graduate admission to UIS. That portfolio must include an education and professional goals statement of at least 600 words written by the applicant, three letters of recommendation, at least one sample of the applicant’s professional writing that was written solely by the applicant, and evidence of significant work experience in public affairs. Applicants are encouraged, but not required, to submit GRE scores as part of their portfolios. These scores can provide useful information about an applicant’s readiness for program coursework. Students are required to have a master’s degree; however, there are no individual course prerequisites.
Once the applications are received there is a two-tiered review process. The first step involves the Director and Associate Director of the DPA Program who screen applications to select those who will be given further consideration. To be eligible for further consideration the student’s application portfolio must have:
• Transcripts for all graduate work,
21
• A completed master’s degree, • A minimum cumulative GPA of 3.25 for all graduate work, • Evidence of excellent oral and written communication skills, and • Three letters of recommendation with at least one letter from an individual at an academic
institution from whom the applicant took courses.
The second tier of the review process involves all members of the DPA Program Committee. This committee will review the applications identified during the first tier of the process as being worthy of further consideration. Each applicant who wishes to be considered for a seat in the cohort must be available for an oral interview with the program committee. Fifteen students per cohort will be selected from those applicants based on:
• The fit between the applicant’s educational aspirations and the curricular offerings of the program and expertise of the faculty,
• The quality of the applicant’s previous graduate performance, • Evidence of the applicant’s ability to complete doctoral level work, and • Evidence of significant professional achievement in a public affairs field.
Advising and Other Communication to/with Students After an applicant has been accepted into the DPA Program, the student is assigned an advisor in his or her area of specialization. The adviser assists students in developing a preliminary plan of study including any prerequisites and the initial courses required in the DPA Program. The advisor is also assigned the duty of providing students with written permission to enroll in a DPA core or research course. Finally, each student’s advisor assists with the selection of the dissertation committee from among the graduate faculty of the university.
Changes in Advising Procedures and Processes
The faculty is now paying more attention to advising in response to assessment feedback from the comprehensive exams and individual courses. As a part of the new DPA advising system, in May of the student’s incoming year there will be a meeting between each student and his/her advisor to identify strengths and weaknesses the student has shown during the first year of coursework. Advisors are required to provide a formative written evaluation of the student’s progress based upon his or her analysis of the student’s portfolio during the first year of coursework. Students must make a grade of B or better on each core course.
The faculty communicates the purposes, content and practices of the program to the students through handbooks, verbal contact with the students during orientation and recruitment events, and through the DPA website: http://www.uis.edu/publicadministration/.
Retention The Office of Institutional Studies tracks cohorts for a period of at least eight years after their initial enrollment. The data provided for the Fiscal Years from 1999-2008 are provided on the following page. Based on this analysis of DPA cohorts, retention ranged from high of 58.4% in the second year
22
after a cohort started to a 37.5% in the eighth year after a cohort started. When analyzing these statistics it should be noted that a small number of students dropped out for several consecutive terms, but returned at a later time. This caused enrollment and retention to drop and rise in consecutive years.
The Department of Public Administration will continue to encourage doctoral student retention by maintaining close contact between students and advisors. Student progress will also be monitored through advisors’ review of first year portfolios in order to identify and correct individual student deficiencies. Special attention will also be devoted to students working on their dissertation to ensure that students feel confident and have guidance in this effort.
Numberin Cohort 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
26 14 11 12 8 6 6 410 6 4 3 2 3 2 212 7 7 6 3 1 3 35 3 2 2 2 1 17 3 3 3 3 36 3 1 1 17 6 4 3 4 3 2 0 0
10
26 0 0 1 3 4 4 6 10 0 0 1 1 1 1 212 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 07 0 0 04 0 00 0 NUMBER
10
26 14 11 13 11 10 10 10 10 6 4 4 3 4 3 4 12 7 7 6 4 2 4 45 3 2 2 2 2 27 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 1 1 17 6 4 34 3 20 0 NUMBER
10 RETAINED IN DPA
NOTE: Data are collected at the end of each fiscal year. Degrees conferred for that fiscal year subsequent to the IR data collection time period can not be included.
Source: Enterprise Data Warehouse -- Academic Records Universe. NOTE: Cohort includes students enrolled in the Doctoral program in Public Administration.NOTE: "Enrollment" includes any student who was enrolled in the summer, fall or spring term of a given year (eg. Summer 1999, Fall 1999, and Spring 2000= FY00).NOTE: A small number of students dropped out for several consecutive terms, only to return at a later time. This caused enrollment and retention to raise and drop in consecutive years.
2008
20032004200520062007
1999
1999
20012002
20042003
2001
1999
University of Illinois at SpringfieldPublic Administration, D.P.A.
