1 Georgia State University Institute of Public Health College of Health and Human Sciences Academic Program Review Self-Study IPH Director: Dr. Michael Eriksen APR Committee Chair: Dr. Sheryl Strasser APR Committee Members: Ms. Courtney Burton Ms. Elizabeth Majestic Dr. Frances McCarty Dr. Christine Stauber Date of Submission December 2, 2009
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Georgia State University
Institute of Public Health
College of Health and Human Sciences
Academic Program Review
Self-Study
IPH Director:
Dr. Michael Eriksen
APR Committee Chair:
Dr. Sheryl Strasser
APR Committee Members:
Ms. Courtney Burton
Ms. Elizabeth Majestic
Dr. Frances McCarty
Dr. Christine Stauber
Date of Submission
December 2, 2009
2
Table of Contents
Section A: Unit Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Centrality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Viability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Strategic Focus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Financial Resource Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Section B: Historical and Current Contexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B1. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B2. Three Year Period Identified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B3. Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B4. Credit Hour Production by Faculty by Fiscal Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B5. Summary Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B6. Evidence of Relevance of Program and Need Met. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B7. Comparative Program Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Section C: Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Section D: Curricula Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
D1. Evidence of Student Learning Outcomes . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
D2. Survey Outcome Information . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Section E: Student Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
E1. Input Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
E2. Output Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Section F: Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
F1. Quality and Quantity of Scholarly and Creative Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
F2. Promotion and Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
F3. Faculty Honors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
F4. Dollar Level and Source of Sponsored Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
F5. Service and Outreach Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
F6. Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Section G: Resource Adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
G1. Faculty Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
G2. Administrative Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
G3. Technological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
G4. Space Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
G5. Laboratory Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
G6. GSU Foundation Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3
G7. Library Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Section H: Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Searchable Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……… 28
Tables
B-1 Faculty by Tenure Status, Rank, Gender and Minority Status for 2007-2009 . . . . . 9
B-2 Summary of Faculty Publications and Conference Presentations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B-2a Summary of Faculty Internal and External Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B-3a Program Types by Majors and Concentrations . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . 12
B-3b Retention and Graduation Rates by Degree and Major . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B-4 Credit Hours by PH Faculty by Fiscal Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B-5 Average Annual # of Faculty Members by Rank/Tenure Status and Credit Hour
Production…………………………………………………………. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B-6 Faculty Numbers, Credit Hours, and Scholarly and Creative Productivity Three-
Year Average ……………. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B-7 Comparative Program Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
E-1a Mean Standardized Graduate Admission Test Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
E-1b Selection Ratio of Applicant/Accepted Graduate Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
G-1 Student Faculty Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
H-1 IPH Goals and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
List of Appendices
B1 Rationale for Choice of Peers
B2 Unit Governance and Committee Structure
B3 Bi-Laws of Unit
B4 Current Faculty Roster
B5 Center Reports
C1 Unit Strategic Plan
D1 Learning Outcome Statements/Assessment Plans
D2 Course Syllabi for WAC Courses
D3 Degree Requirements
D4 Course Offerings
D5 Summary Survey Results
D6 Advisement Procedures
F1 Definition/Criteria for Graduate Faculty Status
F2 List of Graduate Faculty Members
F3 Current CVs of Full-time Faculty
F4 Faculty Approval of Self-Study
F5 Evidence for Rationale or Criteria
G1 Summary Data on Student/Faculty Ratios and Credit Hour Generation
G2 University Library Report
H Goals and Objectives
I Original OIR Data
4
Section A: Unit Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses
The Institute of Public Health (IPH), which was approved by the Georgia State University (GSU)
Administrative Council in 2001, is a multidisciplinary, research-based institute that draws upon
IPH faculty and faculty from within the GSU system. It is dedicated to improving health and
reducing disparities across Georgia and around the globe through an outstanding program in
research, teaching, and community service. The Institute achieves its mission by applying
existing scholarship to priority public health problems, particularly those that are aimed at
reducing health disparities among persons in urban settings.
The IPH at GSU currently offers a Master of Public Health (MPH) degree and a Graduate
Certificate in Public Health. The MPH program offers training in three specialty tracks:
Prevention Sciences, Health Promotion and Behavior, and Health Management and Policy. The
program’s training and research initiatives focus on building the science base that forms the
foundation of public health practice and on applying effective interventions to improve the
public’s health. The MPH program prepares students to address contemporary public health
problems in positions of senior responsibility in public health practice, research, and training,
particularly at the federal, state, and local levels where policy changes are made. The graduate
certificate introduces public health concepts, methods, and theory. This program is not intended
to substitute for a professional degree in public health. Rather, it provides an introduction and
familiarity with public health concepts and approaches. It also serves as an important
recruitment mechanism for the MPH degree program for students who want to explore their
interest in public health.
This IPH self-study covers the academic years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008 (FY 07,
08 and 09). IPH faculty members were extensively involved in the development of the report as
outlined in Appendix F4. Data indicate that the IPH faculty is performing at levels
commensurate with peer institutions (Hunter University, San Francisco State University, and
Temple University) across the areas of instruction, research, and service. For example, IPH is on
par or exceeding production of scholarly publications per faculty member with our comparison
departments (Appendix B1 presents a rationale for comparison selections). The faculty members
also participate in pivotal leadership roles in the College of Health and Human Sciences
(CHHS), Georgia State University (GSU), and state and national organizations. These strengths
exist even though IPH has fewer full-time tenure-track faculty members than the comparison
departments.
A1. Quality
Instruction. The quality of instruction across our non-degree and degree programs (Appendix
B7) can be highlighted across three themes (Section D: Curricula Quality for specifics).
Student Achievement. First, IPH is achieving student achievement goals as evidenced by
measures related to program assessment plans. For example, students across our programs are
meeting or exceeding all indicators, targeted outcomes, objectives, and standards of student
outcomes included in the GSU WEAVE system (Appendix D1). Second, students and alumni
report that the graduate program is preparing them for their professional career and /or further
study (Appendix D5). Third, graduates of our programs have 1) secured positions in major public
5
health organizations (such as the Centers for Disease Control, the Georgia State Department of
Health, and the American Cancer Society), 2) been admitted to doctoral programs (ie Harvard
University, University of South Carolina, and University of Georgia), and 3) published
manuscripts as well as presented research at national and international conferences.
Leadership in Scholarship. First, IPH provides new graduate students orientation sessions
to 1) review program requirements and 2) begin the mentoring process to promote a successful
graduate experience and long-term involvement in the field. Also, students competitively apply
for graduate research assistant opportunities which afford exposure to all phases of conducting
scientific research—from assisting with manuscript preparation, to data analysis, and field work.
Students continue to collaborate on faculty projects and have made contributions in terms of
publications, conference presentations, and other scholarly works.
Instructional Expertise. First, faculty expertise across a range of areas is valued by the
CHHS and GSU. Although our offerings are limited at the bachelor’s level, the Perspectives
Course [PERS 2002 Public Health and Communities] has been well received by the College and
the students. IPH faculty reach both master’s and doctoral students through elective courses
from cross-disciplines which is a benefit to the GSU community at-large. Second, President
Becker is an adjunct faculty member of the IPH. Also, the current Associate Director of
Research for the CHHS is a member of the IPH faculty and continues teaching violence and
social determinants of health to IPH students. Third, the IPH program of study is accredited by
the Council on Education for Public Health. Fourth, upon completion of program coursework,
students are eligible to take the National Board of Public Health Examiners (NBPHE)
Certificate in Public Health (CPH) exam.
Overall, IPH has demonstrated strengths in the area of Instructional Quality. However,
some areas have been identified for improvement. Specifically, there is a need to strengthen
technological support for our courses. Current problems (e.g., difficulty in making statistical
software and better computer equipment accessible to students both inside and outside of
classrooms) hinder delivery of course content.
Research. The quality of research which the faculty conducts and disseminates is advancing. A
summary of our research quality follows (see Section F for specifics).
