REVIEW FOR ACCREDITATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH … · PUBLIC HEALTH BAHELOR’S DEGREE UM ULATIVE AND EXPERIENTIAL ACTIVITIES..... 32 D13. PUBLIC HEALTH BAHELOR’S DEGREE RO SS

Council on Education for Public Health Adopted on March 13, 2020

REVIEW FOR ACCREDITATION

OF THE

PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAM

AT

WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

COUNCIL ON EDUCATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH SITE VISIT DATES: October 28-29, 2019

SITE VISIT TEAM: David Gregorio, PhD, MS―Chair Kristin Hill, MSHSA, RN SITE VISIT COORDINATOR: Alexandra DiOrio, MPH CRITERIA:

Accreditation Criteria for Schools of Public Health & Public Health Programs, amended October 2016

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1

A1. ORGANIZATION & ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES ............................................................................................................. 2

A2. MULTI-PARTNER SCHOOLS & PROGRAMS........................................................................................................................ 3

A3. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 3

A4. AUTONOMY FOR SCHOOLS OF PUBLIC HEALTH ............................................................................................................... 4

A5. DEGREE OFFERINGS IN SCHOOLS OF PUBLIC HEALTH ...................................................................................................... 4

B1. GUIDING STATEMENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

B2. GRADUATION RATES ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

B3. POST-GRADUATION OUTCOMES ...................................................................................................................................... 7

B4. ALUMNI PERCEPTIONS OF CURRICULAR EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................................................. 7

B5. DEFINING EVALUATION PRACTICES .................................................................................................................................. 9

B6. USE OF EVALUATION DATA ............................................................................................................................................. 10

C1. FISCAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................................................... 11

C2. FACULTY RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 14

C3. STAFF AND OTHER PERSONNEL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................. 16

C4. PHYSICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

C5. INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 19

D1. MPH & DRPH FOUNDATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH KNOWLEDGE....................................................................................... 20

D2. MPH FOUNDATIONAL COMPETENCIES .......................................................................................................................... 22

D3. DRPH FOUNDATIONAL COMPETENCIES ......................................................................................................................... 25

D4. MPH & DRPH CONCENTRATION COMPETENCIES........................................................................................................... 25

D5. MPH APPLIED PRACTICE EXPERIENCES ........................................................................................................................... 27

D6. DRPH APPLIED PRACTICE EXPERIENCE ........................................................................................................................... 30

D7. MPH INTEGRATIVE LEARNING EXPERIENCE ................................................................................................................... 30

D8. DRPH INTEGRATIVE LEARNING EXPERIENCE .................................................................................................................. 31

D9. PUBLIC HEALTH BACHELOR’S DEGREE GENERAL CURRICULUM .................................................................................... 32

D10. PUBLIC HEALTH BACHELOR’S DEGREE FOUNDATIONAL DOMAINS ............................................................................. 32

D11. PUBLIC HEALTH BACHELOR’S DEGREE FOUNDATIONAL COMPETENCIES .................................................................... 32

D12. PUBLIC HEALTH BACHELOR’S DEGREE CUMULATIVE AND EXPERIENTIAL ACTIVITIES ................................................. 32

D13. PUBLIC HEALTH BACHELOR’S DEGREE CROSS-CUTTING CONCEPTS AND EXPERIENCES ............................................. 33

D14. MPH PROGRAM LENGTH .............................................................................................................................................. 33

D15. DRPH PROGRAM LENGTH ............................................................................................................................................. 34

D16. BACHELOR’S DEGREE PROGRAM LENGTH .................................................................................................................... 34

D17. ACADEMIC PUBLIC HEALTH MASTER’S DEGREES ......................................................................................................... 34

D18. ACADEMIC PUBLIC HEALTH DOCTORAL DEGREES ........................................................................................................ 34

D19. ALL REMAINING DEGREES ............................................................................................................................................ 35

D20. DISTANCE EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................................. 35

E1. FACULTY ALIGNMENT WITH DEGREES OFFERED ............................................................................................................ 35

E2. INTEGRATION OF FACULTY WITH PRACTICE EXPERIENCE .............................................................................................. 36

E3. FACULTY INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ..................................................................................................................... 37

E4. FACULTY SCHOLARSHIP ................................................................................................................................................... 38

E5. FACULTY EXTRAMURAL SERVICE ..................................................................................................................................... 40

F1. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOL/PROGRAM EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT .................................................... 42

F2. STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNITY & PROFESSIONAL SERVICE .......................................................................... 45

F3. ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMUNITY’S PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS .............................................................. 46

F4. DELIVERY OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE WORKFORCE ................................................. 47

G1. DIVERSITY & CULTURAL COMPETENCE .......................................................................................................................... 48

H1. ACADEMIC ADVISING...................................................................................................................................................... 51

H2. CAREER ADVISING........................................................................................................................................................... 53

H3. STUDENT COMPLAINT PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................................. 55

H4. STUDENT RECRUITMENT & ADMISSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 56

H5. PUBLICATION OF EDUCATIONAL OFFERINGS ................................................................................................................. 59

AGENDA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 60

1

INTRODUCTION

Wright State University is a public institution located in Kettering, OH and was established in 1967. The Ohio General Assembly approved the university’s name to honor Dayton’s Wright brothers, Orville and Wilber Wright. The university has been regularly recognized as a welcoming campus for veterans and military personnel as well as students with disabilities due to its unique tunnel system. The university has nine colleges and schools: the Raj Soin College of Business, the College of Education and Human Services, the College of Liberal Arts, the College of Nursing and Health, the College of Science and Mathematics, Lake Campus, the Graduate School, the School of Professional Psychology, and the Boonshoft School of Medicine. Wright State offers 15 associate’s, 106 bachelor’s, 69 master’s, 10 doctoral, and two professional degrees and has 1,679 faculty members, 1,571 staff members, and 15,558 students. Wright State is regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and received reaffirmation of accreditation in the 2015-16 academic year. The university also holds specialized accreditation from agencies including the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education, and the Council on Social Work Education. The program was founded in 2004 through benefactor Oscar Boonshoft’s initial gift to the School of Medicine. The benefactor and the founding director had a shared vision of the MPH program’s role in integrating medicine with public health. The program was also created to support public health workforce needs in the region. The program started with 23 students who were mostly mid-career professionals with a mean age in the late thirties. Classes continue to be offered primarily in the evening to make the program available to working professionals, as well as full-time students and younger students. The MPH program is housed in the Education Center of the School of Medicine’s Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, and is administered through the Graduate School. The Department of Population and Public Health Sciences includes degree programs in aerospace medicine in addition to the MPH program. The program enrolled 50 students in 2018-19: nine in the health promotion and education concentration, 37 in the population health concentration, and two in each of the now discontinued concentrations (public health management and emergency preparedness). The program does not track dual degree students separately. The program was initially accredited by CEPH in 2007, with a reaccreditation review in 2012. The program was required to submit an interim report relating to competencies, assessment procedures, research, workforce development, and student diversity. The Council accepted the program’s interim report at the fall 2013 meeting as evidence of compliance in these areas.

Instructional Matrix - Degrees and Concentrations

Master's Degrees Campus based

Executive Distance based

Master's Degrees Academic Professional

Health Promotion and Education MPH X

Population Health MPH X

Joint Degrees (Dual, Combined, Concurrent, Accelerated Degrees) Academic Professional

2nd Degree Area Public Health Concentration

Medicine Any existing MPH concentration MD/MPH X

2

A1. ORGANIZATION & ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES

Criterion Elements Compliance Finding

Team’s Evidence for Compliance Finding School/Program Response Council Comments

Met

Designates appropriate committees or individuals for decision making, implementation

The program has eight standing committees: the Faculty Committee, the Awards Committee, the Delta Omega Committee, the Evaluation Committee, the Admissions Committee, the Scholarship Committee, the Curriculum Committee, and the Advisory Board. All committees are made up of program and department faculty, and the Advisory Board has faculty members from other schools and departments in the university and community members. Committees meet at different frequencies from once a month to annually. The Faculty Committee discusses and reviews matters of student assessment, faculty recruitment and promotion, and research and service; the Admissions Committee discusses and reviews admissions policies and practices; and the Curriculum Committee discusses and reviews degree requirements and curriculum design. Program leaders affirmed that decision making does not rest with any one individual but occurs by consensus among primary instructional faculty. Membership on all program committees includes program faculty and administrators and provides considerable opportunity for individuals to deliberate questions of program policies and practices. The site visit team validated this through on-site discussion and by reviewing meeting minutes presented in the ERF.

Click here to enter text.

Faculty have opportunities for input in all of the following:

degree requirements

curriculum design

student assessment policies & processes

admissions policies & decisions

faculty recruitment & promotion

research & service activities

Ensures all faculty regularly interact with colleagues & are engaged in ways that benefit the instructional program

Program faculty also participate on a range of university-level committees including the Curriculum Committee and the Faculty Senate. Full- and part-time faculty members interact with each other during faculty meetings, at the end-of-semester review meetings, and while choosing student excellence awards and Delta Omega inductees. They also collaborate on funded projects and during supervision of MPH capstone projects.

A2. MULTI-PARTNER SCHOOLS & PROGRAMS



Not Applicable

A3. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT



Met

Students have formal methods to participate in policy making & decision making

Students have voting rights as members of the Advisory Board, the Admissions and Curriculum Committees, and the accreditation team. Student members are often graduate assistants or Physician Leadership Development Program students. Students who met with site visitors


Students engaged as members on decision-making bodies, where appropriate

stated that they are confident that faculty and program administrators hear their voices and feedback through the input they provide on standing committees and through program administrators’ open-door policy. Students did note that a functional student organization would enhance communication among students and with program leaders. The faculty acknowledged the difficulty in maintaining a student organization, given the large proportion of students who enroll part-time and have limited opportunity for such interaction.