Number Graduated or Enrolled by Years Since Matriculation
Year of EnrollmentFiscal YearEntering:
2000
2008
2008
2005
2007
20052006
NOT GRADUATED
2006ENROLLED AS DPA MJR
20012002
2000
2007GRADUATED IN DPA
2000
200220032004
23
University of Illinois at SpringfieldPublic Administration, D.P.A.Percent Graduated or Enrolled by Years Since Matriculation
Fiscal Year Number Year of EnrollmentEntering: in Cohort 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1999 26 53.8% 42.3% 46.2% 30.8% 23.1% 23.1% 15.4%2000 10 60.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 30.0% 20.0% 20.0%2001 12 58.3% 58.3% 50.0% 25.0% 8.3% 25.0% 25.0%2002 5 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0%2003 7 42.9% 42.9% 42.9% 42.9% 42.9%2004 6 50.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7%2005 7 85.7% 57.1% 42.9%2006 4 75.0% 50.0%2007 0 0.0% PERCENT ENROLLED2008 10 AS DPA MAJOR
1999 26 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 11.5% 15.4% 15.4% 23.1%2000 10 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0%2001 12 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3%2002 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0%2003 7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%2004 6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%2005 7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%2006 4 0.0% 0.0% PERCENT2007 0 0.0% GRADUAT2008 10 IN DPA
1999 26 53.8% 42.3% 50.0% 42.3% 38.5% 38.5% 38.5%2000 10 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 30.0% 40.0% 30.0% 40.0%2001 12 58.3% 58.3% 50.0% 33.3% 16.7% 33.3% 33.3%2002 5 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%2003 7 42.9% 42.9% 42.9% 42.9% 42.9%2004 6 50.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7%2005 7 85.7% 57.1% 42.9%2006 4 75.0% 50.0%2007 0 0.0% PERCENT2008 10 RETAINED
Weighted A 58.4% 44.2% 43.8% 36.4% 35.0% 35.8% 37.5%
Source: Enterprise Data Warehouse -- Academic Records Universe. NOTE: Cohort includes students enrolled in the Doctoral program in Public Administration.NOTE: "Enrollment" includes any student who was enrolled in the summer, fall or spring term of a given year (eg. Summer 1999, Fall 1999, a NOTE: A small number of students dropped out for several consecutive terms, only to return at a later time. This caused enrollment and rete NOTE: Data are collected at the end of each fiscal year. Degrees conferred for that fiscal year subsequent to the IR data collection time perio
24
IV. Faculty
Demographics All the DPA faculty members are full-time professors. The DPA faculty includes professors from each of the academic departments within the College of Public Affairs and Administration. These professors have responsibilities in their academic units, as well as in the DPA program. Four of the faculty are tenured and eight are tenure-track All faculty members hold a Ph.D. or the terminal degree in their discipline.
All DPA faculty members receive one course hour non-instructional assignment (NIA) each year to cover their participation in the program. The program director receives four course hours. Since this is an interdisciplinary program, none of the faculty is appointed in the DPA. Instead, they hold their appointments in various participating departments and each department has its own recruitment program for minority hiring. The DPA faculty include one Native American and five women.
Fit with Program The disciplinary diversity of the department meets the program’s needs for specialization expertise within the public policy/management field. Because the DPA is interdisciplinary, it is particularly noteworthy that the faculty comes from a variety of backgrounds. Faculty backgrounds and interests are summarized below.
Beverly Bunch, Professor Ph.D. Carnegie-Mellon University M.P.A. Syracuse University; B.S. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Interests: state and local government budgeting and financial management, intergovernmental relations, and policy analysis. Mark Edgar, Assistant Professor, Public Health Ph.D., Public Health, St. Louis University His past positions include director of assessment and planning at the Illinois Public Health Institute, senior research associate at St. Louis University School of Public Health, researcher at SIU School of Medicine, director of epidemiology at the Adams County Health Department, and adjunct faculty member at UIS and Quincy University. His research has been published in the Journal of Public Health Management and Practice and Public Health Reports. Kim Furumoto, Assistant Professor, Legal Studies J.D./Ph.D., Arizona State Research/Professional Interests: Federal Indian law, civil rights law, environmental law, critical race theory, postcolonial theory, and existential philosophy Jay Gilliam, Assistant Professor, Criminal Justice Ph.D., Sociology, University of Oklahoma Interests: the relationship among drugs, alcohol, and crime; ecological factors of crime; and issues of juvenile justice. His work has been published in the journal Deviant Behavior and he has made numerous presentations at national academic conferences. Denise Keele, Assistant Professor, Natural Resources Policy & Administration
25
Ph.D., Environmental and Natural Resources Policy, SUNY-ESF Teaching Interests: core natural resource policy courses which present a broad range of issues that illustrate the outcomes associated with various policy strategies, administrative and environmental laws, and research methods. Her previous studies have given her a unique perspective on environmental conflicts and contentious natural resource issues. Sharron Lafollette, Associate Professor and Department Chair Public Health Department Ph.D., Toxicology, Oregon State University In addition to her duties as associate professor and department chair of the Public Health Department, Lafollette has a joint faculty appointment in the Institute for Legal and Policy Studies. She received her Ph.D. in Toxicology from Oregon State University. Prior to joining academia, she spent eight years in Illinois government conducting multi-media risk assessments and providing risk communication and educational programs for physicians, public health professionals, and the general public. She taught and was director of the Environmental Health Program at Illinois State University for eight years before coming to UIS, and was Chair of the Department of Environmental Health prior to her current appointment. She has over 28 years experience in conference and workshop planning and delivery in the multidisciplinary area of environmental health. Jung Wook Lee, Assistant Professor Ph.D., 2006, University of Georgia, Public Administration Research/Professional Interests: Public management, organization theory and behavior, public administration theory, performance management, program evaluation Will Miller, Associate Professor and Chair of Public Administration Ph.D., Public Policy and Administration from St. Louis University Eden Theological Seminary, M. Div. Will Miller was the founding director of the doctoral program in public policy at the University of Arkansas. He has also worked as a policy analyst for St. Louis University and with numerous community-based advocacy and service groups. His professional focus is on public policy in such areas as desegregation policy, church and state issues, citizen participation in economic development, financial ratios, equal employment, and the use of race in research. His work has appeared in Public Administration Review, American Review of Public Administration, Women and Politics, State and Local Government Review, and The American Journal of Political Science. Patrick Mullen, Assistant Professor Ph.D., Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Research/Professional Interests: Information technology and public administration, digital government and individual privacy, program evaluation, public financial management Jason A. Pierceson, Assistant Professor, Political Studies & Legal Studies B.A., History, Knox College Ph.D., Public Law, Brandeis University and Interests: public law, the legal and political issues relating to sexuality, and political theory He is the author of Courts, Liberalism, and Rights: Gay Law and Politics in the United States and Canada published by Temple University Press in 2005. John Transu, Assistant Professor, Political Studies Ph.D., Political Science, University of Minnesota In addition to being an assistant professor in Political Studies, John Transu has an appointment in the Institute for Legal, Legislative, and Policy Studies.