Faculty Productivity and Collaboration. Faculty research is on par with that of our peer
comparison institutions. As a young and growing Institute, faculty members continue to increase
both external and internal funding. Much of the faculty research is interdisciplinary and
collaborative within IPH and GSU.
Service. The quality of service IPH provides to the community at-large meets the needs of a
diverse population across ages, abilities, and activities. A summary of our quality of service is
below (Section F: Faculty Quality for specifics).
Faculty Prominence. Relationships among IPH faculty and various lay and professional
communities are deep and varied. Many of our faculty members are highly regarded within the
GSU community, for example, Dr. Eriksen has twice delivered the GSU commencement
speeches. Additionally, IPH faculty members have held CHHS and GSU committee positions
(e.g., GSU and CHHS Strategic Planning, Research, and Budget Committees, Institutional
Review Board, Faculty Affairs, Advisory Board for Research on School Safety, School Climate,
and Class Management, and the Senate). Members of our faculty hold leadership positions on
the state, national, and international levels (e.g., Congressional Children’s Caucus: Teen Tobacco
6
Use; various Senate Committees: including: Environment and Public Work [Secondhand
Smoke]; Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Smokeless Tobacco and Tobacco Advertising;
Committee on Labor and Human Resources: Preventing Teen Tobacco Use; Advisor to the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation; Advisor to the CDC Foundation; International Advisory Board
National Action Plan on NCD Prevention and Control—Pakistan, National Health Research
Institute Advisory Board—Taiwan; Senior Program Consultant for the Substance Abuse Policy
Research Program at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Expert witness for the US Department
of Justice; Society for Public Health Education; American STD Association; American College
of Epidemiology). As recognized active researchers in their fields, members of the faculty serve
as editor or members of editorial review boards of national journals (Editor-in-Chief, Annals of
Epidemiology; Editor-in-Chief Health Education Research; Associate Editor, Journal of Elder
Abuse and Neglect; Editorial Review Board representation for multiple journals: Health
Education and Behavior, Tobacco Control: An International Journal, American Journal of
Health Promotion, Journal of Nursing Measurement; International Journal of Child Health and
Human Development; Behavioral Interventions; Child and Family Behavior Therapy; Journal of
Family Violence). Faculty members have been invited to review grant proposals for the Georgia
Department of Health, National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control
(including Prevention Research Centers, Elimination of Health Disparities through Translational
Research and other External Funding Award Categories).
Relationships with Communities. Our faculty’s relationship with urban communities of
Georgia is exemplified by the numerous workshops, training activities and consultancies
provided. For example, faculty members have been members of the State Tobacco Task Force,
American Evaluation Association / CDC Summer Evaluation Institute. Second, relationships
with the community are further enhanced by faculty and students in the MPH program who have
volunteered in public health capacities for local communities (SAFE CARE neighborhood
listening sessions with ECO Action, Dirty Truth Campaign outreach).
A2. Centrality
The mission of GSU is to develop, transmit, and utilize knowledge that is responsive to
our urban environment and diverse students, creating leaders and global citizens. The mission of
the IPH is advancing health through leadership, scholarship, research and service to better the
human condition and promote the common good. The programs in IPH align with both the
CHHS and GSU missions and further support them in the context of our specializations in public
health (Appendix C1).
Centrality refers to programs’ alignment with and contributions to the mission and goals
of the university, college, and unit. The IPH makes scholarly contributions to scholarship
through the generation of new knowledge and the application of current knowledge in new ways
in the domains of epidemiology/prevention science, health promotion, and health policy. It also
is clear that this work is carried out with a strong commitment to urban issues in general, in
metro-Atlanta communities, throughout the state of Georgia, as well as internationally.
Furthermore, IPH scholarship integrates instruction, research, and service in context; this is
natural since so much of the work focuses on understanding and improving public health
services. The greater Atlanta area is a rich classroom and clinic for work in our fields of
expertise. Evidence of our centrality is described across two themes.
Developing Knowledge. IPH faculty are building a respectable record of research
productivity (Section F: Faculty Quality for specifics) devoted to the betterment of public health
7
across specific domains of prevention and disease, touching lives throughout the life course, and
for individuals with varying degrees of disability. As indicated in this document faculty
members publish in national and international peer-reviewed journals and provide service as
journal editors and as members of editorial boards.
Transmitting and Utilizing Knowledge. IPH students, alumni, and faculty contribute to
state and national levels in a direct manner. For example, students and alumni report they are
able to translate coursework into practice for their intended populations or targets (e.g., school-
based wellness policies, statewide underage drinking policies and enforcement, individuals with
disabilities, public health professionals and so on). Such translation of coursework into the real
world is an indicator of the utility of the coursework provided as well as the expertise of faculty
in their signature areas of expertise.
A3. Viability
Viability is measured with respect to enrollments and graduates, and the continuing
resources to support both. For the three-year study period, there was an average of 124.7 MPH
majors, with an average of 27 degrees awarded each year (Table B-3a). In addition to our MPH
degree program, there has been an average of 9 public health certificate students, and 5.3
certificates conferred annually during this 3 year review period.
In terms of length of time in program, graduation rates for our master’s degree students
were affected by the fact that many were part-time students and full-time professionals. Our
average graduation rates for our master’s programs were 32.8% in two years, and 72.9% in three
years. As increased students were in the final stages of the program, faculty resources were
constrained by student thesis committee work. Given the length of time that students have taken
to finish the program, steps were taken to expand the scope of the thesis requirement. Strategies
undertaken included the decreased requirement of IPH faculty on thesis committees from two to
one, as well as developing a capstone project option.
A4. Strategic Focus
IPH’s activities related to Sections D, E, and F below are aligned with the strategic focus
of GSU and the CHHS to become one of the nation’s premier research universities located in an
urban setting. In terms of program distinctiveness, the IPH offers a certificate in Public Health
and a master’s degree with specific tracks that are sought by a diverse population. The IPH
enrolled 17 Fulbright Scholars during the self-study period, which helps to not only cultivate
advanced public health skills in global communities, but it also works to expand GSU/IPH’s
global reach. In terms of demands for our graduates, we produce graduates who are sought by
employers and other universities as well as meet the critical national shortages in public health
specialty areas (ie epidemiology, health policy specialists). In terms of contributions to the
community at-large, the IPH works alongside our local, state, and national constituents as
evidenced through the quality and scope of our instruction, research, and service activities.
A5. Financial Resource Analysis
IPH has received adequate resources from the State through the CHHS Dean’s Office for
its overall program functions. From FY 2006 to FY 2008, the instructional funding category
(which includes faculty salaries) averaged $1,023,165 per year, with small but steady increases.
In the category of research funds, IPH funds averaged $245,412 per year over the three-year
period. IPH’s fiscal health has been supplemented by external research funding. In FY 2006 we
secured $940,850; in FY 2007 $1,952,265; and in FY 2008 $2,578,719 (Table B-2a). The
indirect funding generated from grants has allowed all requested faculty travel, equipment, and
materials for coursework to be funded.
8
Section B: Historical and Current Contexts
[Appendices B1-B5]
B1. History and Context
Over the last twenty-five years, our nation has recognized that its public health system is in
disarray and overburdened by numerous health crises—HIV/AIDS, diabetes, cancer, obesity,
years of productive/potential life lost, and glaring disparities in health status among poor and
minority populations. There are environmental and disease threats throughout the world. The
Institute of Medicine recognized that public health education and training is paramount to
keeping the public healthy. In 2004, Atlanta was the largest metropolitan area in the United
States without a public university offer a master in public health (MPH) degree. This was seen
as particularly paradoxical given that Atlanta is considered to be the public health capital of the
world, due being home to headquarters of: the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
the American Cancer Society, the Arthritis Foundation, CARE International, and other leading
public health organizations.
