MASTER O F PUBLIC HEA LTH PROGRAM - Fresno State

Accreditation Self-Study 0

M A S T E R O F P U B L I C H E A LT H P R O G R A M

California State University, Fresno

Accreditation Self-Study

2012


S E L F - S T U D Y T E A M

Vickie D. Krenz, Ph.D., M.S.P.H.

Professor of Public Health and

Director, Master of Public Health Program

Miguel A. Pérez, Ph.D., MHES

Chair, Department of Public Health

Helda Pinzon-Pérez, Ph.D., RN, NP, MHES

Professor of Public Health

Kara Zografos, DrPH, MPH

Assistant Professor of Public Health

Diana Valdovinos

Master of Public Health Student (Cohort 17)

Brittany Chambers


Edward Boyle


2012


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations v

Figures vi

Tables vii

Introduction 1

Criterion 1.0 The Public Health Program 2

Criterion 1.1 Mission 3

Criterion 1.2 Evaluation and Planning 10

Criterion 1.3 Institutional Environment 22

Criterion 1.4 Organization and Administration 29

Criterion 1.5 Governance 33

Criterion 1.6 Fiscal Resources 42

Criterion 1.7 Faculty and Other Resources 47

Criterion 1.8 Diversity 57

Criterion 2.0 Instructional Programs 66

Criterion 2.1 Degree Offerings 67

Criterion 2.2 Program Length 69

Criterion 2.3 Public Health Core Knowledge 71

Criterion 2.4 Practical Skills 74

Criterion 2.5 Culminating Experience 78

Criterion 2.6 Required Competencies 81

Criterion 2.7 Assessment Procedures 90

Criterion 2.8 Bachelors Degrees in Public Health 99

Criterion 2.9 Academic Degrees 101

Criterion 2.10 Doctoral Degrees 102

Criterion 2.11 Joint Degrees 103

Criterion 2.12 Distance Education or Executive Degree Programs 104

Criterion 3.0 Creation, Application and Advancement of Knowledge 106

Criterion 3.1 Research 107

Criterion 3.2 Service 122

Criterion 3.3 Workforce Development 131

Criterion 4.0 Faculty, Staff and Students 134

Criterion 4.1 Faculty Qualifications 135

Criterion 4.2 Faculty Policies and Procedures 142

Criterion 4.3 Student Recruitment and Admissions 147

Criterion 4.4 Advising and Career Counseling 155

Appendix A: MPH Student Orientation Handbook

Appendix B: PH 285F Fieldwork in Public Health Student Manual

Appendix C: Exit Survey and Results

Appendix D: MPH Alumni Survey and Results

Appendix E: Graduate Writing Requirement and Rubric

Appendix F: Fresno State Accreditations


Appendix G: MPH Advisory Board

Appendix H: Recruitment Plan

Appendix I: Probationary Plan

Appendix J: Executive Order 833

Appendix K: Policies and Procedures for Appointment of Tenure Track Faculty

Appendix L: PH 285F Fieldwork Contract

Appendix M: PH 298 Project Guidelines

Appendix N: MPH Student Database

Appendix O: Extension Course Proposal form

Appendix P: Academic Vacancy Announcement

Appendix Q: Teaching Evaluation forms

Appendix R: Advising Forms


Abbreviations

APM .............................................. Academic Policy Manual

CCCHHS ...............................Central California Center for Health and Human Services

CEPH ....................................Council on Public Health Education

CFED ....................................Committee for Faculty Equity and Diversity

CHHS ....................................College of Health and Human Services

CSU .......................................California State University

CSUF .....................................California State University, Fresno

CVHPI ...................................Central Valley Health Policy Institute

DGS .......................................Division of Graduate Studies

EEO .......................................Equal Employment Opportunity

FACEL ..................................The Facilities and Campus Environment Liaison Committee

FERP .....................................Faculty Early Retirement Program

GPA .......................................Grade Point Average

GRE .......................................Graduate Record Examinations

MCL ......................................McLane Hall

MPH ......................................Master of Public Health

SOAP ....................................Student Outcome Assessment Plan

SPHA ....................................Student Public Health Association

UC .........................................University of California

WTU .....................................Weighted teaching units


Figures

1.3.b.1 Organizational Chart of Fresno State 24

1.3.b.2 Organizational Chart of College of Health and Human Services 25

1.4.a Organizational Chart of Department of Public Health 30


List of Tables

Table 1.2.1. MPH Program Objectives with Data Systems and Responsible Parties.