A4. AUTONOMY FOR SCHOOLS OF PUBLIC HEALTH



Not Applicable

A5. DEGREE OFFERINGS IN SCHOOLS OF PUBLIC HEALTH



Not Applicable

B1. GUIDING STATEMENTS



Met with Commentary

Defines a vision, mission statement, goals, statement of values

The program’s mission as to “provide interdisciplinary education, research and service through leadership and community collaborations.” The program’s vision is “a community of population health leaders that promotes and protects health for all.” The mission and vision are complemented by four program goals, which are focused on education, research, service, and student success. The program also has six value statements. Among the values are attention to student-centered learning and community engagement. The program’s education goal emphasizes interaction with the public health workforce. The program’s goals pertaining to education, research, and service provide direction to program leaders on how the program aims to advance the field of public health. The program’s student success goal pertains more specifically to how the program intends that students benefit from participation in the program. The provost emphasized the importance of the MPH program linking the School of Medicine and the community. As such, the provost sees “tremendous growth potential” for the program. The commentary pertains to the generic nature of the program’s goals, which would provide better direction through greater specificity, particularly with respect to

The program will continue to evaluate its goals at the annual strategic planning retreat and revise as needed.

The Council appreciates the program’s response to the team’s draft report.

Taken as a whole, guiding statements address instruction, scholarship, service

Taken as a whole, guiding statements define plans to 1) advance the field of public health & 2) promote student success

Guiding statements reflect aspirations & respond to needs of intended service area(s)

Guiding statements sufficiently specific to rationally allocate resources & guide evaluation of outcomes

establishing a rationale for allocating resources and guiding evaluation of program outcomes.

B2. GRADUATION RATES



Met

Collects, analyzes & accurately presents graduation rate data for each public health degree offered

The program offers two MPH concentrations, and students have seven years to complete the degree. The graduation rates for the 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 cohorts all surpass the 70% threshold requirement for this criterion, at 79%, 75%, 72%, and 74%. These rates still have the opportunity to increase as remaining students graduate, and more recent cohorts have a low enough attrition rate that it is still possible (and likely) to reach the threshold. While the program has met the graduation thresholds, it acknowledged a decline in student enrollment in recent years and has developed a goal within the evaluation plan to address this trend.


Achieves graduation rates of at least 70% for bachelor’s & master’s degrees, 60% for doctoral degrees

B3. POST-GRADUATION OUTCOMES



Met

Collects, analyzes & presents data on graduates’ employment or enrollment in further education post-graduation for each public health degree offered

The program achieves high rates of post-graduation placement. In the last three years, 96%, 100%, and 93% of graduates reported being employed or continuing their education within a year of graduation. Across these three years, the program also had a minimal number of unknown outcomes: 0%, 0%, and 3% (n=1). The program collects post-graduation data through an alumni survey, with emails and reminders sent to students. The program supplements this information by having faculty reach out to individual students to collect their post-graduation data.


Chooses methods explicitly designed to minimize number of students with unknown outcomes

Achieves rates of at least 80% employment or enrollment in further education for each public health degree

B4. ALUMNI PERCEPTIONS OF CURRICULAR EFFECTIVENESS



Partially Met

Defines qualitative &/or quantitative methods designed to provide meaningful, useful information on alumni perceptions

The program collects data related to alumni perceptions through an alumni survey via Qualtrics. The survey asks alumni to rate on a scale of one to four how confident they are in their ability to apply each of the 22 foundational competencies in their post-graduation placements. Although the program did not implement and assess these competencies in required courses until fall 2018, alumni

The program added one question to its annual alumni survey – Please rate your level of competency attainment while in the program – to collect data regarding alumni perceptions of achieving the

The Council appreciates the program’s response relating to the addition of a question to the annual alumni survey about alumni competency attainment and looks forward to seeing further evidence

Documents & regularly examines its methodology & outcomes to ensure useful data

Data address alumni perceptions of success in achieving competencies

who graduated between 2014 and 2018 were asked to answer questions about the 22 foundational competencies. The program sends this survey every October. The program examines its methodology and outcomes by reviewing the data and survey tool during annual faculty retreats and makes changes as needed through consensus. The program sent the survey to 126 alumni across these five groups of graduates, and 57 responded. Of those 57 alumni, 40 answered questions about their ability to apply competencies in the workplace. The survey did not ask alumni about their perceptions of achieving the defined competencies. Foundational competencies 1, 2, 18, and 19 were most highly rated with 90%, 92%, 92%, and 90% of alumni selecting somewhat or very confident. The lowest rated was foundational competency 10, which relates to budget and resource management, with only 62% of alumni reporting that they felt somewhat or very confident. The competency statements are listed in the D2 worksheet in this report. The program notes the low response rate of 41% and plans to conduct focus groups and/or interviews with graduates to obtain qualitative data to better understand how graduates perceive their ability to apply the foundational competencies in employment settings. The concern relates to the fact that the program does not collect data regarding alumni perceptions of achieving the defined competencies during the program of study. The program conducts a graduation survey, but the survey

foundational competencies during their program of study.

of implementation and data collection.

Data address alumni perceptions of usefulness of defined competencies in post-graduation placements

does not ask alumni for their perceptions of whether they attained the competencies.

B5. DEFINING EVALUATION PRACTICES



Partially Met

Defines sufficiently specific & appropriate evaluation measures. Measures & data allow reviewers to track progress in achieving goals & to assess progress in advancing the field of public health & promoting student success

In 2019, the program revised its curriculum and evaluation plan in response to changes in CEPH accreditation criteria for public health programs. The self-study identifies objectives associated with each of the program’s four goals (five for education, four for research, five for service, and six for student success). These objectives align well with the program’s mission and goals. However, the self-study predominantly reflects experiences since the 2019 transition to the new evaluation plan. As such, these objectives direct the program forward but lack grounding and data on instructional effectiveness, student performance, faculty scholarship, and diversity. Program leaders, faculty, students, and stakeholders all attested to the curricular improvements attributable to program revisions. The self-study describes plans to systematically monitor program activities in relation to stated goals and objectives. Evaluation of program performance is the responsibility of the full faculty through monthly and annual meetings. The first concern relates to the fact that the team could not track the program’s progress in achieving goals or progress in advancing the field of public health and

We acknowledge there is a lack of data prior to 2019 for some of our evaluation measures due to the many revisions that were made to the evaluation plan to address the new CEPH criteria. We look forward to reviewing our 2020 data as part of the strategic planning agenda at our annual faculty meeting in August 2020. This will allow us to improve the tracking of our program’s progress in achieving goals and progress in advancing the field of public health and student success. We have revised the data collection timing and review of our evaluation plan to make the process more systematic (see revised Template B5-1). A timeline has been created to help in this process (see attached).

The Council appreciates the program’s response relating to the updated evaluation plan and timeline and looks forward to seeing further evidence of implementation and data collection. Defines plan that is ongoing,

systematic & well-documented. Plan defines sufficiently specific & appropriate methods, from data collection through review. Processes have clearly defined responsible parties & cycles for review

student success based on the lack of data. The program will benefit from additional data collection to demonstrate progress. The second concern relates to the evaluation process not being systematic or well documented in its current stage. The program will benefit from greater documentation of data collection and analysis, which will help make the evaluation plan more systematic.

B6. USE OF EVALUATION DATA



Met

Engages in regular, substantive review of all evaluation findings, including strategic discussions.

The program explained that it relies on regular and occasional ad hoc faculty meetings to review program performance and consider possible changes to curriculum, degree requirements, etc. A review of the available faculty meeting minutes contained in the ERF indicated that discussions are substantive, open, and demonstrate critical appraisal of various topical areas. Faculty presented three examples of the effect of faculty deliberation in revising program outcomes. In one instance, student survey responses requested more quantitative coursework; the program has added classes in advanced epidemiology and chronic disease epidemiology. In the second instance, students communicated a desire for hybrid class delivery systems, and faculty have been working to accommodate that request. In the third instance, alumni feedback about wanting to learn more about healthcare and project

With the revision of the data collection timing and review mentioned in Criterion B5, faculty will have more opportunities to engage in review of evaluation findings.

The Council appreciates the program’s response to the team’s draft report.

Translates evaluation findings into programmatic plans & changes. Provides specific examples of changes based on evaluation findings (including those in B2-B5, E3-E5, F1, G1, H1-H2, etc.)

management led the program to develop a new required course (public health project management) for the health promotion and education concentration, creating opportunities for expansion into priority areas identified by alumni. Although site visitors were able to identify examples of curricular changes that have resulted from evaluation data, more opportunities may emerge at a broader, programmatic level as the program makes the plans discussed in Criterion B5 operational and more systematic.

C1. FISCAL RESOURCES



Met

Financial resources currently adequate to fulfill stated mission & goals & sustain degree offerings

The program maintains a budget within the School of Medicine and receives revenues generated from tuition and fees, grants/contracts, state appropriations, university funds, indirect cost recovery, endowments, and foundation gifts. The school deposits all program fees from MPH students directly into the program account. The school’s business manager reviews the program’s budget and requests for unbudgeted expenses and facilitates the School of Medicine’s decision-making process on all budget matters. The department chair provides input into the department’s budget and monitors resource allocation. The department coordinator is responsible for everyday processes such as purchasing, salary allocations, and account reconciliation and works closely with the school’s business manager and staff on all financial and personnel matters.