GSU established the Institute of Public Health in 2001. The Institute reports to both the
Dean of CHHS and the University Provost. Dr. Eriksen was appointed Director in 2002. The
first class of MPH students was admitted in Fall, 2004 (n=24). Since IPH’s inception in 2004,
more than 1200 students have applied for enrollment in the MPH degree program. Since the
graduate Certificate in Public Health began in 2003, more than 220 students have applied for
enrollment in the certificate program. Over 17 Fulbright Scholars have been admitted to the
MPH program. IPH became nationally accredited by the Council for Education in Public Health
in 2007 (Appendix B2 shows current organization. Appendix B3 lists the department’s policies
and procedures).
As a public university with a commitment to solving societal problems in urban settings
through a long history of community partnerships, GSU’s IPH is uniquely positioned to
bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and public health practice. IPH solves societal
problems by disseminating research findings to public health partners, including
community-based organizations, to collaborate with county and state public health agencies,
as well as other local public health institutions. These activities are in support of national
and global efforts to eliminate health disparities among underserved populations. It is the
intention of IPH to engage graduate students in multidisciplinary research and practical
experiences to address and solve the problems of global, regional, racial, ethnic, gender, and
age-related health disparities. The ongoing shortage of public health professionals
throughout Georgia and the country ensures both a large applicant pool and a high
employment rate for graduates. The IPH is also limited in seeking large external grant
opportunities that are available only for public health doctoral-degree granting institutions.
B2. Three Year Review Period Identified
Number of Faculty by Category. As of Fall 2008, the complement of department faculty
is 19 (Table B-1 provides data for the three year period of this self-study. Appendix B4 provides
the current faculty roster). Among faculty members, research productivity, diversity, and
national recognition continue to increase. The tenure-track faculty at the end of this study period
included one member hired in 2006-2007, three members hired in 2007-2008, and three hired in
2008-2009. Therefore, at the end of this study period, seven tenure-track faculty members were
9
Table B-1. Faculty by Tenure Status, Rank, Gender and Minority Status for 2007-2009
Tenured Tenure-Track Other
Year Status Prof. Assoc. Asst. Prof. Assoc. Asst. Perm. FT* Visiting PT** GTA Other*** Total
FY 2007 Female 1 1 2
FY 2007 Male 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
FY 2007 Total 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 9
FY 2007 Black 1 1
FY 2007 White 1 2 2 1 1 1 8
FY 2007 Total 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 9
FY 2008 Female 1 2 1 4
FY 2008 Male 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 9
FY 2008 Total 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 2 0 2 13
FY 2008 Black 1 1 2
FY 2008 White 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 11
FY 2008 Total 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 2 0 2 13
FY 2009 Female 5 1 2 8
FY 2009 Male 1 1 1 4 2 2 11
FY 2009 Total 1 1 0 1 0 5 0 5 2 0 4 19
FY 2009 Black 1 1 2 4
FY 2009 Unknown 1 1
FY 2009 White 1 1 4 5 1 2 14
FY 2009 Total 1 1 0 1 0 5 0 5 2 0 4 19
hired. The IPH lost three faculty members in spring 2008 (1 tenure-track moved for personal
reasons, 1 retired, 1 assumed position of President of College of Coastal Georgia). Three faculty
are tenured (2 professors and 1 associate professor) and one associate and five assistant
professors are on the tenure-track. The faculty is comprised of 10 men (53%) and 9 women, with
74% Caucasian. As part of the CHHS strategic plan we have made efforts to expand the racial
diversity of tenure-track faculty. An increase from one person of color in 2006 to four in 2008
documents a positive trend. As of Fall 2008 we have 9 tenure track lines. This number has
increased during this period (2006 – 4, 2007 – 7, 2008 – 9). In comparison, our peers [Appendix
B 1 presents our rationale for selection of comparison institutions]: San Francisco State
University has 15 tenure track faculty lines and Temple University has 16 tenure track faculty
lines. Our aspirational institution, Hunter University, has 33 tenure track faculty lines. At San
Francisco State University 70% of all faculty are women and 63% of all faculty are Caucasian.
At Hunter University 73% of the faculty are women, and among all faculty, 75% are Caucasian.
Faculty Research Productivity. Publications and Presentations. As delineated in Tables B-2, over the three years of this self-
study relevant faculty published 76 un-duplicated refereed articles for an average of 25.3 per
year and 2.6 per faculty member per year; 2 non-refereed works (evaluation reports, manuals); 4
books; 9 book chapters; and made 32 conference presentations for an average of 10.6 per year. It
is important to note that many faculty do not report non-referred manuscripts/works or
conference presentations. Per one CV—it was written nearly 400 presentations have been
delivered in his career; however, specific details on how many were given during this review
period was not available. Therefore, the number of scholarly works outside of books, chapters,
and peer-reviewed articles may likely be underreported. The IPH APR self-study committee did
their best to track down this information and report it as fully as possible.
Table B-2 Summary of Faculty Publications and Conference Presentations
Referred Pubs Non-ref. Pubs Books Chapters Presentations
06 07 08 06 07 08 06 07 08 06 07 08 06 07 08
Crimmmins X X 0 NL NL NL X X 0 X X 1d X X 2
Eriksen 7 1 1 NL NL 1/1d 1 0 0 0 2 0 NL NL NL
Gieseker 0 0 1d NL NL NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL NL NL
Hepburn 2/2d 2 X NL NL NL 0 0 X X X X 3 8 X
Lutzker X X 5 NL NL NL X X 1 X X 0 X X 2/2d
McCarty X 6 5 NL NL NL X 0 0 X 0 0 X 0 1
Okosun 6/1d 2 5/3
d NL NL NL 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1
Rothenberg X 8 2 NL NL NL X 0 0 X 0 0 X NL NL
Self-Brown X X 6/3d NL NL NL X X 0 X X 0 X X NL
Shendell 1 2 5/4d NL NL NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 4/3
d 6/1
d
Stauber X X 2 NL NL NL X X 0 X X 0 X X 5
Sterling X X 0 NL NL 1/1d X X 0 X X 0 X X 0
Strasser X X 1 NL NL 2/1d X X 0 X X 1 X X 4
Swahn X 3 11 NL NL NL X 0 0 X 0 0 X 3 3
Whitaker X X 6 NL NL NL X X 2 X X 6/1d X X 3/2
d
Total/undup. (90/76) (4/1) (4/4) (11/9) (40/32)
10
11
Temple University (peer) reported that in 2008 faculty produced 43 publications: 1 book, 5
chapters and 37 articles, for an average of 2.5 per TT faculty member in 2008. Hunter University
estimated that faculty produced 2.3 publications per member in 2008. No data was provided by
San Francisco State University.
External and Internal Funding Generated. As summarized in Table B-2a, over the period of
the self-study 14 members of the faculty generated external funds from organizations such as
Healthcare Georgia Foundation, Association of Teachers of Preventative Medicine, Georgia
Department of Corrections, Georgia Cancer Coalition, National Association of Chronic Disease
Directors, Department of Justice, American Public Health Association, National Institutes of
Health (National Institute of Drug Abuse, National Center on Minority Health and Health
Disparities), Georgia Department of Human Resources, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
Atlanta Regional Health Forum, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. National Institute
of Education Sciences, National Institute for Literacy, U.S. Department of Education, Georgia
Department of Education, The Council on Drugs and Alcohol, and the Georgia Department of
Human Resources. These funds have totaled $940,850 for 2006; $1,952,265 for 2007; and
$2,578,719 for 2008. A total of 7 out of 9, or over 77% of the tenure/tenure track faculty
obtained either internal or external funding during this study period. Internal funds have totaled
$2250 for 2006, $19,511 for 2007, and $12,743 for 2008. Peers—San Francisco State University
and Temple University had $1,789,000 and $4,025,613, respectively, in external funding in
2008. Hunter University (aspirational) had $4,541,349 in 2008.
Table B-2a Summary of Faculty Internal and External Funding
Internal Funding External Funding
06 07 08 06 07 08
Eriksen 300572.00 466511.00
Gieseker 10000.00
Hepburn 12500.00
Kreuter 480254.00 190000.00
Okosun 3280.00
Shendell
Toal 150024.00 49966.00 72244.00
McCarty
Rothenberg 15000.00 1123950.00 2292872.00
Swahn X 4511.00 111329.00
Crimmmins
Lutzker 52274.00
Self-Brown
Stauber 5000.00
Sterling 4463.00
Strasser 30000.00
Whitaker
8. Other 2250.00 109338.00 20000.00
TOTALS 2250.00 19511.00 12743.00 940850.00 1952265.00 2578719.00
Average* 11,501.33/year 1,823,944.67/year
*Average representative of 5, 9, and 14 TT faculty per consecutive FY 07-09
12
B3. Programs.