Table 1.2.2 Outcome Measures for Criterion 1.2 (Measurable Outcomes)

Table 1.5.1 Faculty Participation in University Activities

Table 1.6.1 Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major Category, 2008 to 2013

Table 1.6.2 Outcome Measures for the Last Three Years

Table 1.7.1 Headcount of Primary Faculty

Table 1.7.2

Faculty, Students and Student/Faculty Ratios by Department or Specialty

Area

Table 1.7.3 Performance of MPH Program against Resource Outcome Measures, AY

2009-10 – AY 2011-12

Table 1.8.1 Racial/Ethnic Distribution of MPH Program’s Service Area

Table 1.8.2 Summary Data for Faculty, Students and/or Staff

Table 2.1.1 Instructional Matrix – Degrees & Specializations

Table 2.2.2 Number of Professional Public Health Masters Degrees Awarded For Fewer

Than 42 Semester Credit Units from AY 2009-2010 to AY 2011-2012

Table 2.3.1 Required Courses Addressing Public Health Core Knowledge Areas for

MPH Degree

Table 2.3.2 Required Courses Addressing Health Promotion Knowledge Areas for the

MPH Degree

Table 2.4.2 Identification of Agencies and Preceptors Used for Practice Experiences for

Students, by Specialty Area, for the Last Two Academic Years.

Table 2.6.1 Ten Essential Public Health Services

Table 2.6.1.a Courses and other learning experiences by which the competencies are met.


Table 2.7.1.a Students in MPH-Health Promotion Degree, By Cohorts Entering Between

2006-07 and 2011-12

Table 2.7.1.b Students in MPH-Health Policy and Management Degree, By Cohorts

Entering Between 2006-07 and 2011-12

Table 2.7.2 Destination of Graduates by Employment Type in 2012

Table 2.7.3 Certification of Professional Competence

Table 3.1. 1

Funding to Public Health Faculty from College

Table 3.1.2 Research Activity from 2010 to 2013

Table 3.2.1 Service Activity of Faculty for the Last 3 Years (2009 to 2012)

Table 3.2.2 Faculty Service Evaluation Objectives

Table 3.2.3 Fieldwork Experience by Semester

Table 3.3.1 Funded Training/Continuing Education Activity from 2009 to 2012

Table 3.3.2 Funded Service Activity from 2009 to 2012

Table 4.1.1 Current Primary Faculty Supporting Degree Offerings of School or Program

by Department/Specialty Area

Table 4.1.2 Current Other Faculty Used to Support Teaching Program (Adjunct, Part-

Time, Secondary, etc.)

Table 4.3.1 Quantitative Information on Applicants, Acceptances, and Enrollments,

2010 to 2012

Table 4.3.2 Student Enrollment Data from 2010 to 2012


Introduction

The Master of Public Health program (MPH) at Fresno State was established 1993 with

the purpose of serving the educational needs of working professionals in the central California

region. Today, the program is comprised of working professionals and non-working students.

This geographic region, in the center of the golden state, is characterized by its rural focus, its

classification as a medically underserved area, and by its rich diversity.

The MPH is part-time academic program housed in the Department of Public Health at

Fresno State. This structure is not unique to our program as it is common of MPH programs in

the California State University system. The symbiotic relationship between the MPH and the

Department of Public Health presents opportunities for growth as well as challenges in the

delivery of a quality program targeting a unique population who faces competing demands on

their time from their work, families, and educational pursuits.

The distinctiveness of the Master of Public Health program is also denoted on the

symbiotic relationship that exists between its academic program and the Central Valley Health

Policy Institute (CVHPI). The institute is one of many research institutes and centers in the

College of Health and Human Services at Fresno State and a leading voice in addressing the

health care needs of the central California area. The CVHPI provides opportunities to our

students and faculty to advance research projects and to serve the needs of the region.

Another exceptional characteristic of the MPH is its student population. The students

represent a combination of working professionals and non-working students. Economic

conditions have increased the number of students who continue their graduate education directly

from undergraduate studies. The majority of students are from the local geographical region

and are unable to attend traditional programs due to economic and family concerns.

Furthermore, these students possess a strong desire to remain in the region to address the

growing needs of the medically underserved populations.

This self-study document presents information germane to the MPH. It represents an

honest assessment of our academic offerings, our vision for the future, and an identification of

areas targeted for growth. Where appropriate, information about the Department of Public

Health will be provided.