26
Interests: social identity, public opinion, political participation, and the relationships between political events and financial markets. His research has been published in the American Journal of Political Science, Political Psychology, Annual Review of Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and Public Opinion Quarterly. Pinky Wassenberg, Associate Professor, Dean, College of Public Affairs and Administration Ph.D., Political Science, Washington State University J.D., Lewis & Clark Law School B.A., Political Science, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Research interests: American constitutional law, the law of military conflict, environmental law, public policy (implementation and evaluation), implementation of community corrections programs, and issues in the philosophy of social science
Faculty Achievements See Fit With the Program Section above.
Technology Faculty within the DPA are currently using a variety of instructional technology including, but not limited to, PowerPoint, Blackboard, Excel spreadsheets, and online use of library databases. Since students in the Doctorate of Public Administration program engage in advanced academic work, less attention is paid to the teaching of technology and more time is spent actually using the various instructional technologies in application of course materials and homework.
Faculty Development The DPA strives to support faculty development by providing one credit hour NIA per year. There is also a travel account specifically designated for DPA faculty to attend conferences and continuing education. Since the new DPA Program is only in its second year, most of the faculty has not had a chance to use these designated travel funds. These funds, however, which exist in addition to departmental funds, are available to those DPA faculty members who will choose to attend conferences or continuing education courses in the upcoming years.
Beverly Bunch is the only current faculty member who has taken a sabbatical. During her sabbatical in Fall 2007 she researched budget policy issues. This research led her to write a manuscript, Privatization of Public Infrastructure: Preserving the Public Interest, which she presented in October, 2008 at the 20th Annual Conference of the Association for Budgeting and Financial Management in Chicago.
The new DPA Program is only in its second year of existence, and thus, there is ample room for faculty development and growth. In the upcoming years it will be easier to assess any deficiencies or needs that arise in regards to faculty development.
27
V. Learning Environment and Support Services The cohort nature of the new catalogue program is very important in creating a learning environment among these working students. By the second semester for the DPA students in the new program, a strong community among the students had developed. This is enhanced by having a common core experience with core classes taken together as a cohort. Students have developed a strong sense of community and are regularly eating together outside of the classroom.
The first three semesters of the student’s academic careers included an orientation session to different aspects of the program and academic life. Subjects covered were the development of a literature review using electronic databases, electronic reference systems, academic integrity, the dissertation process and other relevant issues. Future orientations will include a workshop on the qualifying exam and on developing a dissertation.
Students are invited to join the national honorary society for public administration.
Each semester includes a social event meant to develop a sense of academic community between students and between students and faculty. Students are urged to develop their contacts with faculty who may have similar interests and could be possible dissertation committee members.
VI. Student Demand and Program Productivity Table 2. Public Administration Program Majors, Credit Hours Generated, and Degrees Granted by Academic Year, 1999-2006
Year Program Majors Credit Hours Degrees Granted
Fall 1998 36 1426 36
Fall 1999 106 1543 23
Fall 2000 117 1859 27
Fall 2001 136 2271 33
Fall 2002 151 2561 51
Fall 2003 132 2352 43
Fall 2004 111 1940 38
Fall 2005 110 1826 31
Source: Institutional Studies, UIS.
*This is the information that was reported to the IBHE. For the years prior to FY 2005, the credit hours generated by non-degree and undecided students were included in the count of program major credit hours. That is, these non-degree and undecided students were
28
considered as program majors in the prefixes of the courses they were enrolled. Credit hours generated by actual program majors are noted here and the inaccurate numbers generated omitted.
Department of Public Administration: Fall 2006-2008 Headcount & Total Hours
Program Productivity and Analysis Class sizes will remain small for both the core classes and electives. Core class enrollment will not exceed fifteen students and several of the courses are team taught. Graduate elective classes at UIS are seldom above twenty students and often are closer to fifteen or less in the areas our student take electives.
We have no plans for our students to take off-campus location courses. Students may take a limited number of electives on-line. Our online electives are very comparable to our on ground courses. Support for online courses is very good as evidenced by the national awards the campus has received for its online support and development.
It is difficult to compare the DPA doctoral program to other UIS programs as there are no other doctoral programs on campus.