Financial support appears sufficiently stable at time of site visit

The School of Medicine guarantees faculty salaries through the budgeting process. The school and the program do not expect faculty to cover a portion of their salary through outside funding. The department has approved two new faculty positions for statistical instruction and support in the last five years. Operational costs include rent for an off-campus building, which is the largest operational expense to the program. Other expenses including office supplies, computers, conference travel, graduate assistant stipends, tuition remission, program events, contract services, student and faculty recruitment, postage, telephone, and accreditation fees. The department provides student support for tuition and professional development activities, such as travel and experiential opportunities, and the self-study lists a variety of support awards over the last five years, including graduate assistantships, support for Wright Fellows, tuition scholarships, and state and local conference support. The university hired a new president and a new provost in July 2017; these leaders restructured university processes and implemented policies to balance expenses and revenues to rebuild cash reserves after the Board of Trustees announced that expenses had exceeded revenue for several years. The president and provost implemented austerity measures to restore the cash balance. Program faculty professional development funds were impacted as part of the austerity measures, though faculty travel to professional meetings using money from funded projects

continued. The university restored the department’s professional development account as of September 2019, with $1,500 per year for primary instructional faculty for travel or professional memberships. For grants that include indirect cost recoveries, the School of Medicine receives 100% of the funds recovered: 15% goes to the department, and 7.5% is returned to the primary investigator or program. During the austerity years, 2017-2019, the program did not receive indirect cost recovery funds. The department received a lump sum equally distributed to the school’s non-clinical departments representing 5% of the indirect costs generated in 2018-19. The program’s income has been relatively stable across the last five years, though the budget reflects some reductions in grants and contracts, indirect cost recovery, endowments, and gifts over the past two years. The program also reports a corresponding decrease in spending on staff salaries and benefits, operations, and travel since 2016. During the site visit, the team verified that program faculty and staff perceive that financial resources are stable, reporting limited impact on program operations, despite the implementation of austerity measures. The chair maintains a fund that includes carryforward funds from any department surplus. Budget surplus collected during the three previous years were expended on facility renovations finished in 2019. The provost provided reassurance that the university is currently financially stable, with strategic directions

established to guide decision making, a profitable and financially stable medical school, and a sustainable future for the MPH program. The provost and Graduate School director voiced optimism in future success based on the university, medical school, and MPH program’s position to meet the public health challenges of the future. Strengths cited include a long-standing relationship with the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which is a major employer in the state of Ohio, and multiple linkages and partnerships with community-based organizations.

C2. FACULTY RESOURCES



Met

School employs at least 21 PIF; or program employs at least 3 PIF

The program has sufficient faculty resources to fulfill its stated mission and goals. The program has a total of seven primary instructional faculty (PIF) and six non-primary instructional faculty (non-PIF). Four PIF and one non-PIF teach in the health promotion and education concentration, and three PIF and five non-PIF teach in the population health concentration. All PIF are full-time employees of the university and provide more than 50% effort to the program. The program has a fluid FTE model, and PIF may have dual appointments in other departments, conduct scholarship with other departments, and/or be in a public health practice setting on a part-time basis. Service and scholarship expectations vary by faculty member. PIF are


3 faculty members per

concentration area for all concentrations; at least 2 are PIF; double-counting of PIF is appropriate, if applicable

Additional PIF for each additional degree level in concentration; double-counting of PIF is appropriate, if applicable

Ratios for general advising & career counseling are appropriate for degree level & type

Ratios for MPH ILE are appropriate for degree level & nature of assignment

expected to teach two to three classes, and the department chair determines additional workload. The program calculates non-PIF effort based on the number of courses taught. Adjunct faculty who teach one course and provide some level of student supervision (APE/ILE) have an FTE of 0.2. One faculty member who teaches and maintains clinical practice in emergency medicine is 0.3 FTE. Both faculty and students who met with the site visit team indicated that faculty resources are adequate for the program. The program coordinator provides initial general advising for all students (currently 50 individuals). All students meet with the program coordinator and the program director at least once. After these initial meetings, students typically meet with concentration faculty to pick their electives within the concentration and discuss career opportunities. Students receive email reminders about selecting courses for the upcoming semester from the program coordinator. If students have any questions, the program coordinator will direct students to the program director or a faculty member with expertise in the specific area. Students also receive advising from the capstone faculty director before beginning the capstone course. If students choose the research or independent project option, they identify a faculty chair to provide advising during the capstone process. Faculty chairs have an average of two students, with a minimum of one and a maximum of five. Concentration faculty members advise an average of three students in the population health concentration and an average of five students in the health promotion and education concentration.

Ratios for bachelor’s cumulative or experiential activity are appropriate, if applicable

N/A

Ratios for mentoring on doctoral students’ integrative project are appropriate, if applicable

N/A

Students’ perceptions of class size & its relation to quality of learning are positive (note: evidence may be collected intentionally or received as a byproduct of other activities)

Students are satisfied with faculty availability (note: evidence may be collected intentionally or received as a byproduct of other activities)

The program sends out surveys to students at the end of each semester to collect data related to class size and faculty availability. For class size, 86% of students agreed or strongly agreed that class size was conducive to learning in spring 2018, 100% in summer 2018, 93% in spring 2019, and 94% in summer 2019. For faculty availability, 87% agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied in spring 2018, 86% in summer 2018, 85% in fall 2018, 93% in spring 2019, and 81% in summer 2019. Students also have the opportunity to provide qualitative data in the survey. There were few qualitative comments about class size, but all were positive. There were more qualitative comments about faculty availability with most being positive, with a few comments providing constructive criticism related to timing of feedback for certain assignments and outside of class time. Students who met with site visitors expressed satisfaction with faculty members, saying that they are very approachable and available to help. Students said that they appreciate faculty members’ community linkages and noted that faculty are very encouraging of students’ interests and goals.

C3. STAFF AND OTHER PERSONNEL RESOURCES



Met

Staff & other personnel are currently adequate to fulfill the stated mission & goals

The program has three staff positions totaling 2.25 FTE. These include a 1.0 FTE MPH program coordinator, a 0.5 FTE MPH APE coordinator, and a 0.75 FTE department


Staff & other personnel resources appear sufficiently stable

program coordinator. Nine additional personnel provide other administrative support to the program and department, and the School of Medicine has five staff who fulfill roles at offices including the Career Center, Graduate School, International Admissions, Student Conduct, and University Libraries. Graduate assistants provide faculty and staff with additional administrative, classroom audio visual assistance, course web content, and social media support. The MPH APE coordinator coordinates the department’s certificate programs related to admissions and course permissions. Graduate assistants support faculty during evening courses and with other duties as assigned. Just prior to the site visit, the program received approval to advertise a new position, a public health workforce and community engagement director. Responsibilities include management of student internships, student recruitment activities, alumni engagement, and assessing workforce development needs. On site, program faculty, staff, and students verified the adequacy of program staff. The program and department’s integrated and collaborative approach maximizes staff efforts and efficiencies. Program faculty explained that staffing budget reductions reflected in data from the past two years are due to the conclusion of grant-funded projects and the resulting grant-supported staff terminations.

C4. PHYSICAL RESOURCES



Met

Physical resources adequate to fulfill mission & goals & support degree programs

The program occupies offices, classrooms, and conference rooms in the department’s Education Center, which is located nine miles from the main campus. Faculty occupy 14 offices and one cubicle. Program staff occupy four offices, and GAs access four cubicles. Conference rooms serving as classrooms provide seating for 10-30 students. All conference rooms are fitted with whiteboards, computers, screens, and ceiling-mounted projectors. Additional classroom space may be scheduled on the main campus as needed. All faculty, staff, GAs, and students have access to shared space on the main campus. Program class sizes have not exceeded 30 students, so classroom space in the Education Center remains sufficient. The wireless environment with multiple monitors and movable tables allows for configuration changes as needed. A study area is also available for students. Program faculty, staff, students, and community members collectively reported that the state-of-the-art physical program space is adequate and appreciated. Classroom, study, office, and meeting space is spacious and new. Students expressed a preference for the off-campus location.


Physical resources appear sufficiently stable

C5. INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES



Met

Adequate library resources , including personnel, for students & faculty

Dunbar Library on the main campus is open 96 hours per week, with reference services available on site for 84 hours. A chat or text reference service is available 24 hours daily through OhioLINK, an online reference service. MPH students may access the library’s website, which links students and faculty to services that support teaching and research. A designated librarian is assigned to provide reference services, consultation, instruction, and collected resources for MPH faculty, staff, and students. Students and faculty access free secured and unsecured WiFi at the Education Center, and faculty have university networked, web-accessible computers. Students may use web-accessible personal computers and laptops loaded with SPSS, GIS, and SAS software and linked to a printer. Secure and unsecured WiFi is available all over the main campus. Computing and Telecommunications Services offer seven 24-hour computer labs on campus and 19 computer labs hosting varied hours for both Macintosh and Windows-based computers. This office also supports ConnectWright, a service with free software such as virus scanning and spyware. Computing and Telecommunications Services also serves students, faculty, and staff using computers at home. The Student Technology Assistance Center, located in the Dunbar Library, assists students with the use of multimedia


Adequate IT resources, including tech assistance for students & faculty

Library & IT resources appear sufficiently stable

to create original academic and creative products. The Center for Teaching and Learning provides pedagogical training, consultation, and support for faculty developing online course material. All information and technology resources sufficiently support the needs of faculty, staff, and students in the MPH program as verified during the site visit.

D1. MPH & DRPH FOUNDATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH KNOWLEDGE



Met

Ensures grounding in foundational public health knowledge through appropriate methods (see worksheet for detail)

The program ensures that MPH students, including dual degree students, are grounded in foundational public health knowledge by mapping the learning objectives to five required courses:

PPH 6100: Biostatistics

PPH 6200: Epidemiology

PPH 6300: Environmental Health

PPH 6400: Social & Behavioral Determinants of Health

PPH 7410: Community Assessment. The syllabi and assignments align with all foundational knowledge areas. The site visit team was able to validate didactic coverage of all learning objectives, as shown in the D1 worksheet. For students who started their MPH degrees at another institution, the faculty member who teaches the corresponding course reviews the syllabus from the other


institution to determine whether the external course meets the same learning objectives. There have been no instances of this occurring since the implementation of the current curriculum.