Master’s Degree. The IPH awards the MPH degree and certificate. As listed in Table B-
3a there is a three-year average of 125 majors with an average of 27 degrees conferred per year.
Table B-3a. Program Types by Majors and Unduplicated Number (headcount) of Major Students &
Degrees Conferred
There has been an increasing enrollment; however, the faculty/student ratio is within the
guidelines set forth by the accrediting agency, Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH).
San Francisco State University enrolled approximately 27 masters students in 2008.
Temple University reported having 65 students in their MPH program. Hunter University
reported that they have 230 students currently in the MPH program—but did not delineate the
average number of students enrolling each year.
In terms of length of time in program, graduation rates for our master’s degree students
were affected by the fact that many were part-time students and full-time professionals. Our
average graduation rates for our master’s programs were 32.8% in two years, and 72.9% in three
years (Table B-3b). Given the length of time that students have taken to finish the program, steps
were taken to expand the scope of the thesis requirement. Strategies undertaken include the
decreased requirement of IPH faculty on thesis committees, as well as the development of a
capstone project option. Temple University reported that 100% of their students complete the
MPH program within 4 years and Hunter University reported a 70% graduation rate within 4
years.
Non-degree/Certification and Undergraduate Dual Program. In addition to the MPH
degree program, IPH offers a certificate program. As listed in Table B-3a the certificate program
has a three year average enrollment of 9 students with 5 completers per year. None of the
comparative institutions reported certificate-only programs.
Retention and Graduation Rates. At the master’s degree level the average IPH graduation
rate for the years reported in Table B-3b are 33% in two years, 70% in three years and 87% in
four years. The average retention rate at three years is 87.5% and at four years is 91.7%. Due to
the newness of the IPH programs, our numbers are relatively small—which limits our ability to
understand trends and or identify barriers.
B4. Credit Hour Production by Faculty by Fiscal Year.
Total Number of Credit Hours. The total credit hours generated per year by public health faculty
averaged 2,799. There has been a steady increase over the three years (Table B-4).
Credit Hours by Faculty Category. Looking across the categories of tenure-track, non tenure-
track, PTI, and Other, over the three year period tenure-track faculty generated an average of
1,757 credit hours per year. Table B-5 presents overall credit hour generation by faculty rank and
tenure status. Undergrad courses credit hours increased from 96 to 112. Undergrad upper
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 3 YR. AVG.
PROGRAM MAJOR MAJORS
(degrees)
MAJORS
(degrees)
MAJORS
(degrees)
MAJORS
(degrees)
CER PH 10(1) 9 (7) 8 (8) 9.0 (5.3)
TOTAL CERTIFICATE 10 (1) 9 (7) 8 (8) 9.0 (5.3)
MPH PH 106 (14) 129 (36) 139 (31) 124.7 (27.0)
TOTAL MASTERS 106 (14) 129 (36) 139 (31) 124.7 (27.0)
TOTAL 116 (15) 138 (43) 147 (39) 133.7 (32.3)
Table B-3b. Retention and Graduation Rates by Degree & Major
Fall 04 Graduate Students
Degree Major
Total
Graduates Fall
04
Total
Retained
Fall 05
Total
Graduated
by Fall 05
1-Yr
Retention
Rate
Total
Retained
Fall 06
Total
Graduated
by Fall 06
2-Yr
Retention
Rate
Total
Retained
Fall 07
Total
Graduated
by Fall 07
3-Yr
Retention
Rate
Total
Retained
Fall 08
Total
Graduated
by Fall 08
4-Yr
Retention
Rate
MPH PH 24 21 2 23 12 8 20 3 17 20 1 21 22
87.5% 8.3% 95.8% 50.0% 33.3% 83.3% 12.5% 70.8% 83.3% 4.2% 87.5% 91.7%
Fall 05 Graduate Students
Degree Major
Total
Graduates Fall
05
Total
Retained
Fall 06
Total
Graduated
by Fall 06
1-Yr
Retention
Rate
Total
Retained
Fall 07
Total
Graduated
by Fall 07
2-Yr
Retention
Rate
Total
Retained
Fall 08
Total
Graduated
by Fall 08
3-Yr
Retention
Rate
MPH PH
24 22 1 23 12 9 21 4 18 22
91.7% 4.2% 95.8% 50.0% 37.5% 87.5% 16.7% 75.0% 91.7%
Fall 06 Graduate Students
Degree Major
Total
Graduates Fall
06
Total
Retained
Fall 07
Total
Graduated
by Fall 07
1-Yr
Retention
Rate
Total
Retained
Fall 08
Total
Graduated
by Fall 08
2-Yr
Retention
Rate
MPH PH
18 16 1 17 11 5 16
88.9% 5.6% 94.4% 61.1% 27.8% 88.9%
Fall 07 Graduate Students
Degree Major
Total
Graduates Fall
07
Total
Retained
Fall 08
Total
Graduated
by Fall 08
1-Yr
Retention
Rate
MPH PH
29 28 0 28
96.6% 0.0% 96.6%
13
14
division course credit hours decreased from 422 to 309. Graduate course credit hours steadily
increased from 1951 to 3090. The proportion of courses taught by tenure track faculty has
averaged 63% between FY 07 and FY09. Teaching by non-tenure track faculty has decreased
during the 3 year study period from 17.7% in FY 07 to 7.7% in FY09. Teaching by faculty in
the other category has increased from 288/2047 (14%) in FY07 to 808/3511 (23.0%) in FY09.
This shift can be attributed to the fact that 4 visiting professors were hired at the start of the
2008-2009 academic year. The proportion of credit hours taught by PTIs has remained steady
with an average of 1.96% over the 3 year study period.
Table B-4 Credit Hours by Public Health Faculty By Level/Type and Fiscal Year
FY 2007 CREDIT HOURS TAUGHT BY FACULTY BY LEVEL AND FACULTY TYPE
FACULTY UGRD UGRAD
TYPE CORE UPPER GRAD TOTAL
TENURE TRACK 0 0 1,348 1,348
NONTENURE TRACK 0 0 363 363
PTI 0 0 48 48
GTA 0 0 0 0
OTHER 96 0 192 288
TOTAL 96 0 1,951 2,047
FY 2008 CREDIT HOURS TAUGHT BY FACULTY BY LEVEL AND FACULTY TYPE
FACULTY UGRD UGRAD
TYPE CORE UPPER GRAD TOTAL
TENURE TRACK 0 5 1,560 1,565
NONTENURE TRACK 0 0 425 425
PTI 0 0 42 42
GTA 0 0 0 0
OTHER 108 417 282 807
TOTAL 108 422 2,309 2,839
FY 2009 CREDIT HOURS TAUGHT BY FACULTY BY LEVEL AND FACULTY TYPE
FACULTY UGRD UGRAD
TYPE CORE UPPER GRAD TOTAL
TENURE TRACK 0 0 2,357 2,357
NONTENURE TRACK 0 0 271 271
PTI 0 0 75 75
GTA 0 0 0 0
OTHER 112 309 387 808
TOTAL 112 309 3,090 3,511
B5. Summary Table. See Table B-5 for a summary of annual number of faculty members by
rank and tenure status, the average annual credit hours taught by level and faculty type.