Credit hours, enrollments, and degree production of UIS to other Illinois’ programs
Within the 4-digit CIP, one type of Public Administration Program is offered in Illinois public institutions. A comparison of credit hours, enrollments, and degree production of the UIS DPA Program to other comparable programs in Illinois is limited to a comparison between UIS and U of I Chicago because these are the only two schools to offer a Doctorate in Public Administration. In 2007, U of I Chicago’s Fall enrollment dropped from 23 in 2006 to 21 in 2007. UIS enrollment for the DPA Program also dropped from 20 in 2006 to 11 in 2007. (However, UIS DPA enrollment increased to 20 in 2008.) In both 2006 and 2007, two DPA degrees were conferred at UIS, whereas U of I Chicago conferred a single degree each of these years.
29
Doctoral Programs Degrees Conferred 200
2 200
3 200
4 200
5 200
6 2007
U of I Chicago
1 1 1 1 1 1
U of I Springfield
0 0 1 1 2 2
Doctoral Programs Fall Enrollments 200
2 200
3 200
4 200
5 200
6 2007
U of I Chicago
15 15 20 18 23 21
U of I Springfield
23 18 15 18 20 11
The Public Administration Program’s student to faculty ratio (1998-2008) is as follows:
30
DPA Enrollment Generated in Doctorate of Public Administration Courses (Fall of FY) FY 2000
21
FY 2001
22
FY 2002
23
FY 2003
18
FY 2004
15
FY 2005
18
FY 2006
20
FY 2007
11
FY 2008
20
Demand for Concentrations There are currently two concentrations, or tracks, within the DPA, public management and public
policy. Since the new DPA Program is only in its second year, there is not sufficient data to determine whether there is sufficient student interest in and demand for the concentrations associated with the degree. However, based on student enrollment during the first year, there is ample interest in the program concentrations that are currently offered.
Minors This is not applicable because the DPA, as a doctoral program, does not offer undergraduate minors.
31
VII. Centrality to Campus Mission
Support of the Campus Vision The campus vision statement is as follows:
UIS will be a premier small public university offering innovative, high-quality liberal arts education, public affairs activities, and professional programs dedicated to academic excellence, to enriching individual lives, and to making a difference in the world.
The DPA program mission statement is as follows:
The mission of the Doctor of Public Administration Program is to advance the education of experienced practitioners interested in improving their understanding of public management and public policy. These individuals can make a significant contribution, bridging the worlds of practice and scholarship by developing a capacity to bring experience from the practitioner community to the scholarly community and translate the contributions of the scholarly community into the world of the practitioners.
It is evident from the two mission statements how much the DPA program supports the mission of the university. The DPA statement’s language that it will be “bridging the worlds of practice and scholarship” in its practitioner education directly supports the university’s mission language calling for the university to develop “professional programs dedicated to academic excellence, to enriching individual lives, and to making a difference in the world.”
Relationship to Other Campus Instructional Programs The presence of an interdisciplinary doctoral program on campus is important to other campus instructional programs in a number of ways. First, the DPA program contributes to faculty development. The opportunity for faculty to participate in doctoral research on committees with their colleagues increases the overall capacity of UIS for rigorous research work. The DPA program also may be a “selling point” when hiring new faculty who have strong interests in pursuing an active research agenda.
The governing structure of the DPA program increases the likelihood that the departments in the college will continue their involvement. Two representatives from each department serve on the program committee and bring an interdisciplinary perspective to the program and to student committees. Qualified new hires and the cross-department interactions that are part of the program structure will continue to increase the program’s ability to enlist qualified faculty in advising the DPA students.
Service to Non-Majors The DPA program does not directly support or provide services to non-majors.
32
Support for General Education The DPA program does not provide instructional support for UIS lower-division general
education or UIS upper-division general educational requirements because the DPA exists solely as a doctoral program.
Support for Campus Initiatives Individual DPA faculty members are active in campus service. Some of the faculty are jointly
appointed with the Center for State Policy and Leadership.
VIII. Costs
Analysis of Costs Program Major Cost/Credit Hour Cost/Credit Hour at the Discipline Level
Instructional Costs of the Program
Significant Increases or Decreases in the unit cost of the program
Compare the program’s costs with statewide average costs
In FY 07, the costs per credit hour at UIS for both the program and the discipline were lower than the average state costs.
Brief analysis of factors affecting unit cost
UIS Cost State Average UIS Cost
State Average
FY 00 390.85 377.78 FY 00 323.98 302.54
FY 01 393.21 461.62 FY 01 319.38 322.06
FY 02 382.61 467.76 FY 02 331.26 324.07
FY 03 353.91 435.72 FY 03 296.94 298.42
FY 04 470.10 430.76 FY 04 440.51 302.29
FY 05 545.56 466.13 FY 05 513.34 361.61
FY 06 462.58 463.55 FY 06 414.43 327.06
FY 07 419.73 482.23 FY 07 371.58 383.53
33
Costs varied from year to year under the old DPA curriculum and mode of offering the program (rolling admissions) because of faculty turnover and the replacement of new junior faculty with new faculty at higher ranks with commensurately higher salaries. During this same time, enrollments fluctuated greatly as attrition and graduation led to the situation where many DPA courses had very low enrollments.
External Funding
The Doctorate of Public Administration Program receives no external funding.
IX. Summary and Recommendations
Previous Program Review Recommendations The DPA has not gone through the formal UIS program review process before the current review.
The most recent program evaluation was conducted by an outside evaluator. This was before the creation of the new DPA Program that is presently in place. Thus, the review was of the old DPA Program, and many of the perceived deficiencies and problematic elements noted in the review no longer exist. In the paragraphs below a synopsis of the old DPA program review and subsequent recommendations is provided.