D1 Worksheet

Foundational Knowledge Yes/CNV

1. Explain public health history, philosophy & values Yes

2. Identify the core functions of public health & the 10 Essential Services Yes

3. Explain the role of quantitative & qualitative methods & sciences in describing & assessing a population’s health Yes

4. List major causes & trends of morbidity & mortality in the US or other community relevant to the school or program Yes

5. Discuss the science of primary, secondary & tertiary prevention in population health, including health promotion, screening, etc.

Yes

6. Explain the critical importance of evidence in advancing public health knowledge Yes

7. Explain effects of environmental factors on a population’s health Yes

8. Explain biological & genetic factors that affect a population’s health Yes

9. Explain behavioral & psychological factors that affect a population’s health Yes

10. Explain the social, political & economic determinants of health & how they contribute to population health & health inequities

Yes

11. Explain how globalization affects global burdens of disease Yes

12. Explain an ecological perspective on the connections among human health, animal health & ecosystem health (e.g., One Health)

Yes

22

D2. MPH FOUNDATIONAL COMPETENCIES



Met

Assesses all MPH students, at least once, on their abilities to demonstrate each foundational competency (see worksheet for detail)

The program ensures coverage and assessment of the foundational competencies for all students, including dual degree students, through nine required courses. The site visit team was able to validate appropriate didactic coverage and assessments for all but one of the foundational competencies. The concern relates to the site visit team’s inability to validate an appropriate assessment for one competency, as noted on the D2 worksheet. For foundational competency 6, the team could not validate that the assessment covers structural bias, social inequities, and racism. During the site visit, faculty said that the assessment covers environmental justice but does not explicitly cover structural bias and acknowledged the need to clarify expectations for this assessment. Students expressed satisfaction with the curriculum and said that they chose the program because they could choose their concentration after the second semester and could also choose multiple certificates to focus elective credits. Students told site visitors that they would appreciate an approved list of electives, and both students and alumni said that they would like to see greater integration between the program and the medical school.

A new assessment for foundational competency 6 has been created (see attached revised syllabus for PPH 6300 and assessment for D2 competency 6). In addition to the electronic resources already provided on our website and in the MPH Student Handbook, a list of approved electives has been posted outside the program coordinator’s office as well as a draft class schedule. We began the integration between the program and the medical school before our site visit (i.e., IPE event, the medical school’s global health brigade organization, and the medical student research symposium), and will continue to create more interactions going forward. This will include sharing appropriate medical school announcements/ activities with the MPH students.

The Council reviewed the program’s response to the team report. Based on information in the response, the Council found that the program didactically prepares and assesses all students on all the foundational competencies. Therefore, the Council changed the site visit team’s finding of partially met to met.

Program integration has also occurred with MPH faculty participating in the medical school’s women's collaborative events, peer-led education workshop, etc.

24

D2 Worksheet

MPH Foundational Competencies Yes/CNV

1. Apply epidemiological methods to the breadth of settings & situations in public health practice Yes

2. Select quantitative & qualitative data collection methods appropriate for a given public health context Yes

3. Analyze quantitative & qualitative data using biostatistics, informatics, computer-based programming & software, as appropriate Yes

4. Interpret results of data analysis for public health research, policy or practice Yes

5. Compare the organization, structure & function of health care, public health & regulatory systems across national & international settings Yes

6. Discuss the means by which structural bias, social inequities & racism undermine health & create challenges to achieving health equity at organizational, community & societal levels

Yes

7. Assess population needs, assets & capacities that affect communities’ health Yes

8. Apply awareness of cultural values & practices to the design or implementation of public health policies or programs Yes

9. Design a population-based policy, program, project or intervention Yes

10. Explain basic principles & tools of budget & resource management Yes

11. Select methods to evaluate public health programs Yes

12. Discuss multiple dimensions of the policy-making process, including the roles of ethics & evidence Yes

13. Propose strategies to identify stakeholders & build coalitions & partnerships for influencing public health outcomes Yes

14. Advocate for political, social or economic policies & programs that will improve health in diverse populations Yes

15. Evaluate policies for their impact on public health & health equity Yes

16. Apply principles of leadership, governance & management, which include creating a vision, empowering others, fostering collaboration & guiding decision making Yes

17. Apply negotiation & mediation skills to address organizational or community challenges Yes

18. Select communication strategies for different audiences & sectors Yes

19. Communicate audience-appropriate public health content, both in writing & through oral presentation Yes

20. Describe the importance of cultural competence in communicating public health content Yes

21. Perform effectively on interprofessional teams Yes

22. Apply systems thinking tools to a public health issue Yes

25

D3. DRPH FOUNDATIONAL COMPETENCIES



Not Applicable

D4. MPH & DRPH CONCENTRATION COMPETENCIES



Met

Defines at least five distinct competencies for each concentration or generalist degree in MPH & DrPH. Competencies articulate an appropriate depth or enhancement beyond foundational competencies

The program offers an MPH in two concentrations: 1) health promotion and education and 2) population health and has defined five competencies for each. The competencies are written at an appropriate level for the MPH, and nearly all competencies define an appropriate depth of knowledge for the concentration. The program revised the concentration competencies during the development of the self-study. The population health concentration focuses on quantitative analysis and epidemiology, reflecting student feedback requesting these emphases, while the health promotion and education concentration focuses on program planning, implementation, and evaluation. The health promotion and education competencies align with NCHEC competencies, but the program does not intend its competencies to explicitly align with the NCHEC set. The program helps students prepare for the CHES exam; thus far, all students who have taken the exam have passed.

The health promotion and education (HPE) concentration competencies were revised. HPE concentration competency 1 was deleted (renumbered remaining competencies #2 through #5 as #1 through #4). A new HPE concentration competency was added with the addition of a new HPE concentration required course - public health project management (see attached revised D4-1 Template, new PPH 7440 syllabus, and assessment documentation for the new HPE concentration competency 5). The population health (PH) concentration competency 5 was revised and a new assessment was developed (see attached revised D4-

The Council reviewed the program’s response to the team report. Based on information in the response, the Council found that the program has appropriately defined concentration competencies and corresponding assessments. Therefore, the Council changed the site visit team’s finding of partially met to met.

Assesses all students at least once on their ability to demonstrate each concentration competency

If applicable, covers & assesses defined competencies for a specific credential (eg, CHES, MCHES)

N/A

The first concern relates to the site visit team’s inability to validate that concentration competency 1 for the health promotion and education concentration is sufficiently distinct from foundational competency 9. When asked during the site visit how this concentration competency was distinct, faculty said that the assessment focuses on theory and implementation; however, concentration competencies 2 and 4 focus on program implementation, and theory is also covered in the assessment for foundational competency 9. The program teaches and assesses the concentration competencies through two required courses per concentration. Faculty explained that each concentration maps competencies to two courses to provide greater flexibility for students to pursue certificates. The program received feedback that students appreciate this structure. The site visit team analyzed the competencies and determined the competencies and skills students learn are distinct from each other despite only having two required courses each. The second concern relates to the site visit team’s inability to validate an appropriate assessment for population health concentration competency 5. Reviewers could not validate that the structured debate assessment covers constructively managing disagreements or addresses personal and organizational conflict management. The D4 worksheet reflects the team’s findings.

1 Template, revised PPH 7520 syllabus, and assessment documentation for PH concentration competency 5).

27

D4 Worksheet

MPH Health Promotion and Education Concentration Competencies Comp statement acceptable as written?

Yes/No

Comp taught and assessed? Yes/CNV

1. Demonstrate program implementation skills. Yes Yes

2. Create a health communications campaign. Yes Yes

3. Monitor the implementation of health promotion programs and policies. Yes Yes

4. Conduct process, impact, and outcome evaluations of health promotion programs and policies. Yes Yes

5. Identify and manage resources to lead a health promotion project. Yes Yes

MPH Population Health Concentration Competencies Comp statement acceptable as written?

Yes/No

Comp taught and assessed? Yes/CNV

1. Analyze quantitative data using multivariable adjusted regression analysis. Yes Yes

2. Apply quantitative research methodology to research a current health issue. Yes Yes

3. Organize and deliver an effective presentation on a population health issue using an emerging and advanced communication strategy. Yes Yes

4. Illustrate an unmet need of population health through the synthesis of data, literature, and knowledge of policies and systems. Yes Yes

5. Constructively address disagreements about values, roles, goals, or actions that arise among public health issues. Yes Yes

D5. MPH APPLIED PRACTICE EXPERIENCES



Met

All MPH students produce at least 2 work products that are meaningful to an organization in appropriate applied practice settings

The program’s applied practice experience (APE) is competency focused, rather than focusing on hours. The APE course guides MPH students through the experience. A document titled “Guidelines for Students” explains the process of signing up for the course, preparation activities, selecting a practice site, securing required approvals, choosing competencies, progress reporting, and evaluation. The documents include checklists, forms, and a description of expected products. The course grade is pass/fail. On site, students praised recent changes in APE requirements: they noted that the removal of a minimum hour requirement works well for full-time working students. APE sites have included the Dayton Emergency Response System, Premier Health System, City-County Public Health, and the MS Society. Students choose competencies based on their goals. The relationships and partnerships built through faculty service and prior experience facilitate the selection of practice sites that benefit students and community-based agencies. Program faculty advise students to register for the course the semester they intend to complete the APE. Process steps include the following: 1) meet with the APE coordinator to discuss the process and potential practice

The students were previously permitted to select any of the concentration competencies for their APE. The program’s policy has been updated to ensure that only concentration competencies already obtained through didactic coursework are selected, verified by the APE coordinator and director.