Table B-5. Annual # of Faculty Members by Rank/Tenure Status and Credit Hour Production
FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 3 YR AVG
Ten Prof 0 1 1 0.7
T Asc P 0 1 1 0.7
T Ast P 0 0 0 0.0
TT Prof 1 1 1 1.0
TT Asc P 1 1 0 0.7
TT Ast P 2 3 5 3.3
Total TT 4 7 8 6.3
NTT 3 2 5 3.3
Total FT 7 9 13 9.7
PTI 1 1 2 1.3
Total PT 1 1 2 1.3
Average Annual Credit Hours by Level
FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 3 YR AVG
UG Core 96 108 112 105
UG Lower 0 0 0 0
UG Upper 0 422 309 244
Grad 1,951 2,309 3,090 2,450
TOTAL 2,047 2,839 3,511 2,799
Average Annual Credit Hours by Faculty Type
FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 3 YR AVG
TT 1,348 1,565 2,357 1,757
NTT 363 425 271 353
TOTAL FT 1,711 1,990 2,628 2,110
PTI 48 42 75 55
GTA 0 0 0 0
TOTAL PT 48 42 75 55
B6. Evidence of Relevance of Program and Need Met. Relevance to the community is
evidenced by the extensive number of organizations, agencies, and partners across Georgia that
collaborate with members of the IPH faculty and staff, especially through service grants.
Relevance to the students is evidenced by: 1) maintenance of our degree and certificate program
that provide training in public health skills that are needed throughout Atlanta, Georgia and
beyond; 2) providing courses and experiences allowing students to take the new certificate in
public health exam; 3) graduate research assistantships in which students can acquire needed
research skills. Relevance to the profession is evidenced by 1) the number of leadership
positions in professional organizations held by members of the IPH faculty; 2) editorships and
review board memberships of professional journals; 3) the number of externally funded research
projects and ongoing research generating new knowledge or applying knowledge in innovative
ways. Table B-6 summarizes three year averages of overall faculty productivity.
15
Table B6. Faculty Numbers, Credit Hours, and Scholarly and Creative Productivity Three-Year Average
Average annual number of faculty members by rank and status
Tenured professors 2/3 .67
Tenured associate professors 2/3 .67
Tenure-track professor 3/3 1
Tenure-track associate professors 2/3 .67
Tenure-track assistant professors 2/3/5 3.3
Total tenure-track faculty members 19/3 6.3
Non-tenure-track faculty members (fulltime) 4/3 .8
Total fulltime faculty members 23/3 7.6
Part-time instructors 10/3
Graduate teaching assistants 0
Total for part-time faculty 10 3.3
Average annual number and type of staff 4/3 1.3
Administrative staff (fulltime equivalents) 3
Student assistants (half-time equivalents) 1
Average annual credit hours by level
Undergraduate: Core 316/3 105.3
Undergraduate: Upper division 731/3 243.6
Graduate 7350/3 2450.0
Average annual credit hours by faculty type
Tenured and tenure-track 1757/3 585.6
Non-tenure track (fulltime) 353/3 117.6
Total for fulltime faculty 2110 703.3
Part-time instructors 55
Graduate teaching assistants 0
Total for part-time faculty 55/3 18.3
Scholarly and creative productivity
Total number of refereed publications: Unduplicated1 76
Total number of refereed publications: By author2 90
Total number of other scholarly works: Unduplicated1 46
Total number of other scholarly works: By author2 59
Average annual number of refereed publications per tenure-track faculty:
Unduplicated1
2.6
Average annual number of refereed publications per tenure-track faculty: By
author2
3.1
Average annual number of other scholarly/creative works per tenure-track
faculty: Unduplicated1
1.4
Average annual number of other scholarly/creative works per tenure-track
faculty: By author2
1.9
Funding from grant and other sources3
Total external direct funding $5,471,834.00
Total external indirect costs $1,367,958.50
Total internal funding $34,504.00
Total funding from other sources $124,741.00
Average annual external funding per tenure-track faculty $196,427.51
Average annual internal funding per tenure-track faculty $1,176.03
16
B7. Comparative Program Data
As shown in Table B7 the IPH is comparable to the master’s of public health programs at our
peer institutions (San Francisco State University and Temple University). Originally, we
identified Hunter University as a peer; however, given the fact that they are in the process of
applying to be recognized as an official School of Public Health (eligibility includes having five
distinct departments/specialty tracks), it was the IPH APR committee’s decision to treat Hunter
University as an aspirational institution versus a peer. Therefore, when available, we were able to
compare our teaching and research with 2 peers and 1 aspirational institution. [Appendix B1
provides a rationale for our selection of comparison institutions]. In terms of programs, only
GSU offers a certificate program. All other institutions reported having more tenure-track
faculty than IPH, although we are similar in terms of productivity. Other institutions have
brought in more external funding than IPH, with the exception of San Francisco State University,
which also has 6 more tenure track faculty lines. In terms of students, the quality of our students
is similar to other programs—in terms of average GRE scores and graduation rates. GSU MPH
students receive less financial support through GRA assistance than our comparison institutions.
The data in Table B7 reflects data regarding 2008 only.
Table B-7 Comparative Program Data
Institution # TT
Faculty
External
Funding
Pubs/
TT
faculty
4 Yr grad
rate
Students
Enrolled
in 2008
Average
GRE
Faculty:
Students
GRA
1. Hunter 33 4,541,349 2.3 70% 57 500/500 20:1 25%
2. Temple 15 4,025,613 100% 65 500/500 20:1 30%
3.SanFrancisco 15 1,789,000 27
GSU IPH 9 2,578,719 2.7 87.5% 45 520/591 18:1 20%
Section C: Progress Toward Goals and Objectives from previous report:
As this is our first self-study, this section is not applicable to IPH. Appendix C 1 contains the
strategic plan that IPH adopted to guide operations during initial development, which is the
CHHS strategic plan from 2005-2010.
Section D: Curricula Quality
[Appendices D1-D6]
The quality of the curricula is a product of the quality of the IPH faculty. The faculty
members’ research base reflects current empirical knowledge and applied best practice.
Coordinated planned programs for the MPH and certificate program have been thoughtfully
developed by faculty with reviews by our accrediting agency to ensure that professional
standards are incorporated into our curricula. Curricula requirements for the MPH degree and
certificate program are in the GSU catalog and presented in Appendix D3. The sections below
provide information concerning the assessment of learning outcomes for both the certificate and
MPH programs—which subsequently are the same. Learning outcomes have an assessment plan
using the University’s Weave Online Assessment which came into use during the AY 2005-06. It
should be noted that there are no courses officially identified as writing intensive at the graduate
level.
17
D1. Evidence of Student Learning Outcomes
The IPH has the mission of advancing health through leadership, scholarship, research, and
service to better the human condition and promote the common good. The most significant
application of that mission is to prepare students through the Master of Public Health (MPH)
degree program to apply multi-disciplinary skills in public health practice and research and to
assume leadership roles to address contemporary public health problems. The mission of the IPH
complements the stated mission of its administrative college home, the College of Health and
Human Sciences, which is ―to engage in teaching, scholarly endeavors, and service activities that
improve health and well-being and address social justice issues within a multi-cultural society.‖
With a focus on scholarship and research in urban health and health disparities, the IPH supports
the mission of GSU ―to achieve a front-rank position among the nation’s premier state-supported
universities located in an urban setting.‖ The IPH’s mission is strengthened by the objective of
the University System of Georgia, through its Strategic Plan for Public Health Education,
Research and Service, ―to ensure that the System becomes one of the national leaders in public
health education, research and service.‖
Program Learning Outcomes. The master’s degree (MPH) has 8 program learning outcomes:
1) understand core public health concepts; 2) assess public health conditions; 3) demonstrate the
ability to plan, implement, and evaluate programs and services designed to address these
conditions; 4) understand the ecologic approach to public health; 5) analyze health disparities; 6)
apply theory in field settings; 7) apply critical thinking skills; and 8) demonstrate communication
and research skills.