Criterion 1.0

The Public Health Program


Criterion 1.1

Mission

The program shall have a clearly formulated and publicly stated mission with

supporting goals and objectives. The program shall foster the development of

professional public health values, concepts and ethical practice.

1.1.a. A clear and concise mission statement for the program as a whole.

The mission of the Public Health Department is to promote, preserve, and restore health.

This is accomplished by educating graduate students to be effective leaders and practitioners at

the local, national, and international levels.

The mission of the MPH program is based on the Fresno State’s mission which states that

“the university offers a high-quality educational opportunity to qualified students at the

bachelor’s, and master’s levels, as well as in doctoral programs in selected professional areas.”1

To carry out this mission, the university “furnishes opportunities for students to expand their

intellectual horizons, fosters lifelong learning, prepare for further professional study, and gain an

appreciate of cultures other than their own.”2

1.1.b. A statement of values that guides the program.

The mission of the MPH program is to promote, preserve, and restore health. To this end

the program’s faculty and staff adhere to the broad mission of public health defined by the

Council on Education for Public Health. The following concepts and values play an intrinsic

role in the operations of the Master of Public Health program.

a. Health is viewed in its broadest meaning as a state of complete physical, mental,

intellectual, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and

infirmity.


b. Community is viewed as a rich tapestry of cultural, ethnic, sexual orientation

diversity within which there exist significant social interactions and shared values and

institutions.

c. Community health seeks to promote, protect, and preserve the health of all persons

within that community utilizing public health principles and practices which

ultimately target the health of each individual in the community.

The MPH program espouses the following values in regard to its educational mission:

a. Academic freedom, encouraging its faculty and students to search for and explore

established and innovative concepts.

b. Professional behavior, encouraging ethical behavior in its faculty, staff, and students.

c. The merit of teacher-student relationships, encouraging their development in the

classroom, in advisement and mentoring and in other formal and informal

interactions.

d. Lifelong learning, encouraging its faculty and students to adopt learning as a way of

life.

e. Diversity, actively recruiting faculty and students from diverse cultural and ethnic

backgrounds.

f. Community representation, recruiting into the program health professionals from the

community both as advisors, instructors, and students.

g. Community participation, encouraging input from community representatives to

ascertain the public health education needs of the community.

The MPH program espouses the following values in regard to its service mission:

a. Community responsibility, encouraging its faculty, staff, and students to view and

accept the health problems of the community as their own.

b. Community service, encouraging its faculty, staff and students to perceive such

service as an integral part of the academic process.

The MPH program espouses the following values in regard to its scholarly activity mission:

a. Research, encouraging its faculty and students to develop, implement, and evaluate

research activities and projects.

b. Integrity and ethical behavior, encouraging honesty in all research activities.


c. Relevance, encouraging a commitment to research objectives that are relevant and

meaningful to the needs of the field and the community.

Each of the aforementioned values have been discussed, agreed upon, and practiced by

each of the faculty members involved in the MPH program. The values listed above have been

embodied in the seven values listed below which are distributed to faculty, staff, students, and

the community the MPH program serves.

Community: To enable communities to address their unique public health problems,

lower barriers to action, and act as a resource for progress.

Knowledge: To engage in the pursuit, development, and dissemination of knowledge

that will lead to the improvement of the public's health.

Professionalism: To perform the duties and responsibilities of public health

professionals with integrity and collegiality in learning, teaching and public service.

Professional Ethics: Adhering to the duties and responsibilities in the established codes

of conduct for the fields of Public Health (The Moral Clause).

Advocacy: To ensure equitable access to quality public health, health resources and

public policies.

Diversity: To recognize and respect the cultural and other contributions of all members

of the community in the access to public health resources.

Scholarship: To teach students methods to understanding the scope of current public

health knowledge and by contributing to future public health knowledge through

research.

1.1.c. A set of measurable objectives relating to each major function through which the

program intends to achieve its goals of instruction, research, and service.

The mission of the Master of Public Health program centers on a rigorous academic

program, the quest for scholarly activity, and service to the community. The goals are based on

the MPH’s mission of promoting, preserving, and restoring the health of the central valley

residents.

A. Instructional Goals:

1. To utilize a competency-based curriculum planning and evaluation system in order to be

able to effectively evaluate the public health knowledge, skills, attitudes of students


2. To develop skills in the areas of planning, implementation, and evaluation of health

promotion programs.

B. Scholarly Activity Goals

1. To promote and foster an interactive environment conducive to student and faculty search

for and exploration of established and innovative concepts related to public health.

2. To stimulate the design of projects that have a practical application to the reality of the

community we serve.