The Council reviewed the program’s response to the team report. Based on information in the response, the Council found that the program has addressed the issue identified by the site visit team. Therefore, the Council changed the team’s finding of met with commentary to a finding of met.

Qualified individuals assess each work product & determine whether it demonstrates attainment of competencies

All students demonstrate at least 5 competencies, at least 3 of which are foundational

sites; 2) meet with the site preceptor to identify products, organizational benefits, and develop the learning experience; 3) engage a faculty lead; 4) work with the preceptor to develop a schedule; 5) sign forms such as an initiation form, professional agreement, and medical consent; 6) initiate an electronic log; 7) submit monthly progress reports; and 8) submit final required paperwork and complete the evaluation process. The final portfolio includes a descriptive summary of the APE projects completed and student self-reflection on the competencies attained. The faculty lead completes an evaluation of the student’s APE competency attainment and recommends the final grade disposition (pass or fail) to the APE director. The APE director reviews the preceptor evaluation, the signed competency checklist, and the assessment from the APE faculty lead and assigns the final grade. A total of six student portfolios containing practice-based products were presented in the ERF, all originating in spring 2019. This was the first full semester in which all experiences reflected APE changes that conform to 2016 CEPH requirements. The commentary relates to the ability to choose competencies from either concentration despite a potential lack of didactic preparation. One student example lists three foundational competencies (required) and two concentration competencies, one from each concentration. Unless students can verify that they have received the required didactic material, the program must ensure that students select competencies from their declared concentration. All other student examples

documented correct competency choices, with some students exceeding the minimum required number of competencies to achieve. One example lists a total of nine competencies, seven foundational and two from the population health concentration.

D6. DRPH APPLIED PRACTICE EXPERIENCE



Not Applicable

D7. MPH INTEGRATIVE LEARNING EXPERIENCE



Met

Students complete project explicitly designed to demonstrate synthesis of foundational & concentration competencies

Students are able to select from three integrative learning experience (ILE) options. The program’s expectation for all students, as reflected in a three-credit, one-semester course, requires students to synthesize their public health knowledge base resulting in a policy brief, research analysis, or proposal for a fundable study. As an alternative, students can elect to complete a three-credit, one-semester independent project that requires a synthesis/evaluation of a topic of interest that expands on a student’s prior coursework or APE project. Students also can elect to complete a six-credit, two-semester research project that requires them to engage in a self-directed research study of substance suitable for presentation/publication.


Project occurs at or near end of program of study

Students produce a high-quality written product

Faculty reviews student project & validates demonstration & synthesis of specific competencies

The program has established equivalent processes that students must follow regardless of the option selected. After foundational courses are completed, students submit a concept paper indicating 1) which three foundational and three concentration-specific competencies will be addressed, 2) how the selected competencies will be reflected in the capstone project, 3) how IRB-related issues are to be addressed, and 4) planned deliverables. Students start their capstone projects after completing six foundational courses, and completion occurs at or near the end of the student’s program of study. A capstone guideline document is provided to students to explain requirements and expectations. The site visit team validated that capstone projects are high quality, as demonstrated by review of the samples provided in the ERF. Examples provided were of the six-credit, two-semester research projects as no students had completed either of the other two options at the time of the site visit.

D8. DRPH INTEGRATIVE LEARNING EXPERIENCE



Not Applicable

D9. PUBLIC HEALTH BACHELOR’S DEGREE GENERAL CURRICULUM



Not Applicable

D10. PUBLIC HEALTH BACHELOR’S DEGREE FOUNDATIONAL DOMAINS



Not Applicable

D11. PUBLIC HEALTH BACHELOR’S DEGREE FOUNDATIONAL COMPETENCIES



Not Applicable

D12. PUBLIC HEALTH BACHELOR’S DEGREE CUMULATIVE AND EXPERIENTIAL ACTIVITIES



Not Applicable

D13. PUBLIC HEALTH BACHELOR’S DEGREE CROSS-CUTTING CONCEPTS AND EXPERIENCES



Not Applicable

D14. MPH PROGRAM LENGTH



Met

MPH requires at least 42 semester credits or equivalent

Students are required to complete 42 credits to graduate from the program. This includes six required foundational courses, required concentration and elective courses, the APE, and the ILE. The program defines a credit as “an approximate measure of effort/time required for a typical student to achieve the learning outcomes of an educational experience. Typically, a credit hour represents 750 minutes of formalized instruction accompanied by an average of twice that amount of time on out-of-class assignments (1,500 minutes). Effort/time calculations may differ by modality of instruction, but shall require a minimum of 2,250 total minutes of student effort/time per credit hour.”


D15. DRPH PROGRAM LENGTH



Not Applicable

D16. BACHELOR’S DEGREE PROGRAM LENGTH



Not Applicable

D17. ACADEMIC PUBLIC HEALTH MASTER’S DEGREES



Not Applicable

D18. ACADEMIC PUBLIC HEALTH DOCTORAL DEGREES



Not Applicable

D19. ALL REMAINING DEGREES



Not Applicable

D20. DISTANCE EDUCATION



Not Applicable

E1. FACULTY ALIGNMENT WITH DEGREES OFFERED



Met

Faculty teach & supervise students in areas of knowledge with which they are thoroughly familiar & qualified by the totality of their education & experience

The program’s seven primary faculty have backgrounds in epidemiology, biostatistics, environmental health, social sciences, and nutrition appropriate for a program offering an MPH degree. The program benefits from the contribution of a full-time university faculty member in the humanities as well as two part-time university faculty in emergency medicine and health policy. Three adjunct faculty in law, health administration, and communications complete the faculty available to deliver the MPH program curriculum. The faculty’s level of training and experience is appropriate for offering the MPH degree. The School of


Faculty education & experience is appropriate for the degree level (eg, bachelor’s, master’s) & nature of program (eg, research, practice)

Medicine has committed another position to the department; the area of specialization is to be determined. Statements by program alumni recommend recruitment of faculty trained in health systems science/administration, law and ethics, and systems thinking.

E2. INTEGRATION OF FACULTY WITH PRACTICE EXPERIENCE



Met

Employs faculty who have professional experience in settings outside of academia & have demonstrated competence in public health practice

The program integrates perspectives from the field of public health practice by employing faculty who have had or continue to have extensive experience in public health practice. Arrangements with experienced public health practitioners augment the primary faculty members’ experience through adjunct faculty positions and guest lecturers; practitioners also serve on program committees and mentor students. Examples of practice experience among the primary faculty members include serving as the director of health education at a regional hospital, post-doctoral pharmacology and toxicology experience, 12 years as an airport health officer and national program manager for environmental health in Pakistan, and work at the administrative level in health insurance sectors. Examples of practice experience among the adjunct faculty include a senior healthcare executive in operations for several tertiary care hospitals and national health care plans, an International Lactation Consultant Association


Encourages faculty to maintain ongoing practice links with public health agencies, especially at state & local levels

Regularly involves practitioners in instruction through variety of methods & types of affiliation

liaison to the World Health Organization, and an attorney who served a local county health department as legal counsel. Also mentioned are Ohio health commissioners, epidemiologists, and environmental health directors; many are program graduates who now serve as adjunct faculty, regularly guest lecture, and collaborate on workforce development planning in addition to mentoring students on APE and ILE projects. During the site visit, program faculty, students, and community representatives confirmed the faculty’s extensive practice-based links and local practitioners’ frequent involvement in classroom instruction and student mentoring.

E3. FACULTY INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS



Met

Systems in place to document that all faculty are current in areas of instructional responsibility

The university has multiple systems to monitor and support faculty teaching effectiveness (i.e., the annual faculty review with department heads, Curriculum Committee oversight of course offerings and course outcomes, and ongoing review of student evaluations detailing instructors’ strengths/weaknesses in delivering course content). These methods ensure that faculty are current in areas of instructional effectiveness and pedagogical methods. The outcome of these various


Systems in place to document that all faculty are current in pedagogical methods

Establishes & consistently applies procedures for evaluating faculty competence & performance in instruction

Supports professional development & advancement in instructional effectiveness for all faculty

reviews are included as significant parts of any promotion and tenure review. The university’s Center for Teaching and Learning provides a number of workshops and coaching opportunities to improve the instructional effectiveness of faculty. Examples of trainings that faculty participated in include a flipped classroom workshop and one-on-one coaching with instructional designers to develop new online courses. Program faculty also attend professional conferences. The program uses courses that involve community-level practitioners, student satisfaction with instructional quality, and peer/internal review of syllabi and curricula to track instructional effectiveness. Currently, five of the six foundational courses involve community-level practitioners, 75% of respondents who graduated in spring 2019 rated overall quality of their courses as “high” or “extremely high,” and the program reviews syllabi and curricula during Curriculum Committee and end-of-semester review meetings.