Assessment Plans. The eight objectives are assessed through five measures—1) successful
completion of core courses (at least 90% of MPH degree program students are expected to
receive at least a "B" in the core courses); 2) Course Evaluations (IPH course evaluations should
meet or exceed college norms and benchmarks. Achievement target—60% of all IPH courses
will have an overall student evaluation of 4.0 or better); 3) Successful Completion of Practicum
or Field Experience; 4) successful completion of final thesis or capstone project; 5) completion
of alumni survey (75 percent of students will complete an alumni survey, and 50% of
respondents will report that being employed in a public health setting).
Analysis of Student Attainment of Learning Outcomes. The following learning outcomes
were attained by all MPH students during the 2006-2007 and the 2007-2008 academic years.
We’ve had a 100% successful attainment of our MPH students successfully earning at least B
grades in the core courses, completion of the thesis or capstone requirement, and completion of
the field work/practicum requirement. Also, we have attained outcome of at least 60% of IPH
courses receiving an evaluation of 4.0 or better. The outcome that has not fully been met during
this study period is the 75% response rate on our alumni survey. Our first formal alumni survey
was administered by the GSU Office of Institutional Research [OIR] for the purposes of this self-
study. The IPH intends to routinely administer this survey so that we can accurately track job
placement, productivity, and recognition of our alumni. (Appendix D1 for Weave Online
summary of objectives, measures, actions, and analysis).
Changes to Improve Learning Outcomes. We are in the process of revising our learning
outcomes so that we may better capture our student attainment of learning objectives. We are
integrating specific learning outcomes into core course syllabi and evaluations.
18
D2. Survey Outcome Information
The results reported here are from OIR-administered surveys sent to students, faculty and
alumni from as part of the APR process (Appendix D5 for complete summary results and
comments from respondents). Approximately 57.9% of the IPH faculty (n=9) responded to this
survey, compared to the university response rate of 85%. 81.8% (N=9) of the respondents rated
the faculty’s scholarship program as very good or excellent. The entire faculty rated the
frequency of course offerings as very good excellent, while 63.6% (N=7) were satisfied with the
variety of advanced course offerings. 45.5% (N=5), rated the level of clerical staff support as
very good or excellent, while a large percentage of respondents (72.8%, N= 8) were satisfied
with the availability of computer/data base software relevant to their work. 63.7% (N=7) of
respondents expressed satisfaction with the clarity of IPH’s goals for the next 2 years.
A majority (72.8%, N=8) of respondents felt faculty in the Institute work together toward
program goals, the entire faculty felt comfortable expressing different views and opinions, and
believe they have adequate opportunities to influence decisions made about public health
institute programs.
Survey of Student and Alumni Satisfaction
Approximately 43.3% (N=52) of graduate students responded to the survey. All of the
respondents agree that the program is academically challenging and is preparing students for
their professional careers and/or future study, and a large majority (80.8%, N=42) feel that class
size is suitable for effective learning. 88.4% (N=46) believe that the faculty are interested in their
academic development, and 78.7% (N=40) feel that faculty are prepared for their courses. A
majority (78.8, N= 41) feel that there is open communication between faculty and students. On a
five point scale (poor 1-excellent 5), students highly rate the availability of faculty (4.13),
effectiveness of teaching methods (4.0), procedures used to evaluate student performance (4.02),
and clarity of degree requirements (4.33). Students rated academic advisement 3.8, career
advisement 3.44, frequency of graduate course offerings 3.31, and variety of graduate course
offerings 3.38. 63.5% (N=33) of respondents indicated they would be interested in applying for
a doctoral program in public health if it is offered by the GSU IPH.
Approximately 35.7% (N=15) of graduate alumni responded to the survey. A majority
(60%, N=9) agreed that the program was academically challenging, and 46.7% (N=10) felt that
the program prepared them for their professional career and/or future study. Nearly all alumni
(93.4, N=14) feel that class size was suitable for learning, and 66.7% (N=10) felt that there was
open communication between faculty and students. With regard to Institute faculty, a majority of
respondents (80%, N=12), felt that faculty was interested in their academic development, and
73.3% (N=11) felt that faculty were appropriately prepared for their courses. On a five point
scale from poor (1) to excellent (5), students highly rate the clarity of degree requirements (4.53),
availability of faculty to students outside the classroom (4.07), and effectiveness of teaching
methods used by faculty (4.0). Alumni rated IPH lower in the following areas: academic
advisement available in the department (3.6), career advisement (3.08), procedures used to
evaluate student performance (3.93), frequency of graduate course offerings (3.93), and variety
of graduate course offerings (3.67). 30.8% (N= 4) of alumni agree that they have applied for a
doctoral program in public health at another institution because it was not offered by IPH.
19
Section E: Student Quality
E1. Input Metrics Admission Requirements for IPH Graduate Programs. Both the MPH and certificate
program require an undergraduate degree from an accredited college or university with a
recommended 2.75 GPA. Additionally, applicants must submit GRE or GMAT scores. It is
recommended that GRE verbal + quantitative scores be 1000. All IPH students must maintain a
minimum GPA requirement of 2.75. A summary of admissions/degree requirements appears in
Appendix D3.
Mean Standardized GREs. The GRE 3 year average means for MPH master’s program
were 965 for applicants, 1123 for accepted, and 1126 for enrolled. Means scores were in excess
of the recommendations for admission. Specific details for applicants are listed in Table E-1.
Table E-1a. Mean Standardized Graduate Admission Test Scores [GRE] FY 2007-2009
APPLIED ACCEPTED ENROLLED
FY VERB QUANT TOTAL VERB QUANT TOTAL VERB QUANT TOTAL
2007 434 538 972 500 626 1128 510 631 1141
2008 443 513 956 521 589 1110 520 591 1111
2009 440 528 967 513 618 1131 506 620 1126
The comparable average GRE score data from peer—Temple University (500/500) and
aspirational—Hunter University (500/500) indicate that our masters’ mean average GRE scores
are higher than our comparison institutions.
Numbers of Applicants and Acceptance Rates to Graduate Programs. Details of the
ratios of applicants to acceptances for the period of review for the various programs and
concentrations are presented in Table E-1b. The average number of applicants has steadily
increased over the 3 year study period—from 195 to 280. The average acceptance ratio was
30.5%. Among those accepted, the percentage of enrollment has increased from 53.7% to 67.1%.
Table E-1b. Selection Ration of Applicant/Accepted Graduate Students FY 2007-2009
FY APPLICANTS ACCEPTED RATIO ENROLLED RATIO
2007 195 67 34.4% 36 53.7%
2008 250 70 28.0% 43 61.4%
2009 280 82 29.3% 55 67.1%
E2. Output Metrics
Due to lack of systematically surveying alumni, reporting on output metrics is difficult. Based on
informal tracking, we know that at least 3 graduates have gone on to pursue their doctoral
degrees—one at Harvard University, one at the University of Georgia, and another at the
University of South Carolina. The IPH has received 17 Fulbright Scholar students and
additionally students have received competitive fellowships/scholarships for study (CDC,
SAMSHA). One graduate has been accepted into the prestigious Epidemiological Intelligence
Service, and other graduates have been employed at prominent public health organizations and
20
agencies, such as: CARE international, American Cancer Society, and the CDC—including the
Commissioned Corps. Students have published manuscripts and presented at national and
international conferences. This information has been captured by the IPH Program Coordinator.
Section F: Faculty
[Appendices F1-F5]
This section provides details regarding faculty quality as evidenced by scholarly research;
peer-reviewed journals in which faculty published; success in consistently obtaining substantial
grant support; recognition through honors and awards; the outcome of promotion and tenure
reviews; and extraordinary commitment to service in the College, the University, respective
disciplines, and the community. In addition, the faculty demonstrates excellence in classroom
instruction, practicum supervision, and mentoring. All IPH tenured and tenure track faculty have
been granted CHHS graduate faculty status, meeting the guidelines for active and productive
scholarship and effective teaching (Appendix F1 and F2).