C. Service Goals

1. To promote a rigorous practicum experience to develop student-applied Public Health

skills to assess community Public Health needs and outcomes.

2. To strengthen relationships between Fresno State and public or private community

organizations in order to provide service opportunities for faculty, students, graduates to

help meet the health needs of the community.

1.1.d. A set of measurable objectives with quantifiable indicators related to each goal

statement as provided in Criterion 1.1.c.

As noted in Criterion 1.1.c, the Master of Public Health’s academic goals are to prepare

students and practicing health professionals to meet the ever-changing health needs of the

valley's diverse residents. To accomplish the program’s goals, the following objectives, which

were reviewed by the faculty at the department faculty retreat (March 7-8, 2011) have been

developed, implemented, and evaluated.

Instructional Objectives. The educational goals of the program are supported by the following

measurable objectives:

a. To maintain a system of periodical revisions to the curriculum to respond to the

changing needs of students and the field of public health.

b. To review and revise curriculum based on changing needs of students and the field of

public health.

b. To engage students in the application of the knowledge and skills required for the

field of public health.

Service Objectives. The service goals of the program are supported by the following



a. Each academic year, at least 50% of the full-time graduate faculty will provide

consultation and other service related to their area of expertise through participation

in governing boards, advisory boards, task forces and the like, for groups,

organizations, and agencies at the local community, regional or national/international

levels.

b. Each academic year, the program will ensure that at least 50% of graduate students

will complete their fieldwork requirements serving demographically diverse

populations.

c. Each academic year, at least 50% of full-time graduate faculty will participate in

public health related professional organizations by either attending and presenting at

professional meetings, leadership in professional organizations, or serving as

journal/book reviewers.

Research Objectives. The research goals of the program are supported by the following


a. At least 40% of graduate faculty will participate in research activities either directly

for or in consultation to local, regional, state and national groups and organizations in

the investigation of public health-health related issues and problems.

b. At least 40% of the graduate faculty will publish one paper in a peer-reviewed journal

during a three-year period.

c. At least 40% of graduate students will participate in research activities at the local,

state, or national level.

1.1.e. A description of the manner in which mission, goals, and objectives are developed,

including a description of how various specific stakeholder groups were involved in their

development.

The MPH program mission, goals, and objectives were developed by the primary

program faculty with student input. The draft mission, goals, and objectives were reviewed by

graduate faculty to insure that these objectives were comprehensive and measurable. The entire

faculty in the Department of Public Health faculty voted to adopt the revised mission, goals,

objectives, and values. A process was also developed to allow for their review approximately

every five years in a process that would include students, faculty, and advisory board members.


The MPH program mission, program goals, and objectives are distributed to the students,

university, and community in a variety of formats including a prominent place in the

department’s website (see http://www.fresnostate.edu/chhs/public-health/degrees-

programs/mph/). A written version of the current mission, goals, objectives, and values

statement are included in the MPH Student Orientation Handbook (Appendix A) , the 285F

Fieldwork in Public Health Student Manual (Appendix B), posted in the MPH office, and are

available in the MPH Blackboard site. During the Fall 2007 semester the department began

enforcing its policy of including the mission and goals in each of the graduate courses syllabi.

As indicated in section 1.1.c. above, the objectives are scheduled to be reviewed again during

academic year 2013-2014.

1.1.f. A description of how the mission, values, goals and objectives were made available to

the program's constituent groups, including the general public, and how they are routinely

reviewed and revised to ensure relevance.

The MPH mission, values, goals, and objectives were made available to the public health

community in the central California region via the Master of Public Health Advisory Board for

review and revision which meets bi-annually (Fall and Spring semesters) .

As noted above, the MPH program mission, program goals, and objectives are available

through a range of venues to the students, university, and community including a prominent

place in the department’s website (see http://www.fresnostate.edu/chhs/public-health/degrees-

programs/mph/). A written version of the current mission, goals, objectives, and values

statement are included in promotional materials (see Appendix A), the 285F Fieldwork in Public

Health Student Manual (Appendix B), student orientation materials, posted in the MPH office,

are made available as a handout, and are available in the MPH Blackboard site.

1.1.g. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met.