During the 2004/2005 academic year concern was expressed about the continuing viability of the DPA Program. Enrollment in the doctoral program was declining. Faculty members in the Public Administration Department asked whether it was feasible, or desirable, to continue devoting departmental resources to a doctoral program serving so few students. This question was especially relevant in light of a strong, growing, accredited Master of Public Administration Program at UIS that also needed resources. Members of the Public Administration faculty sought additional resources for operation of the doctoral program to support hiring more faculty and more faculty members at senior ranks. These members claimed that the program could not survive without a substantial increase in university resources.
In the fall of 2004, the Public Administration Department, the then Interim Dean and the Provost agreed that an outside evaluator was needed to examine the program and provide suggestions on alternative courses of action. The 2004 evaluation of the DPA Program was conducted by an outside evaluator, Professor Schultz, from the Hamline University Graduate School of Management. Professor Schultz’s final report on the program contained his analysis of the then current operations of the DPA Program at UIS and his recommendation for modification of that program. The report focused on three questions:
1. Is the DPA Program implementing its original academic vision and if it is not, what reasons existed for the departure?
2. Is there sufficient financial, staff and leadership support at UIS for the DPA Program?
3. Does the DPA Program need revision given the academic vision and amount of support at UIS for the Program?
34
Professor Schultz’s report concluded that the DPA Program had gradually departed from its original vision as an interdisciplinary, practitioner-oriented doctorate for individuals serving as public administrators in state and local government who plan to return to government service. Instead, the DPA Program had incrementally moved towards a more traditional, research focused degree. This change in orientation from a practitioner-oriented to a research-oriented degree was producing growing dissatisfaction and increasing complaints from practitioner students drawn to the original version of the program. Furthermore, the original goal of having university-wide faculty participation in the degree was not realized. As a consequence, offering courses and mentoring the doctoral students fell solely on the Public Administration faculty. This was particularly burdensome when the students entered their comprehensive exams and dissertations and required a great deal of individual support for faculty members.
On a positive note, Professor Schultz did find strong support among students, faculty, and administrators for the continuation of a doctorate in the College of Public Affairs and Administration. Thus, he recommended that the program be redesigned to return to its original vision as an interdisciplinary, practitioner-oriented degree that drew on the faculty of multiple departments to provide a sufficient base for student mentoring and course offerings. It was because of this latter suggestion that the DPA curriculum was revised to fall more squarely in line with an interdisciplinary and practitioner-oriented degree program.
At the request of Provost Berman, the Interim Dean of the College of Public Affairs & Administration called together a committee of faculty members and others to address the findings of Professor Schultz’s report and recommend a new vision for the doctorate. That committee met beginning in the summer of 2005 and continued to meet through the fall of that year. A program re-designation request for the DPA was the result of that committee’s deliberations. The recommended proposed changes in the program are described in the following paragraphs. These changes currently are being implemented in the new DPA program.
Proposal for Doctoral Degree Modification: Doctorate of Public Administration The new design for the doctorate moves back to the spirit of UIS’s initial proposal for a degree
program aimed at practitioners. The program faculty will include individuals with expertise in public management and public policy. It is anticipated that the students for the DPA will be middle to senior administrators in local and state government.
The committee proposed revision of the DPA degree from one that was disciplinary and offered by the faculty of a single department to an interdisciplinary degree offered by the faculty of the College of Public Affairs & Administration. The doctorate would remain housed in the Department of Public Administration and would continue to be offered as a Doctorate of Public Administration. Maintaining the Public Administration title would allow for continuity and would not be an obstacle to offering the broad, interdisciplinary degree proposed because the DPA degree has an inherent interdisciplinary nature. The degree contains a broad array of approaches to issues of public policy and management, thus, the revised curriculum would broaden the opportunity for faculty from all departments in the college with expertise in public policy and management to participate.
35
Delivery of the degree would also cease being the sole responsibility of the Public Administration Department faculty and become the responsibility of the college faculty. Successful implementation of the new program required inclusion of the College of Public Affairs and Administration faculty. This would spread the commitment of resources over a college faculty of 40 instead of imposing it on a department of six that also had the responsibility for a growing MPA.
The degree program would be led by a Director and an Associate Director, one of whom must be a faculty member in the Public Administration Department. The Program Director will be a faculty member who will receive a one course NIA assignment each semester and the standard summer program administration amount for the performance of these duties. The degree will be offered by an interdisciplinary faculty selected by the College Executive Committee in consultation with the Dean from the graduate faculty members in the departments of the college to serve as the DPA Program Faculty.
The program faculty will have primary responsibility for program governance and the development and implementation of academic policy. Program faculty will get a one-hour overload payment per semester in order to develop the first offering of a core course for the DPA and will receive a $3,000 program development stipend. Faculty members who chair dissertations will receive a one-time course NIA while chairing the dissertation. Strong mentoring and clear communication between students, their advisors, and the program committee will be essential to the character of the program.
Current Program Strengths A stronger emphasis and greater attention is now placed on the student/mentor relationship. If a
student wishes to specialize in a particular policy field for which courses are offered in a specific college department, the representatives of that department are asked before that student is admitted to commit to mentoring that student in his/her policy speciality. A student portfolio is also compiled and reviewed by individual advisors and the DPA faculty in the first year of the student’s coursework. This first year assessment provides faculty with an opportunity to assess students’ progress during the first year and provide students with feedback and direction beyond that provided by grades in individual courses. This not only aides the student’s success in coursework, but also provides an opportunity for students to form lasting relationships with their teachers and advisors. Strong advising practices also help to facilitate the dissertation process by providing guidance and instruction.