F1. Quality and Quantity of Scholarly and Creative Productivity
As delineated in Table B-2, over the three years of this self-study relevant faculty published 76
un-duplicated refereed articles for an average of 25.3 per year and 2.6 per faculty member per
year; 2 non-refereed works (evaluation reports, manuals); 4 books; 9 book chapters; and made 32
conference presentations for an average of 10.6 per year. It is important to note that many
faculty do not report non-referred manuscripts/works or conference presentations. Therefore, the
number of scholarly works outside of books, chapters, and peer-reviewed articles are likely
underreported. Journal articles from IPH faculty have appeared in some of the most respected
and highly cited journals in the field. The journals in which at least one article appeared during
the review period along with their respective ISI or Journal Citation Reports Impact factor
calculations are listed in Appendix F5. Complete details of faculty activities are provided in vita
(Appendix F3).
F2. Promotion and Tenure
During the period under review, three male professors received tenure: Drs. Eriksen, Okosun,
and Rothenberg.
F3. Faculty Honors
During the review period, the following awards were earned by tenure-track and tenured faculty:
Induction into the Alpha Lambda Chapter of Phi Beta Delta Honor Society for International
Scholars, Research Recognition Award for Community-Based Aging Study from the Phipps
Corporation in New York, Award of Service Recognition from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention’s Institutional Review Board, a Nominee for the Best Prevention Science Paper
Award by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Shepard Award, an Outstanding
Special Act Performance Award from the Centers for Disease Control, an Exceptional
Performance Award from the Centers for Disease Control, Who’s Who in Atlanta and Who’s
Who in the World, as well as a Fellowship in the Royal Society for Public Health Promotion.
21
F4. Dollar Level and Source of Sponsored Research
As summarized in Table B-2a, over the period of the self-study 14 members of the faculty
generated external funds from organizations such as Healthcare Georgia Foundation, Association
of Teachers of Preventative Medicine, Georgia Department of Corrections, Georgia Cancer
Coalition, National Association of Chronic Disease Directors, Department of Justice, American
Public Health Association, National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Drug Abuse,
National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities), Georgia Department of Human
Resources, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Atlanta Regional Health Forum, American
Foundation for Suicide Prevention. National Institute of Education Sciences, National Institute
for Literacy, U.S. Department of Education, Georgia Department of Education, The Council on
Drugs and Alcohol, and the Georgia Department of Human Resources. These funds have totaled
$940,850 for 2006; $1,952,265 for 2007; and $2,578,719 for 2008. A total of 7 out of 9, or over
77% of the tenure/tenure track faculty obtained either internal or external funding during this
study period. Internal funds have totaled $2250 for 2006, $19,511 for 2007, and $12,743 for
2008. Peers—San Francisco State University and Temple University had $1,789,000 and
$4,025,613, respectively, in external funding in 2008. Hunter University (aspirational) had
$4,541,349 in 2008.
F5. Service and Outreach Contributions
Relationships among IPH faculty and various lay and professional communities are deep
and varied. Listed below are notable highlights of Chair positions and Board memberships IPH
faculty members held during the review period. In addition, faculty provided extensive service
and outreach contributions to numerous agencies. Complete service listings are found in faculty
vita (Appendix F3).
College/University Communities. Faculty members in our department are active
members of all committees at the College and University Senate levels including: GSU and
CHHS Strategic Planning, Research, and Budget Committees, Faculty Advisory Committee,
Institutional Review Board, Faculty Affairs, Advisory Board for Research on School Safety,
School Climate, and Class Management, and the Senate. IPH faculty members have also served
on numerous search committees across the university as well as within CHHS.
Relationships with Communities. First, our faculty’s relationship with urban communities
of Georgia is exemplified by the numerous workshops, training activities and consultancies
provided. For example, faculty members have been members of the State Tobacco Task Force,
American Evaluation Association / CDC Summer Evaluation Institute. Second, relationships
with the community are further enhanced by faculty and students in the MPH program who have
volunteered in public health capacities for local communities (SAFE CARE neighborhood
listening sessions with ECO Action, Dirty Truth Campaign outreach).
University Interdisciplinary Center memberships: Center for Health Development,
Partnership for Urban Health Research, Gerontology Institute, Center for Leadership in
Disabilities.
Professional Communities.
International, National, and State Committees, Boards, and Panels. IPH professors are members
of numerous professional organizations. The following list highlights leadership roles in these
organizations during the past three years: Congressional Children’s Caucus: Teen Tobacco Use;
various Senate Committees: including: Environment and Public Work [Secondhand Smoke];
Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Smokeless Tobacco and Tobacco Advertising;
Committee on Labor and Human Resources: Preventing Teen Tobacco Use; Advisor to the Bill
22
and Melinda Gates Foundation; Advisor to the CDC Foundation; International Advisory Board
National Action Plan on NCD Prevention and Control—Pakistan, National Health Research
Institute Advisory Board—Taiwan; Senior Program Consultant for the Substance Abuse Policy
Research Program at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Expert witness for the US Department
of Justice; Society for Public Health Education; American STD Association; American College
of Epidemiology; Georgia Quest for Quality Inclusion State Leadership Team; Early Childhood
Comprehensive Services Steer Committee member; International Scientific Advisory Committee
at the University of Queensland; Board of Directors Marcus Institute; State Advisory Board for
Special Education; Georgia Steering Committee for Federal Monitoring; President-Elect of
Association of University Centers on Disabilities Board; Atlanta Alliance on Developmental
Disabilities, and Prevent Child Abuse America Board of Directors. Appendix F3 contains a
complete listing of faculty member service and leadership experience.
Journal Review Boards and Editorships. Recognized as active researchers in their fields, faculty
members have been invited to serve as editors and on the editorial review boards of the following
national journals: Editor-in-Chief, Annals of Epidemiology; Editor-in-Chief Health Education
Research; Associate Editor, Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect; Editorial Review Board
representation for multiple journals: Health Education and Behavior, Tobacco Control: An
International Journal, American Journal of Health Promotion, Journal of Nursing
Measurement; International Journal of Child Health and Human Development; Behavioral
Interventions; Child and Family Behavior Therapy; Journal of Family Violence, Australian
Health Care Review, Health Policy, Public Health Finance Review. Additionally, faculty
members have been invited to review grant proposals for the Georgia Department of Health,
National Institutes of Health, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Centers for Disease
Control (including Prevention Research Centers, Elimination of Health Disparities through
Translational Research and other External Funding Award Categories).
F6. Teaching
Teaching excellence is strongly valued in IPH. Data from student evaluations
consistently indicate that faculty members were highly effective in both classroom and practicum
experiences. For this review period, the mean scores for faculty on item 20 of the CHHS
standardized evaluation form (item regarding overall course satisfaction) has been 4.53, on a 1-5
scale, where higher numbers reflect student ratings of greater teaching effectiveness.
Section G: Resource Adequacy
[Appendices G1-G2]
G1. Faculty Resources
The IPH completed the self-study period with 9 tenure track faculty lines. One of these faculty
members began serving as an Associate Dean of Research for CHHS. Additionally, in the fall of
2008, three visiting faculty members joined the IPH under a newly developed Center for Healthy
Development. The IPH also has utilized faculty members across GSU departments that are
supported in part by the Partnership for Urban Health Research. Table G1 presents the faculty to
student ratios of IPH.