The mission, vision, goals, objectives, and values statements for the MPH program at

Fresno State have been developed using a comprehensive and inclusive process. The MPH

program is committed to constantly updating these “living” documents to insure they reflect the

realities of the curriculum, the students, and the community we serve. They are widely available

and distributed in a wide variety of formats including printed and electronic versions. The

faculty in the MPH program feels that this criterion is fully met and commits itself to its

continuing efforts to revise the mission, goals, objectives, and values.

http://www.fresnostate.edu/chhs/public-health/degrees-programs/





Criterion 1.2

Evaluation

The program shall have an explicit process for monitoring and evaluating its

overall efforts against its mission, goals and objectives; for assessing the

program’s effectiveness in serving its various constituencies; and for using

evaluation results in ongoing planning and decision making to achieve its

mission. As part of the evaluation process, the program must conduct an

analytical self-study that analyzes performance against the accreditation

criteria.

1.2.a. A description of the evaluation processes used to monitor progress against objectives

defined in Criterion 1.1.d, including identification of the data systems and responsible

parties associated with each objective and with the evaluation process as a whole. If these

are common across all objectives, they need be described only once. If systems and

responsible parties vary by objective or topic area, sufficient information must be provided

to identify the systems and responsible party of each.

Measurable outcome objectives have been developed to assess the program's

effectiveness against the program mission, goals, and objectives. As defined in Criterion 1.1.d,

the MPH program has three objectives that are evaluated to monitor progress, including

instructional, service, and research objectives. Table 1.2.1 displays the data systems and

responsible parties associated with each objective.


Table 1. 2.1. MPH Program Objectives with Data Systems and Responsible Parties.

Objective Data Systems Responsible Parties

Instructional Objectives

a. To maintain a system of periodical revisions to the

curriculum to respond to the changing needs of students

and the field of public health.

Course GPA Department Chair, MPH

graduate faculty, and MPH

Advisory Committee

b. To review and revise curriculum based on the changing

needs of students and the field of public health.

Annual program review Department Chair, MPH

Director, graduate faculty, and

MPH Advisory Committee

c. To engage students in the application of knowledge and

skills require for the field of public health.

Fieldwork student evaluation,

site evaluation, and preceptor

evaluation

Department Chair, MPH

Director, and Fieldwork

Coordinator

Service Objectives

a. Each academic year, at least 50% of the graduate faculty

will provide consultation and other service related to their

area of expertise through participation in governing

boards, advisory boards, task forces and the like, for

groups, organizations, and agencies at the local

community, regional or national/international levels.

Annual faculty report Department Chair, MPH

Director, and graduate faculty

b. Each academic year, the program will ensure that at least

50% of graduate students will complete their fieldwork

requirements serving demographically diverse

populations.

Course grades, completion of

Fieldwork Handbook evaluation

forms

MPH Director and Fieldwork

Coordinator


c. Each academic year, at least 50% of graduate faculty will

participate in public health related professional

organizations by either attending and presenting at

professional meetings, leadership in professional

organizations, or serving as journal/book reviewers.

Annual faculty report Department Chair and MPH

Director

Research Objectives

a. At least 40% of graduate faculty will participate in

research activities either directly for or in consultation to

local, regional, state and national groups and

organizations in the investigation of public health-health

related issues and problems.


Director

b. At least 40% of the graduate faculty will publish one

paper in a peer-reviewed journal during a three-year

period.


Director

c. At least 40% of the graduate students will participate in

research projects at the local, state, or national level.

Department Chair, MPH

Director, MPH full-time

faculty

The MPH Program Director, in consultation with the Public Health Department Chair and College of Health and

Human Services Dean, has the overall responsibility to ensure that the evaluation process as a whole is monitored.

Evaluation Procedure

Starting in the Fall 2007 semester a formal evaluation process, including an Student

Outcomes Assessment Plan (SOAP) was instituted in the MPH. Data is reviewed from the

different assessments described in 1.2.c (e.g., fieldwork evaluations, exit interviews), for

consistency with the program’s goals and objectives, and developments in the field with the

purpose of recommending curriculum modifications. Data is reviewed with formal action

recommendations forwarded to the faculty at the beginning of each Fall semester.

Program assessment and evaluations have been performed on an annual basis with the program director

usually identifying issues and forwarding them to the faculty for review. These evaluations have resulted in

program changes including the suspension of the Health Policy option due to low application rates, the suspension

of the comprehensive examination as a culminating experience, revisions in curriculum content, and the MPH

policies.

One criteria utilized to measure teaching effectiveness is the monitoring of students

grades to identify areas that need to be addressed. An example is the calculation of GPAs for

each of the courses taught. Students are required to complete their coursework with a 3.0 or

higher. These data have been used to address issues with the instructor. Given the personnel

nature of those discussions only the department chair and sometimes the program director have

been involved as needed for program improvement.