Another strength of the current program is its interdisciplinary nature. The department resources are now more evenly distributed. There are currently 40 faculty members who share teaching responsibilities, in contrast to the previous designation of six DPA faculty. This allows the program to run smoothly, and eliminates the need for a substantial increase in university resources. Individual faculty members also have more time to devote to work on student dissertations.
The program is now more focused on implementing its original academic vision as an interdisciplinary, practitioner-oriented program. The breadth of the DPA program offerings and diversity of professors from a variety of disciplines provides the interdisciplinary foundation the program requires. Recruiting efforts also focus upon public administrators and those working in local and state government in order to maintain the program’s practitioner-oriented focus.
36
Finally, as pointed out by the 2004 outside evaluator’s report, the DPA program maintains its prior strengths in:
• Having a good, nationally known and respected faculty with impressive research credentials • A supportive college • Student graduation and retention • Strong potential and opportunity, particularly with its location vis-à-vis the state capital
The new DPA Program, while always a work in progress, has corrected its former deficiencies and
followed Professor Schultz’s recommendations. It has returned to its original vision as an interdisciplinary, practitioner-oriented degree that draws on the faculty of multiple departments to provide a sufficient base for student mentoring and course offerings. The DPA will continue to meet its goal of existing as a premier, innovative, and unique program that provides an interdisciplinary, practitioner-oriented doctoral degree to senior administrators both now and in the future.
Areas of Concern There has been a great deal of faculty retirements in the last five years. The program is working hard at helping new faculty become acculturated to doctoral level advising, committee service and program leadership. Several new hires have some seniority, but these senior faculty will need to be mentors not only of our DPA students, but also for less experienced faculty as the program grows and develops. If faculty turnover can be stabilized, then the faculty will developed a shared experience including a recognition of critical issues in doctoral education, familiarity with the process and expectations of the program and a sense of academic community that comes from serving together on student assessment and dissertation committees. Such a shared experienced is especially helpful in interdisciplinary programs.
As will most interdisciplinary programs, there is and will be issues in maintaining departmental cooperation and faculty support. It is important to continue to develop reward structures that clearly benefit departmental and faculty participation. Reward structures tend to be departmentally based and so not reflective of the contributions of faculty to interdisciplinary programs.
The visibility of the program in the community and the effectiveness of recruitment efforts will be critical to maintaining the quality of the program. A marketing plan should be developed and university resources made available to implement the plan.
Program’s Recommendations for the Current Review Continue to review student learning objectives, continue to collect data to assess individual students and the students as a whole, and continue to develop assessment mechanisms in order to use this data for curricular changes.
With the new DPA Program and its curriculum changes, it will be important to monitor what works and what does not, both for the students and the department as a whole. It will also be critical to ensure that the program implements its academic vision since this was one of the principal reasons the old DPA
37
Program failed. The program is already aware of changes that the department hopes to implement in the future and discussions regarding departmental needs are currently in progress.
X. Statistical Data Table 1: Student Demographic Data (see below)
Table 2 A and B: Number of Program Majors, Credit Hours Generated and Degrees Granted (see below)
38
39
DPA Comp Exam Rubric
1. Demonstrates an understanding of relevant public sector managerial concepts
2. Demonstrates the ability to identify a research question or issue and use appropriate methods to address the question or issue
3. Demonstrates an understanding of relevant public policy institutions, processes, and the organizational environment
4. Demonstrates the ability to communicate in a clear and professional manner
PASS
Demonstrates a good understanding of
- HR, budgeting, org. behavior, and management - Public sector concepts such as democracy, equity, efficiency, accountability Demonstrates a strong ability to: -develop an appropriate research question - apply an appropriate methodology or approach -interpret results Demonstrates a strong ability to: - identify the relevant actors in the policy arena - To understand the role of politics To understand how org. dynamics impact decisions Demonstrates a strong ability to: - organize a paper in a coherent manner - write clear and succinct sentences and paragraphs - provide evidence to support a conclusion
LOW PASS Demonstrates a fairly good understanding of (a few minor difficulties) - HR, budgeting, org. behavior and management - public sector concepts such as democracy, equity, efficiency, accountability Demonstrates a reasonable ability to (a few minor difficulties) - develop an appropriate research question - apply an appropriate methodology or approach -interpret results Demonstrates a reasonable ability to (a few minor difficulties): - identify the relevant actors in the policy arena - To understand the role of politics To understand how org. dynamics impact decisions Demonstrates a reasonable ability to (a few minor difficulties): - organize a paper in a coherent manner - write clear and succinct sentences and paragraphs - provide evidence to support a conclusion
DOES NOT PASS Demonstrates an inadequate understanding of - HR, budgeting, org. behavior and management - public sector concepts such as democracy, equity, efficiency, accountability
Demonstrates major difficulties in the ability to: - develop an appropriate research question - apply an appropriate methodology or approach -interpret results Demonstrates major difficulties in the ability to: - identify the relevant actors in the policy arena - To understand the role of politics To understand how org. dynamics impact decisions Demonstrates major difficulties in the ability to: - organize a paper in a coherent manner - write clear and succinct sentences and paragraphs - provide evidence to support a conclusion
Appendix A Assessment Mechanisms
Student Name Spring 2003 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Spring 2006 Total # % of Total
CORE CONCEPTS: Pass Low Pass Fail
1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 9 2 5 56% 13% 31%
RESEARCH SKILLS: Pass Low Pass Fail 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 n/a n/a n/a 1 0 0 7 1 5 54% 8% 38%
KNOWLEDGE OF THE LITERATURE: Pass Low Pass Fail 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 9 3 4 56% 19% 25%
COMMUNICATION Pass Low Pass Fail 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 8 4 4 50% 25% 25%
The results for the assessment of the comprehensive exam are shown above. Over the past three years, 2003-2006, 75% of the students have received a pass or low pass on the knowledge of literature and the communication learning objectives. The pass rates for the other two objectives were 70% for the core public administration concept objective and 62% for the research skill objective.