23
Table G-1. Summary Student/Faculty Ratios FY 2007-2009
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
# TT Faculty 4 7 8
# Graduate Majors (All) 106 129 139
Grad/TT Ratio 1 to 27 1 to 18 1 to 17
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
# Graduate Faculty 7 6 4
G2. Administrative Resources
During this self-study period, IPH has averaged 1.3 FTE administrative staff per year. In FY08--
a Business Manager, Program Coordinator, and Administrative Assistant were all hired. During
the initial development of the IPH, administrative responsibilities were shared among faculty
members—primarily Drs. Eriksen and Hepburn (FY07 and 08). The Administrative Staff not
only support the needs of full-time faculty, but also PTIs and GRAs. The staff coordinates daily
operations of the program; plans and coordinates departmental conferences, workshops, and
meetings; provides guidance and counseling to students in academic matters including the
selection of courses, course prerequisites and so forth. The addition of administrative staff has
been extremely helpful for IPH to expand its research program.
G3. Technological Resources
All faculty are provided with up to date office computers and laptops as needed for their research
and teaching efforts.
G4. Space Resources
IPH primarily occupies space on part of the 8th
floor of the Urban Life building, with one tenure-
track faculty member’s office being located on the 9th
floor. All tenure track faculty are housed
in individual offices. There is space within the IPH suite for current IPH funded projects. There
is also office space dedicated to GRAs on the 9th
floor of the Urban Life Building where the
students can work on research activities.
G5. Laboratory Resources
Currently IPH does not have dedicated laboratory resources.
G6. GSU Foundation Resources
During the self-study period, IPH received a total of $124,741 in GSU Foundation resources.
The funds have primarily been used to establish the Ida A. Ryan Charitable Fund for IPH
Student Achievement Award ($10,000), and various Georgia Health Foundation Scholarships,
totaling $114,741.
24
G7. Library Resources
The GSU library’s comprehensive collections of electronic and print databases, journals, texts,
and resources adequately support the needs of IPH faculty, students, staff, and alumni [Appendix
G-2]. The library resources are adequate to support both faculty and students in meeting their
instructional, research, and service needs. In addition, requests by IPH for the addition of specific
library resources have consistently been met throughout this review period. In comparison to
San Francisco State University (peer) and Hunter University (aspirational), GSU has a greater
library monograph acquisition.
Section H. Goals and Objectives
The IPH is steadily growing and has identified strengths throughout this self-study. The IPH is
expanding in terms of faculty, student body, productivity, external funding support and research,
as well as diversification of service to GSU, Georgia, and beyond. Comparison data indicates
that the GSU IPH is on par with other Universities in terms of specific parameters, despite
having fewer resources. IPH’s activities are aligned with the strategic focus of GSU and the
CHHS to become one of the nation’s premier research universities located in an urban setting.
As a result of our self-study, the IPH has agreed on the following goals in teaching,
research, and service. A new CCHS strategic plan has been developed for the years 2008-2012.
There are direct linkages between the IPH APR goals and objectives with that document. It is
clear in this report that IPH and its programs strive to achieve the mission statement of the
College to ―provide leadership and pursue excellence in teaching, scholarly endeavors, and
service activities addressing health, well being and social justice.‖ This is accomplished through
a unique professional and academic interdisciplinary environment and a community-focused
approach that enriches student learning, fosters leadership development, and furthers the pursuit
of science. The goals and objectives stated continue to be in alignment with this mission. As
directed in the template for this document, the list of goals and objectives, their rationale, and
how they uphold the current University and CHHS strategic plans are described and a list of
priorities are presented in Appendix H.
25
Table H-1
IPH Goals and Objectives Academic Program Review 2009
Teaching. The IPH teaching goals address the CHHS strategic Goal 1: To enhance and establish
comprehensive educational initiatives to address health, well being, and social justice.
GOAL T1: To establish a doctoral program. According to both current students and alumni,
the interest in a PhD is demonstrable. Public health programs with doctoral level training are
eligible for increased funding opportunities, which would help augment IPH’s capacity to garner
additional external research support.
Objective 1.1: To obtain doctoral program approval. The application is currently being vetted
through the GSU/Board of Regents systems.
Objective 1.2: To increase faculty size to meet growing student body.
Goal T2: To increase course offerings at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Objective 2.1: To develop more general undergraduate courses so that students may become
interested in IPH graduate study. Note, having doctoral students may help us expand
undergraduate course offerings.
Objective 2.2: To develop distance hybrid courses that may appeal to non-traditional, campus-
based students.
Objective 2.3: To develop more research course offerings. This would meet a need that has been
expressed but students and alumni.
Goal T3: To enhance our evaluation of quality.
Objective T3.1: To revise learning objectives so they more directly relate to competency
attainment.
Objective T3.2: To systematically survey alumni in order to track job placement, recognition,
and productivity of our alumni.
Research. The IPH goals in this section address the CHHS strategic plan Goal 2, which is to
promote a culture of research and scholarship that advances knowledge, learning, understanding,
and discovery in the health and human sciences. An expanded faculty and research network will
bolster our research capacity.
Goal R1: To strengthen our public health and disability niche Objective R1.1: To integrate the work of the Center for Healthy Development into the IPH.
The Center of Healthy Development adds value and an area of specialty that other Georgia and
comparison institutions do not have. IPH can seize the opportunities this partnership brings to the
current teaching, research and service agenda.
Goal R2: To expand the work of the Partnership for Urban Health Research center.
Objective R2.1: Increase our global networks to build upon current international research
projects.
Goal R3: To increase students’ opportunities to gain research experience
Objective R3.1: To increase the amount of funding for graduate research assistantships through
external grants. This objective is in line with the University’s goal to support students through ―a
strategic balance of teaching and research assistantships . . . ―. IPH is actively involved in
striking the right balance between teaching and research assistantships.
Goal R4: To continue to expand interdisciplinary research
26
Objective R4.1: Increase collaboration between IPH and other university departments and
centers.
Service. The IPH service goals address CHHS strategic Goal 4, which is to increase the
community presence, connections and visibility of the CHHS. IPH service goals ensure the
continuance and reward for professional and community service activities that balance the
research and teaching of the faculty and will continue to grow the national profile of the IPH.
Goal S1: To enhance our stewardship with local, state, national and community partners
Objective S1.1: In light of the unprecedented stimulus funding and strategic health care reform
initiatives, IPH is poised to expand their contributions and expertise to community partners so
they will be able to enhance their capacity to serve the public’s health needs. The University’s
strategic plan includes a commitment to have its programs ―contribute to the economic,
educational, social, professional, and cultural vitality of the city, the state, and the region‖. IPH is
in a unique position to contribute to this goal by expanding our community outreach efforts by
applying for grants involving partnerships with local organizations and building upon current
partnerships.
Objective S1.2: To maintain and increase the connections between the IPH and other university
programs. As noted in Section A, the IPH faculty have worked with various programs across the
university, and these activities have helped to enhance IPH’s profile within GSU. We would like
to continue and expand these connections with other units, such as the Gerontology Institute,
Social Work, Criminal Justice, Policy Studies.
A final long-term vision is for the IPH to become a School of Public Health. This goal is
contingent upon the successful implementation of the goals included in this self-study. The
aspiration to become a School of Public Health would help to expand diverse areas of expertise
among our growing faculty and enhance our capacity to train more public health professionals
from undergraduate through doctoral-level preparation. This would meet the dire need that is
being emphasized currently in light of the nation’s historic health care reform and economic
crisis.
Appendix I
Appendix I contains original Office of Institutional Research data.
27
Searchable Index
Achievement, 5, 14, 21
Comparative, 2, 3, 13
Goals, 2, 3, 4, 13, 22, 23
Interdisciplinary, 19
Metrics, 2, 16
Outcome, 2, 4, 15
Production, 2, 3, 12, 10
Productivity, 3, 6, 10, 11, 17
Quality, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 16, 17, 20
Research, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23,
24
Resource, 2, 3, 8, 20
Resources, 3, 7, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22
Scholarship, 6
Service, 2, 3, 6, 14, 16, 17, 19, 24
Strengths, 2, 5
Weaknesses, 2, 5
28
Related Documents