Constituent Group Involvement

MPH related issues are addressed on an on-going basis as an agenda item at faculty

meeting. Issues are discussed and suggestions forwarded by students and other interested parties

for program improvement, including course content, proposed curriculum changes and offerings,

and course scheduling. In addition, a minimum of one entire faculty meeting per year is

dedicated to address MPH related issues that require substantial discussion and consideration.

The MPH director also meets on a regular basis with the dean, the department chair, members of

the Division of Graduate Studies, the department’s internship coordinator, and with program

faculty to understand their concerns and devise ways to improve the program.

The MPH Advisory Board meets once every semester and reviews all pertinent program-

related documents including CEPH reporting documents with the objective of providing

feedback to the MPH director and indirectly to the faculty. During academic year 2011-2012 the

Accreditation Self-Study - 21 -

MPH Advisory Board was consulted and reviewed accreditation status changes, proposed

program changes, and alternative options for the comprehensive examination a culminating

experience. The MPH Advisory Board consists of 15 members that incorporates students and

alumni as key members. As noted in the 2008 accreditation self-study, a reduction in advisory

board members from 25 to 15 was due in large part to the removal of program faculty from the

advisory board since it was determined that faculty already have a voice in curricular issues via

the academic process. While the Advisory Board meetings are open to faculty members,

external review of the MPH program by outside constituents is the primary focus of the agenda.

The MPH leadership maintains an open door policy allowing students to drop by and

speak with the director or with the student assistant. The director has release time equivalent to

10 hours a week to address program issues. This necessitates the extensive use of appointments

to deal with advising and other academic or career related issues.

Faculty in the MPH program utilize part of their classroom time to engage students in

conversations designed to elicit input about the program. Suggestions are brought to the

attention of the director or the entire faculty as appropriate for action. A direct result of these

conversations was the redesign of the culminating experience into a more structured format that

keeps students intact with the program.

Communication with students has been improved using technology venues including the

use of an MPH listserv and a Blackboard site. All MPH students are required to use the MPH

listserve for a broad range of program communication, including program updates, financial aid

opportunities, employment announcements, seminar/workshop announcements, etc. In addition,

the MPH listserve maintains communication with alumni and other constituents. All MPH

students, faculty, alumni and other constituents are encouraged to utilize the listserve as a means

of communication across the broad MPH community.

1.2.b. A description of how the results of evaluation processes described in Criterion 1.2.a

are monitored, analyzed, communicated and regularly used by managers responsible for

enhancing the quality of programs and activities.

Faculty in the Department of Public Health conduct periodic peer reviews (“Peer

Evaluations”) of each other that are primarily used for personnel issues. Faculty provide input to

each other about the content covered, share suggestions for delivery methods, and share research

or articles related to the subject matter discussed in each class. In addition, there is a general

advising session provided one a semester.


Input from the advisory board, community members, and students are taken seriously by

the graduate faculty in the MPH program. Students provide input during regularly scheduled

courses which enable faculty to update materials and didactic instruction. Concerns and

recommendations from advisory board members have been utilized to address changing public

health needs. Formal and information input from community members has been used to guide

the direction of the program’s curriculum and fieldwork experiences.

As indicated in section 1.2.a above, data from the SOAP has been used to determine

curricular changes. The outcome measures that are used to monitor the effectiveness of the MPH

program’s mission, goals, and objectives include:

Exit Survey. The purpose of the exit survey is to collect information about student’s

perceptions at the end of the program, including:

Student satisfaction with the various aspects of the MPH program

How prepared do students feel to enter the public health workforce

Students are required to complete the exit survey as a pre-requisite for obtaining signatures in

their application for graduation form. A copy of the survey and results are available in Appendix

C.

Alumni Survey. The purpose of the Alumni Survey is to determine the program’s

usefulness to students at pre-set intervals during their professional lives. The surveys measure:

How graduates feel about the currency, breadth and depth of their education

• Student satisfaction with various aspects of the MPH program

Relevance of degree to, and level of preparation for, current occupation

• Whether students continued with advanced degrees

A copy of the survey and results are available in Appendix D.

Fieldwork in Public Health (PH 285F). The mid-term and final evaluation by preceptors

will be reviewed once a year to determine areas for program improvement. These forms are

completed by each of the students enrolled in PH 285F and are a requirement for a grade in the

class.

Graduate Writing Requirement. The Graduate Writing Review Committee reviews

students’ papers to determine fulfillment of the graduate writing requirement utilizing the form

and rubric found in Appendix E.