* Based on data from the first-time that a student took the exam
* N/A: Not applicable- students did not elect to answer the research questions on the exam. In future years, the research question was mandatory.
Appendix B Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes
*DPA Comprehensive Exams
Name: Meredith Newman
Title: Chair
Academic Program: Doctor of Public Administration
PART I:
1. Discuss in what ways, if any, assessment results have been used during the past year to: make changes to the program, e.g., curricular changes. If you have made changes, please submit any documentation you may have that documents those changes (e.g. copies of highlighted catalog copy, minutes from departmental meetings.)
In response to the assessment results, professors who teach DPA courses have placed increased emphasis on helping students develop better written communication skills and helping students learn how to analyze and apply the public administration literature. A student who was struggling with satisfying the writing objective was encouraged to take PAD 575 Effective Writing.
The college is currently considering major revisions to the DPA program. Some of the proposed changes address assessment results such as inadequate achievement of the student learning objective that addresses research knowledge and skills.
2. Progress regarding the assessment of student learning outcomes:
a. Please indicate which assessment components your program utilized during the 2005-2006 year.
b. Describe the progress your program has made in the assessment of student learning outcomes during the 2005-06 academic year.
This year the DPA program has more fully implemented a system for assessing student learning outcomes. We utilized a matrix to assess the students’ performance on the comprehensive exam that is taken upon the completion of all DPA coursework. We compiled a summary list of the results (see attached) and discussed areas in which the students are not achieving the learning objectives.
Each faculty member read and rated each of the comprehensive exams using the matrix. We then met to discuss our ratings and to reach an agreement on the ratings. The results are summarized in the table on the final page of Appendix C.
Appendix C Annual Student Learning Report
*Program response in bold
Although we have not developed a rubric, we have discussed what types of knowledge and skills we expect in order for a student to achieve a “pass” rating on a particular learning objective. Highlights of this discussion are listed below.
What constitutes a “pass”?
• Demonstrates an understanding of core public administration concepts o Able to explain concepts in a clear manner o Able to identify and apply concepts such as equity, efficiency,
representation, democracy, individual rights • Demonstrates research knowledge and skills
o Able to critique research conducted by others o Able to:
Formulate research question and hypothesis; Tie the research to the literature and to theory; Develop a conceptual framework or model; Identify and implement an appropriate methodology; Identify sources of data Interpret results; Identify research strengths, limitations, and areas for future
research o Able to compare and contrast the strengths and limitations of quantitative
research vs. qualitative research o Able to explain and use research concepts such as reliability, internal and
external validity, triangulation, etc. • Demonstrates an understanding of and the ability to apply the public administration
in literature o Able to compare and contrast the literature o Able to use the literature to discuss PA/policy issues and problems o Knowledgeable about the classic PA literature, as well as more
contemporary literature o Able to provide appropriate citations for the literature
• Demonstrates the ability to communicate in a professional and scholarly manner o Able to organize a paper in a coherent manner o Able to express thoughts and points clearly and concisely o Able to present an argument or discussion with sufficient supporting
evidence or examples o Able to distinguish opinion from thoughtful analysis o Able to explain complex or technical concepts in a manner that others can
understand o Able to provide appropriate citations
The assessment results indicate that students have major difficulties with effective written communication skills, demonstrating sufficient research skills and knowledge, and knowing and applying the literature. (Unfortunately, most of the good students opted not to do the
research question in the Fall when given a choice of questions--- this choice may partially reflect a lack of confidence and knowledge/skill in this area).
3. Listed below are some additional components or characteristics of an assessment system. Please indicate whether these components/characteristics are included in your program’s assessment system. These items are not required for a solid assessment plan, but may be desirable.
Some type of culminating course or project: yes
Curriculum Mapping (tying student learning outcomes to particular courses): no
Multiple Points of Assessment: no
Some form of quantitative analysis: yes
Use of Technology: yes
PART II:
Learning Outcome to be assessed in this project:
The College is planning on making major revisions to the DPA Program. As these plans are being considered, the College will need to identify appropriate student learning outcomes and develop a system for assessing those objectives.
Core PA Concepts Research Skills Literature Communication
Student Name Pass Low Pass Fail Pass Low Pass Fail Pass Low Pass Fail Pass Low Pass Fail Fall 2005 Student 1 1 N/A 1 1 Student 2 1 N/A 1 1 Student 3 1 N/A 1 Student 4 1 N/A 1 Student 5 1 N/A 1 1 Student 6 1 1 1 Spring 2006 Student 6 (repeat) 1 1 1 Student 7 1 1 1 1 Student 3 (repeat) 1 1 1 total # 3 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 5 3 1 % of total 33% 33% 33% 25% 25% 50% 33% 11% 56% 33% 11% N/A: Not Applicable. In the Fall, some students chose not to answer the research question on the exam. In the Spring, all students were required to answer a research question.