E4. FACULTY SCHOLARSHIP



Met

Policies & practices in place to support faculty involvement in scholarly activities

Program faculty are expected to actively pursue research leading to generalizable knowledge through papers and presentations, along with fundable extramural


Faculty are involved in research & scholarly activity, whether funded or unfunded

grant/contract awards. The School of Medicine guidelines define scholarship activities in three tiers based on level of impact: 1) “upper,” which includes being principal investigator or co-investigator of a funded research grant, 2) “middle,” which includes presentations at a national meeting, and 3) “lower,” which includes being a journal reviewer for a refereed journal. Faculty seeking promotion to the rank of associate professor or professor are expected to meet the requisite guidelines. Faculty members’ annual evaluation includes review of promotion guidelines. The university maintains an effective Office of Research and Sponsored Programs that supports faculty in addressing funding requirements of pre- and post-award. The office also provides faculty support through workshops and information sessions on funding opportunities and competitive grant writing. Review of the ERF confirmed that public health faculty participate in a range of productive research activities and that the research undertaken by program faculty conforms appropriately to the broad domains of population/public health research. The research portfolios of faculty align well with their individual and collective educational interests of public health sciences, and faculty translate their scholarly activities into instruction. Examples include community needs assessments that provided content used in two courses, PPH 6200 and 7410; studies of perinatal periods of risk that were used in two courses, PPH 7520 and 7150; and research on the effects of alcohol use on engagement

Type & extent of faculty research aligns with mission & types of degrees offered

Faculty integrate their own experiences with scholarly activities into instructional activities

Students have opportunities for involvement in faculty research & scholarly activities

in care among individuals with HIV, which was used in PPH 7150. Examples of student participation in faculty research projects include work on projects related to school meal programs, design/implementation of a student wellness survey, and conducting pilot studies on metabolic impacts of PFAS exposure in firefighters. The program tracks the percentage of PIF participating in research activities, with a target of 75%; number of articles published in peer-reviewed journals, with a target of five; and number of presentations at professional meetings, with a target of five. The program exceeded all targets in the last three academic years.

E5. FACULTY EXTRAMURAL SERVICE



Met

Defines expectations for faculty extramural service

The program and School of Medicine expect all faculty to engage in service that directly benefits the community. Each faculty member can determine the level of service, with a workload allowance of up to 10% time. The program and school encourage local, regional, and national service. The program tracks service activities as part of the performance review process annually, and the review aligns with School of Medicine promotion guidelines. The guidelines define service activities in three tiers based on level of impact: 1) “upper”: leadership positions in


Faculty are actively engaged with the community through communication, consultation, provision of technical assistance & other means

regional or national medical, scientific, public health, or community service organizations, 2) “middle”: membership on committees or boards of regional, national medical, scientific, public health, and community organizations or organizing a local or regional scholarly symposium, and 3) “lower”: community and volunteer service participation. Promotion criteria to associate professor and professor are further defined. Faculty are expected to share the knowledge gained from service to enhance student education in public health. Promotion eligibility is available in two tracks: educator or investigator. The educator track includes higher service expectations. The self-study described faculty use of real-life cases of public health surveillance, data analysis, disease outbreaks, and research ethics in the classroom, based on experience on six state committees and editorial board service for the Ohio Journal of Public Health. In another example, a faculty member integrates her experience serving on the Ohio Public Health Resiliency Coalition on Climate Change into her environmental health course. Social media announcements and bulletin boards alert students to opportunities to become involved in faculty service opportunities. Examples of student involvement in faculty service include working with the Breastfeeding Institute, Community Overdose Action Team, the Montgomery County Infant Mortality Coalition, and the Perinatal Data Users Consortium. The program measures service by tracking the percent of PIF participating in extramural service; number of faculty-student service collaborations; and number of extramural

service engagements. The number of engagements (35-42 per year) far exceeds the target of five. The program targets 75% PIF participation in service and reports 75%, 90%, and 100% across the three most recent years. The number of faculty-student service collaborations has not reached the target of two per year, and faculty noted the difficulty for students to engage in service activities that may involve travel. Faculty and community members confirmed an ongoing extensive network of partnerships, unique roles, and relationships benefitting community needs.

F1. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOL/PROGRAM EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT



Met

Engages with community stakeholders, alumni, employers & other relevant community partners. Does not exclusively use data from supervisors of student practice experiences

The program collects feedback formally and informally through many avenues. The program’s most formal structure for gathering stakeholder input is the MPH Advisory Board. The board meets annually or more often if needed. The Advisory Board includes representatives from each school or college at the university, the health commissioners in the region, as well as MPH faculty, staff, and student representatives. The program selects members based on the desire to have multi-disciplinary perspectives from the university and public health leaders who provide valuable feedback about workforce needs and current issues. In addition, the program collects feedback from the Admissions Committee, which has three alumni members


Ensures that constituents provide regular feedback on all of these:

student outcomes

curriculum

overall planning processes

self-study process

Defines methods designed to provide useful information & regularly examines methods

Regularly reviews findings from constituent feedback

and one community representative. The program also collects feedback through APE preceptors and through participation in the bi-monthly Association of Ohio Health Commissioners meetings. These meetings present opportunities for the MPH program director and/or faculty to hear about issues other attendees are facing and to ask for feedback about the program including workforce development, diversity, and curricular changes. The program collects feedback more informally through involvement in local, regional, and state committees and conferences and through ongoing discussions with alumni, students, and community partners. When the program updated its guiding statements in 2018, it included staff members from an external partner (Public Health – Dayton & Montgomery County) in the meetings to provide feedback. In addition, the Advisory Board reviewed the guiding statements and provided feedback. Representatives from program stakeholders, including members of the Advisory Board, reviewed drafts of the self-study before they were finalized and submitted. MPH Advisory Board members provide curricular and program planning feedback. The program solicits APE advisors, capstone committee members, and attendees at the Association of Ohio Health Commissioners meetings for feedback about changing practice and research needs as well as new trends or issues. Examples of programmatic changes based on constituent feedback include adding a project management course based on alumni feedback and weaving coalition building

into the curriculum based on feedback from the Advisory Board about the importance of this skill. The program acknowledged that it has had difficulty collecting feedback from alumni’s direct supervisors due to the hesitation of alumni to share their direct supervisors’ contact information. Despite this, the program has managed to identify six immediate supervisors with plans to contact them during fall 2019. In addition, the program director meets regularly with CEOs of organizations that employ the bulk of graduates to determine, in general, the graduates’ ability to perform competencies in the workplace. During the site visit, the program director summarized employer feedback, saying that graduates applied quantitative skills and program planning skills very effectively and that graduates have more difficulty applying coalition building, budgeting, and management skills. In response, the program has adjusted the curriculum to focus more on coalition building and management skills. The program reviews its methods for collecting data during annual faculty retreats and makes adjustments as needed. The program reviews data collected from stakeholders regularly, in monthly faculty and Curriculum Committee meetings. On site, stakeholders told the site visit team that the program solicits feedback regularly through formal and informal channels and that the program is very receptive to feedback. Community members said that they feel comfortable reaching out to faculty with feedback at any time.

F2. STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNITY & PROFESSIONAL SERVICE



Met

Makes community & professional service opportunities available to all students

The program introduces students to service, community engagement, and professional development activities through orientation, faculty announcements, and guest lectures and through service-learning projects in a required course. In addition, many of the School of Medicine student organizations have service requirements as a component of participation, so most MPH students who are also in the Physician Leadership Development Program participate in additional volunteering and service. The program coordinator sends emails with service opportunities to students on a regular basis. Examples of recent student participation in professional and community service opportunities include a park cleanup sponsored by Dayton Five Rivers MetroParks in April and October for the past three years, poster sessions at the Ohio Public Health Combined Conference, assisting in efforts of the Community Overdoes Action team to address various aspects of the opioid problem, assisting a local emergency preparedness organization with creating a table-top exercise, and collecting data for the Dayton Community Health Assessment. An additional example given on site was volunteering in the first aid tent at a 5K race hosted by a local health department. The program does not have a public health student organization. During the site visit, students expressed


Opportunities expose students to contexts in which public health work is performed outside of an academic setting &/or the importance of learning & contributing to professional advancement of the field

satisfaction with service opportunities but said that they would like to have a public health student organization.

F3. ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMUNITY’S PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS



Met

Defines a professional community or communities of interest & the rationale for this choice

The program’s professional community of interest is individuals and organizations currently serving public health functions within an eight-county region of west central Ohio, encompassing the counties of Champaign, Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami, Montgomery, Preble, and Shelby. The rationale for this choice is that it is the same reach as several local organizations that compose a substantial part of the program’s public health partners. The program collects professional development data through annual MPH Advisory Board meetings, bi-monthly Association of Ohio Health Commissioners meetings, and through stakeholders reaching out to the program with their training needs. While the program has regular contact with stakeholders to determine professional development needs, it does not have a written summary of results. Despite this, the program faculty said that they feel that because of their integration into the local public health community, they have knowledge of the local workforce development needs and are able to clearly articulate the current needs.


Periodically assesses the professional development needs of individuals in priority community or communities

F4. DELIVERY OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE WORKFORCE



Met

Provides activities that address professional development needs & are based on assessment results described in Criterion F3

When the program becomes aware of specific workforce development needs, the program director determines which faculty members are best suited to create and implement the activities based on areas of expertise and faculty availability. For example, the program provided an ethics training for Public Health – Dayton & Montgomery County during the 2016-17 academic year. The organization was seeking PHAB accreditation and looked to the program to provide expertise and experience around considering and resolving ethical issues. Approximately 300 individuals at the health department received ethics training throughout the year. Another example is assisting Public Health – Dayton & Montgomery County with training staff using Cost of Poverty Experience (COPE) to teach their employees about the causes and effects of poverty in their community. A total of 88 employees were trained in 2018. Another example is a three-day biostatistics workshop that will be held in March or April 2020 with 18 local county employees based on a request the program received from the Greene County health commissioner. On site, stakeholders told the site visit team that they are satisfied with past and current professional development opportunities and specifically cited the program’s training related to PHAB accreditation and ethics.