1.2.c. Data regarding the program's performance on each measurable objective described

in Criterion 1.1.d must be provided for each of the last three years. To the extent that these

data duplicate those required under other criteria (e.g., 1.6, 2.7, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.3, or

4.4), the program should parenthetically identify the criteria where the data also appear.

Table 1.2.2. Outcome Measures for Criterion 1.2 (Measurable Outcomes)

Outcome Measure Target Year 1

2010-11

Year 2

2011-2012

Year 3

2012-2013

Instructional Objectives

To maintain a system of

periodical revisions to the

curriculum to respond to the

changing needs of students

and the field of public health.

Yearly review of curriculum

relevance to student needs

and public health field.

Review and revise MPH

courses.


courses.


courses.

To review and revise

curriculum based on the

changing needs of students

and the field of public health

Yearly review core courses

and Health Promotion option

courses.

Review three MPH courses

for changing needs of

students and the field of

public health based on

outcomes measures (e.g., exit

surveys and alumni surveys).













To engage students in the

application of knowledge and

skills required for the field of

public health.

Increase the overall scores of

fieldwork evaluations by

students and preceptor

supervisors.

Review five student

practicum evaluations and

preceptor evaluations.

Review five student



Review five student



Service Objectives

Each academic year, at least

50% of the graduate faculty

will provide consultation and

other service related to their

area of expertise through

participation in governing

boards, advisory boards, task

forces and the like, for

groups, organizations, and

agencies at the local

community, regional or

national/international levels.

At least 90% of the graduate

faculty will provide

consultation and other service

related to their area of

expertise.





expertise.





expertise.





expertise.

Each academic year, the

program will ensure that at

least 50% of graduate

students will complete their


program will ensure that 90%

of graduate students will

complete their fieldwork














fieldwork requirements

serving demographically

diverse populations.

requirements serving

demographically diverse

populations.



populations.



populations.



populations.


50% of graduate faculty will

participate in public health

related professional

organizations by either

attending and presenting at

professional meetings,

leadership in professional

organizations, or serving as







attending and presenting at










attending or presenting at

























Research Objectives

a. At least 40% of graduate

faculty will participate in

research activities either

directly for or in consultation

to local, regional, state and

national groups and

organizations in the

investigation of public health-

health related issues and

problems.

At least 90% of graduate





national groups and




problems.






national groups and




problems.






national groups and




problems.






national groups and




problems.


faculty will publish one paper

in a peer-reviewed journal

during a three-year period.

A minimum of 80% of the

graduate faculty will publish

one paper in a peer-reviewed

journal during a three-year

period.





period.





period.





period.

1.2.d. A description of the manner in which the self-study document was developed,

including effective opportunities for input by important program constituents, including

institutional officers, administrative staff, faculty, students, alumni and representatives of

the public health community.

Beginning August 2011, the MPH Program Director and a senior faculty member (Dr.

Helda Pinzon-Perez) attended the CEPH Accreditation Orientation Workshop to understand the

accreditation process and self-study preparation requirements. The MPH program director was

assisted by a graduate student, Ms. Diana Valdovinos (cohort 17) who played a key role in

developing the self-study. Two faculty members, Drs. Helda Pinzon-Perez and Kara Zografos,

served as the editosr and provided assistance in the completion of this self-study document.

Brittany Chambers (cohort 18) also assisted in the review of the self-study document.

The self-study was distributed among the primary MPH faculty members and staff during

the Fall 2012 semester. Their input was incorporated into the draft document and made available

to the public through the department MPH website. The self-study document was distributed

among senior institutional administrators and their input was incorporated into the final draft.

The self-study document was also made available to each student through the Blackboard

site. MPH students were emailed the link in Blackboard and their input was solicited. Students'

views and comments were incorporated into the self-study document. Dr. Krenz coordinated

with alumni and community for input into the draft. Each of these groups were contacted via

email and invited to participate in the review process. In addition, Advisory Board and selected

internship/fieldwork site preceptors were invited to review the self-study draft. Selected alumni

(Ms. Karen Kitchen and Ms. Melanie Ruvacalvo) reviewed the self-study and provided

suggestions for improvement. Their recommendations and comments were incorporated into the

final document. The final document was reviewed by the department faculty prior to submission

to the accrediting body.

1.2.e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met, and an analysis of the

program's strengths, weaknesses and plans relating to this criterion.