DPA Capstone Papers Academic Year 2005-06
Conference Presentations:
• Rosemary Lenaghan, “Justifying E-government Investments”, The Annual Meeting of the American Society for Public Administration, Portland, OR, March 27-30, 2004.
• DiAna McCarter, “Emotional Intelligence: Judged by a New Yard Stick,” the Conference of Minority Public Administrators, Tulsa, OK, March 4-5, 2004.
• Arwiphawee Srithongrung, “A Note on ‘Public Infastructure Investment, Fiscal Policy, and Economic Growth in the States.’” The 57’th International Atlantic Economic Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, March 14, 2004.
• Joan Small, “Towards an Organizing Framework for School Location Planning,” Midwest Decision Sciences Institute 2002 Conference, Milwaukee, WI, April 25-27, 2002.
• Ann Sundeen, “Education Costs & School Finance Formulas” co-authored by Dr. Byrnes. Association of Budget and Financial Mergers Conference, Kansas City, MO, Sept. 2002.
• Ann Sundeen, “Diagnosis and Solutions in Illinois” co-authored by Dr. Byrnes. Institute for Professionals in Taxation Conference, North Pheonix, AZ.
Co-authored Paper Presentations:
• Martin Colloton served as a research assistant for the preparation of a paper entitled, “Human Resources Aspects of the Department of Homeland Security:
• Pay –for-Performance and Compensation” presented by Dr. Meredith Newman at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Public Administration, Portland, OR., March 27-30, 2004.
• DiAna Carter served as a research assistant for the preparation of a paper entitled, “Appraising Emotion Work: Determining Whether Emotional Labor is Acknowledged in Public Service” presented by Dr. Meredith Newman at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 15-18, 2004.
Appendix D Assessment Mechanisms: Conference Presentations & Co-Authored Paper Presentations
Dissertation:
2001-2002
Mark Franklin, “An Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action to the Illinois General Assembly: Predicting Voting Intention Regarding Dispersal of the Tobacco Settlement Monies”
Randall Miller, “Decision-Making in the Public Sector: A Collective Case Study of Fire Sprinklers in Illinois’ Public University Dormitories”
2002-2003
Petter, John, “Assessing Responsibility in Professional Street-Level Bureaucrats”
Choi, Do Lim, “Moral Reasoning in Public Service: Individual, Organizational, and Societal Determinants”
2003-2004
Baker, Linda, “Backwards Mapping as a Tool for Studying Program Implementation: The Case of Black Disparities in WIC and Family Case Management Programs”
Gordon, Victoria, “Home Rule and Local Government Autonomy- The Determinants of Fiscal Health of Illinois Municipalities”
2004-2005
Meier, Marge “The Invisibility of Emotional Labor: A Case Study of Faculty Members at Small Liberal Arts Colleges”
Lenaghan, Rosemary, “A Model of the Interaction of Cash Flow Components and Resource Dependency as Determinants of Short-Run Financial Vulnerability in Nonprofit Organizations”
Current Position:
N/A
Assistant Professor of Public Administration Augusta State University Chief, Bureau of Compliance and Evaluation, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Human Services, State of Illinois Professor, Chungham National University, Korea University Professor, Paul Simon Policy Institute Southern Illinois University, Carbondale Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Local Governments, Political Science Department, Western Kentucky University Associate Professor Economics and Business Administration, Associate Dean of the College, Illinois College Visiting Professor, Department of Accountancy University of Illinois at Springfield
Appendix E
Assessment Mechanisms: Dissertations & Job Placement
Srithongrung, Ariphawee, “The Impact of State Capital Budget and Management Programs on State Capital Budget Decisions and Economic Performance”
2006-2007
Habtes, Fee “Local Government Preparedness for a Bioterrorist Attack: A Case Study of Springfield, Illinois”
Positions of Current DPA Students (2007)
Connie Walsh
Norman Sims
Barbara Ferrara
Shawn E. Jeffers
John R. Phillips
Karen Kunz
Assistant Professor of Public Budgeting & Financial Management, University of Nebraska, Omaha
Division Chief, Injury Prevention Division, Illinois Department of Public Health
Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois, UI, Champaign Director, Business and Financial Services Springfield- Sangamon County Regional Planning Commission Executive Director Center of State Policy and Leadership, University of Illinois, Springfield Associate Director Little City Foundation, Palatine, Illinois Executive Director Springfield College in Illinois- Political and Social Sciences Professor University of Illinois, Springfield Doctoral Research Assistant
Jim Brecher NOVA Southeastern University in Florida
Please respond to the following questions (Take more space as necessary.):
1. Does the student seem to have an issue with completing work on time? Are there “incomplete” grades initially for coursework?
2. Does the student seem to have any issues with following the directions, guidelines, requirements, expectations of the faculty and/or program?
3. Do the student’s grades or other course feedback imply that the student is making good progress?
4. Does the student seem to be making good progress toward degree completion?
5. After reviewing the student’s portfolio, are there areas of strength or weakness that you would like to note?
6. Overall, what feedback do you think it is important to give that student at this point in their academic career?
7. Were there any issues that came up during the face-to-face discussion with the student that the program faculty should be aware of?
Appendix F:
First Year Evaluation: Advisor Form