G1. DIVERSITY & CULTURAL COMPETENCE



Partially Met

Defines appropriate priority population(s)

To address diversity and cultural competency among students, the program has identified recruitment of racial minority students and students who have public health experience as priorities. To address diversity and cultural competency among faculty, the program has identified members of minority populations and males as priorities for recruitment. During the site visit, the provost highlighted diversity with respect to students with disabilities and students affiliated with the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The program’s goals include increasing racial and ethnic diversity, increasing the number of admitted students with a commitment to public health, and cultivating an environment that supports the success of members of the above priority groups. The program is working to achieve these goals through a systematic student recruitment plan, refreshing the program brand, engaging alumni, providing educational models and policies geared toward mid-career working professionals, and following recommended recruiting procedures by the university’s Office of Equity and Inclusion. Additionally, the program ensures that job advertisements are posted in locations that are accessible to underrepresented groups.


The Council has reviewed the self-study document, the draft team report, and the program’s response to the team report. The Council noted that the program did not provide climate data for students or faculty. To ensure consistency with past decisions, the Council acted to change the site visit team’s finding from met to partially met. The concern relates to the program’s inability to document compliance with this criterion through data on student and faculty perceptions of the climate regarding diversity and cultural competency.

Identifies goals to advance diversity & cultural competence, as well as strategies to achieve goals

Learning environment prepares students with broad competencies regarding diversity & cultural competence

Identifies strategies and actions that create and maintain a culturally competent environment

Practices support recruitment, retention, promotion of faculty (and staff, if applicable), with attention to priority population(s)

Practices support recruitment, retention, graduation of diverse students, with attention to priority population(s)

Regularly collects & reviews quantitative & qualitative data & uses data to inform & adjust strategies

Perceptions of climate regarding diversity & cultural competence are positive

In the last three cohorts, one-third of students self-identified as part of a racial or ethnic under-represented group. In the last three cohorts, one to two students have entered the program with prior public health experience. Currently, of the seven PIF, three identify as part of a racial or ethnic under-represented group and one is male. Two non-PIF are also male. When asked on site about diversity and cultural competence in the curriculum, the program director described social determinants of health as the lens through which the subjects of diversity and cultural competency are addressed. This focus is underscored by the practice-based experience of the program faculty. During the academic year, the program supports a number of guest speakers (e.g., Ohio Equity Institute, Montgomery Food Coalition) and exposes students to a number of assignments and activities underscoring issues of social diversity and cultural competency (e.g., City Match, Bad Sugar). The program encourages faculty to incorporate content and individuals that reflect diversity and cultural competence. Faculty are also encouraged to conduct research and service that contribute to a culturally competent environment. Faculty reported that it is difficult to recruit a diverse student body, as the target population is relatively homogenous in terms of race and ethnicity. Cultural competency training of faculty and staff is not required, but the program director recommends it be undertaken and maintained by all personnel. Students who met with site visitors expressed satisfaction with current levels of diversity and cultural competency within the program.

At the time of the site visit, the MPH program was initiating a recruitment plan in concert with the School of Medicine using information obtained through focus groups, competitor analysis, and strength identification. The program desires to link student recruitment with funding and employment opportunities. The program has engaged with local community colleges to enhance career awareness and pathways to public health employment. The program also has engaged with the university in efforts to recruit international students to the program. The university has engaged a consultant to review and recommend university practices appropriate for recruitment of a diverse faculty. The department chair has initiated meetings with faculty groups to identify opportunities to achieve a diverse and culturally competent faculty. The program collects diversity data through its alumni survey. Graduates are asked “to what degree did this program provide learning opportunities for you to work with diverse populations?” Of the 13 graduates, nine responded and eight indicated that the program was “very successful” or “successful.” The program did not provide additional climate data related to student or faculty perceptions.

H1. ACADEMIC ADVISING



Met

Students have ready access to advisors from the time of enrollment

The program applies a cohort model to orientation and subsequent advising activities. Students are welcomed with an email preceding a required meeting with the MPH program coordinator. The program presents students with advising opportunities and requirements at orientation, which is offered as an evening event to accommodate those who work full time. A presentation covers introductions, program overview, student expectations, the MPH student handbook, program of study development, academic advising, the APE and ILE/capstone, and the library system. Students often meet with the program director in addition to the coordinator. Small program size is cited as the reason for advising informality, not assigning an advisor to each student, and availability of all faculty to students based on area of interest. Students and faculty all know each other, facilitating advising interactions. Students may also meet with their concentration directors for advice on their program of study. Faculty and staff are oriented to the advising role upon hire. Senior faculty mentor new faculty. The program has graduate assistants―one to two concurrently―who are second-year MPH students or a Physician Leadership Development Program student. Duties include advising peers and holding regular office hours.


Advisors are actively engaged & knowledgeable about the curricula & about specific courses & programs of study

Qualified individuals monitor student progress & identify and support those who may experience difficulty

Orientation, including written guidance, is provided to all entering students

Physician Leadership Development Program students have an additional academic advisor, the coordinator of the leadership development program, who assists in degree planning to ensure all requirements are met. The program also describes academic advising opportunities and requirements in the student handbook. The program has surveyed students and alumni on academic advising satisfaction. In 2017, 89% of students responded that they were very satisfied or satisfied with academic advising, and in 2018, 73% of students responded that they were very satisfied or satisfied with academic advising. The program acknowledged the survey’s low response rates, which limit the usefulness of the data, as noted in Criterion B5. Going forward, the program plans to collect more robust data on student satisfaction through personal email requests from faculty to students and alumni and formation of a new ad hoc committee on student success. On site, students and alumni verified their satisfaction with academic advising, citing faculty and staff availability and prompt responses.

H2. CAREER ADVISING



Met

Students have access to qualified advisors who are actively engaged & knowledgeable about the workforce & can provide career placement advice

The university’s Career Center as well as the program provide career advising for MPH students and alumni. At the university level, a well-qualified staff member with post-graduate education in the field of career advising, counseling, employer development and event planning, project management, collaboration, and social media provides career advising. Career Center advisors are observed advising students as part of their training program. The program uses an assigned liaison to ensure that the Career Center is meeting MPH student needs. The Career Center hosts Handshake, which is a web-based application that facilitates job searching, resume posting, event registration and on-campus interview scheduling. Regular emails notify students and alumni of opportunities to develop strategies for interviewing, resume development, salary negotiation, and career fair preparation. The MPH program hosts an email listserv for all students and alumni, and they receive ongoing notices unless they request to opt out. The program incorporates career exploration and personalized advising into the curriculum. For example, the APE director helps students identify areas of interest linking their practice experience with future career goals. Likewise, students explore professional interests during the ILE. Course-based


Variety of resources & services are available to current students

Variety of resources & services are available to alumni

lectures and skill building help students learn about public health career options. Extracurricular events are implemented to facilitate knowledge of a range of public health career opportunities. An example of student participation in career counseling services is in PH 8100, Critical Thinking in Public Health, a one-credit elective course. The course requires students to construct a CV and create an individual development plan. Another example is a new, interactive event for current students and alumni featuring a panel of different organizations describing employment opportunities. Seventeen current students and 10 program alumni attended the event. The event will be repeated twice a year. Health promotion and education alumni and partners regularly speak in concentration classes about their roles and positions and offer career advice. Students in this concentration meet at least once with the concentration director to explore career options and areas of interest to maximize their APE and ILE experiences. Career advising is primarily on an as-requested basis for alumni. For example, the program director has had at least 22 alumni contact her regarding career advice since January 2016, and six students who have sought her advice currently have positions at the local, state, and national levels. The program collects career advising data through the alumni survey. For 2018, a total of 40 individuals responded to the question asking about career advising satisfaction. Thirty-three percent responded being at least satisfied with the quality of advising. The student

graduation survey from students who graduated in spring 2019 reported that six of nine students responding to the survey were satisfied or very satisfied with career advising. The program cites limited data on quality of career advising as a weakness and plans to use the new evaluation plan to improve career advising satisfaction data. On site, students, alumni, and community representatives confirmed faculty and staff availability and prompt responses. Students and alumni reported satisfaction with career advising, noting that faculty connections often resulted in effective linkages and meaningful work opportunities.

H3. STUDENT COMPLAINT PROCEDURES



Met

Defined set of policies & procedures govern formal student complaints & grievances

The underlying goals of policies and procedures that address student complaints and grievances are timeliness and open lines of communication with all parties involved. Most often, instructors resolve student concerns. There have been no formal complaints or grievances filed in 2016, 2017, or 2018. Should a complaint or grievance occur, a mediation process begins with attempts at resolution within the program. Students may report the grievance to the


Procedures are clearly articulated & communicated to students

Depending on the nature & level of each complaint, students are encouraged to voice concerns to unit officials or other appropriate personnel

Designated administrators are charged with reviewing & resolving formal complaints

relevant instructor or the MPH program director, who will determine the appropriate response to address the concern. If unresolved, a more formal review and decision or appeal follows the informal process. Faculty within the department, the department chair or the associate dean of the School of Medicine may become involved in resolution. Specific policies and procedures are set forth in publicly available locations, such as the final course grade appeal found on the MPH website. The appeal procedure outlines specific timeframes and refers to forms needed for submission. Complaint and grievance policies and procedures are available on the university’s website, under Graduate School policies and procedures. All policies and procedures are in the MPH student handbook. Additional resources available to students to assist with complaints or grievances include Enrollment Services, the Office of Equity and Inclusion, the Office of Disability Services, the Graduate School, and the Office of Community Standards and Student Conduct. The university, department, and program process and document complaints as required.

All complaints are processed & documented

H4. STUDENT RECRUITMENT & ADMISSIONS



Met

Implements recruitment policies designed to locate qualified individuals capable of taking

Discussions at a recent retreat led the program to “refresh” the program brand to recognize and align with program strengths seen as appealing to medical students,


advantage of program of study & developing competence for public health careers

public health workforce members, allied health professionals, and undergraduate students. Measures taken include becoming a member of ASPPH in 2016 and subsequent presence in the ASPPH Digital Viewbook. The website features a complete overview of the program, the application process, all required courses, faculty listings, the student handbook, and marketing materials distributed at presentations. The program actively recruits students using various forms of social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. The MPH program coordinator or program director attends the university’s annual Graduate School Open House and attended the This is Public Health graduate fair in Columbus, Ohio, in 2017. To attract strong applicants, the program uses the Graduate School’s Graduate Scholar and Wright Fellow fellowship programs to supply assistantships. The program reaches out to high school seniors and college students through participation at the university’s annual Path to Health Professions Day. The program director and APE director actively market the program during community interactions and events. Staff and faculty from the MPH program discuss the program when they guest lecture in undergraduate classes and have developed and taught two core undergraduate online courses for the College of Science and Mathematics minor in public health that began in 2013. Program faculty have taught the courses every fall and spring semester since spring 2016. The university’s website has a public health landing page, created in collaboration with the undergraduate programs, that brings additional web-based attention.

Implements admissions policies designed to select & enroll qualified individuals capable of taking advantage of program of study & developing competence for public health careers

Applicants interested in the MPH program must apply in SOPHAS first. Exceptions are Wright State faculty, staff, current Wright State graduate or medical students, and physicians accepted to the USAF Residency in Aerospace Medicine; these individuals apply directly to the Graduate School. SOPHAS applicants complete a secondary application to the Graduate School. The program reviews applications year-round. Students matriculate each fall semester. The following are the minimum qualifications for acceptance to the MPH program:

Earned bachelor’s degree from an accredited

institution

Undergraduate GPA of 2.7

GRE verbal, analytical and quantitative scores at the 20th percentile

Suitability and dedication to a public health career assessed from a submitted personal statement, resume/CV and two letters or recommendation

The program considers applications on a case-by-case basis in the event there are areas of weakness. The program coordinator assigns SOPHAS applications to the following reviewers: two community representatives (currently two health commissioners), three MPH faculty, two MPH alumni, and two graduate assistants. Reviewers use a rubric to score applications; a minimum of four reviewers must participate in scoring. The program director reviews each applicant and the reviewer’s comments and score to provide the program coordinator with an admission decision. Occasionally, the program may interview an applicant.

The self-study lists one outcome measure to track its recruitment and admissions processes: GRE quantitative score at or above 143 (20th percentile) among those without a master’s or terminal degree, with an 80% target. The program has exceeded the target in each of the last three years. On site, faculty reported recent increases in program interest and applications resulting from targeted recruitment activities.

H5. PUBLICATION OF EDUCATIONAL OFFERINGS



Met

Catalogs & bulletins used to describe educational offerings are publicly available

All required information and descriptions are found on or linked to the MPH website, such as the academic calendar, admissions policies and procedures, grading policies, academic integrity standards, and degree completion requirements for each concentration. The graduate catalog webpage offers a disclaimer explaining that the most updated information will be available in the next edition of the University Catalog, though information may be available to students earlier depending on the catalog approval date. All referenced publicly available materials are accurate and current, including student recruitment materials. Faculty report that the university published the new catalog as scheduled in fall 2019.


Catalogs & bulletins accurately describe the academic calendar, admissions policies, grading policies, academic integrity standards & degree completion requirements

Advertising, promotional & recruitment materials contain accurate information

60

AGENDA

Council on Education for Public Health Site Visit Agenda Wright State University Master of Public Health Program

Day 1: Monday, October 28, 2019

8:30 am Site Visit Team Request for Additional Documents Sara Paton, PhD, MS, MPH Program Director, Associate Professor, Epidemiologist, PH Concentration Director, APE Director Marietta Orlowski, PhD, MCHES, CPH, Department Chair, Associate Professor, HPE Concentration Director 8:45 am Site Visit Team Executive Session 9:00 am Break 9:15 am Program Evaluation

Participants

Topics on which participants are prepared to answer team questions

Marietta Orlowski, PhD, MCHES, CPH, Department Chair, Associate Professor, HPE Concentration Director

Sara Paton, PhD, MS, CPH, MPH Program Director, Associate Professor, Epidemiologist, PH Concentration Director, APE Director

John McAlearney, PhD, Assistant Professor and Health Economist

Guiding statements – process of development and review?




Naila Khalil, MBBS, PhD, MPH, CPH, Associate Professor

Tim Crawford, PhD, MPH, Assistant Professor

Tina Yost, MBA, APE Coordinator

Evaluation processes – how does program collect and use input/data?


Resources (personnel, physical, IT) – who determines sufficiency? Acts when additional resources are needed?


Amie Freeman, Department Program Coordinator



Amie Freeman, Department Program Coordinator

Budget – who develops and makes decisions?

Total participants: 7

10:15 am Break 10:30 am Curriculum 1

Participants Topics on which participants are prepared to answer team questions






Foundational knowledge






Ken Dahms, JD, MA, Adjunct Instructor

Foundational competencies – didactic coverage and assessment






Concentration competencies – development, didactic coverage, and assessment

Nicole Kinzeler, PhD, Capstone Director, Assistant Professor


Mandi Hinson-Enslin, PhD, MPH, CHES, RDH, Assistant Professor


11:45 pm Break & Lunch Set-up 12:00 pm Students

Participants

Topics on which participants are prepared to answer team questions

Laila Al-Khasawneh, Population Health

Jason Burchett, MD, Population Health

Matt Clayton, Population Health

Ben Clouse, MS, Population Health (PLDP GA)

Leah Elliott, 2019 Fall Cohort

Sierra Flowers, Population Health

Sarah Fryman, Population Health

Hope Hurd, Health Promotion & Education

Fabrice Juin, Population Health

Jake Roemer, Population Health (GA)

Nicole Turkson, MD, Population Health

Melissa Vining, BSN, Population Health

Alexa Wene, Health Promotion & Education PLDP – Physician Leadership Development Program GA – Graduate Assistant

Student engagement in program operations Curriculum Resources (physical, faculty/staff, IT) Involvement in scholarship and service Academic and career advising Diversity and cultural competence Complaint procedures


1:15 pm Break 1:30 pm Curriculum 2



Tina Yost, MBA, APE Coordinator

Applied practice experiences




Dene Berman, PhD, MPH, Adjunct Instructor


Lori Metivier, MPH Program Coordinator

Integrative learning experiences


2:30 pm Break 2:45 pm Instructional Effectiveness






Mandi Hinson-Enslin, PhD, MPH, CHES, RDH, Assistant Professor

Cristina Redko, PhD, Associate Professor

Currency in areas of instruction & pedagogical methods




Scholarship and integration in instruction




Extramural service and integration in instruction



Integration of practice perspectives


Professional development of community




3:45 pm Break 4:00 pm Stakeholder Feedback/Input


Mickey Dohn, MD, MSc, CPH, Medical Director, Public Health - Dayton & Montgomery County

Brenna Heinle (2019) MPH, Epidemiologist, Clark County Public Health

Duane Stansbury, RS, MPH, Health Commissioner, Warren County Health District

Jessica Sokol (2019) MPH, 3rd year medical student, Boonshoft SOM PLDP

Involvement in program evaluation & assessment

Jim Gross (2005) MPH, Retired health commissioner

Erik Balster (2010) MPH, REHS, RS, Health Commissioner, Preble County Public Health

Karen Sue Barcelo (2008) MPH, RN, BSN, Field Nurse Case Manager, Ohio Department of Health

Dawn Ebron (2011) MPH, MS, CPH, Epidemiologist, PHDMC

Connie Freese (2006), MPH, RS, Sanitarian Supervisor, Public Health – PHDMC

Dustin Ratliff (2014) MPH, REHS, RS, Sanitarian Supervisor, Planning & Analytics, Warren County Health District

Matthew Tyler (2014) MPH, RS, Sanitarian Supervisor, General Services South, Public Health - Dayton & Montgomery County

Perceptions of current students & program graduates


Jeff Cooper, MS, Health Commissioner, Public Health - Dayton & Montgomery County

Lizzy Gonder-Strutz (2019) MPH

Roopsi Narayan (2014) MPH, CPH, Program Manager, Premier Community Health

Dustin Ratliff (2014) MPH, REHS, RS, Sanitarian Supervisor, Planning & Analytics, Warren County Health District



Perceptions of curricular effectiveness

Roopsi Narayan (2014) MPH, CPH, Program Manager, Premier Community Health

David Gerstner, MMRS Coordinator, City of Dayton Fire Department

Applied practice experiences

Dawn Ebron (2011) MPH, MS, CPH, Epidemiologist, Public Health - Dayton & Montgomery County

Shaun Hamilton (2013) MPH, CHES, System Director, Community Health & Benefits, Premier Health




Ann Stalter, PhD, RN, MEd, Professor, Wright State University College of Nursing & Health


Integration of practice perspectives

Erik Balster (2010) MPH, REHS, RS, Health Commissioner, Preble County Public Health

Jeff Cooper, MS, Health Commissioner, Public Health - Dayton & Montgomery County

Melissa Howell (2007) MPH, RN, MS, MBA, Health Commissioner, Greene County Combined Health District

Duane Stansbury, RS, MPH, Health Commissioner, Warren County Health District

Program delivery of professional development opportunities


5:00 pm Site Visit Team Executive Session 5:45 pm Adjourn

Day 2: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:30 am University Leaders


Susan Edwards, PhD, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost

Barry Milligan, PhD, Professor and Interim Dean of the Graduate School

Program’s position within larger institution

Barry Milligan, PhD, Professor and Interim Dean of the Graduate School Provision of program-level resources

Susan Edwards, PhD, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Institutional priorities


9:00 am Break 9:15 am Site Visit Team Executive Session 1:00 pm Exit Briefing 2:00 pm Team Departs