Evaluation and planning for the MPH program continues to be a concern for the faculty,

the department chair, and the program director. Significant efforts have been dedicated to the

delivery of a high quality program to meet the needs of students and the community.

Assessment of the MPH program continues to require the monitoring of program strengths and

weaknesses.


One of the major challenges for the development of planning and evaluation criteria has

been the turnover in the MPH program director position. Dr. Miguel A. Perez served as the

MPH program director (2006 - 2008) and is now the Department Chair (2008 - present). Dr.

Suzanne Kotkin-Jazsi served as MPH Program Director for two years (2008 - 2010). She was

replaced by Dr. Vickie Krenz, the current MPH Coordinator. It is anticipated that Dr. Helda

Pinzon-Perez will transition into the MPH program director in Fall 2013.

Similar challenges have been observed with the retirements of several key senior

department faculty. Dr. Gerald Davoli, a former MPH coordinator, has retired and concluded his

Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) eligibility. In addition, Drs. Sherman Sowby and

Sandra Donohue retired and are no longer eligible to teach in the MPH program. It is anticipated

that there will be additional retirements in the next three years. Four tenure-track assistant

professors have been hired, of which two have been dedicated "full-time" to the MPH program to

ensure continuity of faculty leadership.

A significant strength of the program is the delivery of a curriculum that addresses the

growing needs of the public health community in the diverse local region. The comments of

MPH students, alumni, and community have been incorporated into on-going evaluation and

planning efforts for program improvement. Applicants and alumni have noted that they are

typically working professionals who are not able to attend traditional MPH program/schools. In

addition, a number of applicants and alumni have indicated a preference for a more "traditional"

program delivery focused on face-to-face contact with instructors and is adaptable to their

employment requirements. While on-line opportunities have been incorporated into classroom

instruction, an on-line program that requires periodic travel to campus on weekends has not been

a desirable option. A one-night per week delivery mode is easily accommodated with their

employment and allows weekends with their families.

The process for evaluating and monitoring the MPH program's overall efforts against its

mission, goals, and objectives; for assessing the program's effectiveness in serving its various

constituencies; and for planning to achieve its mission in the future is an on-going process. The

full implementation of a SOAP plan has enabled the program to identify specific program

outcomes that are used for on-going program monitoring and improvement. As indicated in

section 1.2.a above, data from the SOAP has been used to determine curricular changes. Data


from each of these assessments have been evaluated on a yearly basis. The faculty have taken

formal action during the fall semesters of each year to incorporate the suggested changes.

To date, an alumni survey has been conducted to provide data on the program quality

from of MPH program graduates. A graduation survey ("Exit Survey") is on-going with students

for program planning and evaluation. Increased communication with interested constituencies

(i.e., MPH Advisory Board members, regional public health administrators) has been

incorporated into considerations for review and program improvement on an on-going basis.

The faculty feels that this criterion is partially met.


Criterion 1.3

Institutional Environment

The program shall be an integral part of an accredited institution of higher

education.

1.3.a. A description of the institution in which the program is located, and the names of

accrediting bodies (other than CEPH) to which the institution responds.

Fresno State Teachers College began as a two-year state normal school with 150 students

in 1911. It is the sixth oldest institution in the 23-campus California State University system. In

1935, by act of the Legislature, the official designation of the school became Fresno State

College. In 1972, by legislative action, the state college system became the California State

University and Colleges, and in 1982 the system was renamed the California State University,

hence California State University, Fresno. In 2012, California State University, Fresno revised

the official websites and logos to reflect the name “Fresno State.” Today, Fresno State is a

stimulating center of cultural activity, dedicated to academic excellence, integrity, and freedom

with more than 22,000 students. The university is fully committed to develop qualified

professionals who will become tomorrow’s leaders.

In 1991, the School of Education and Human Development began offering an

interdisciplinary doctoral degree (Ed.D.) in educational leadership, offered in partnership with

the University of California. In 2006, following changes in state law, Fresno State became the

first university in the system to apply and be granted the right to offer a doctoral degree in

education without a partnership with another institution. Currently, the Department of Nursing

and the Department of Physical Therapy also offer doctoral-level programs.

Fresno State offers challenging and innovative programs in the liberal arts and sciences,

in the professions, in applied fields, and in special and interdisciplinary areas. Currently, the

university offers graduate programs in 44 areas. The excellence of the Fresno State faculty is

documented in a variety of ways, including the fact that most tenured faculty hold doctoral

degrees in their areas of study. However, the most important characteristic of the Fresno State


faculty is their ability to nurture students and their willingness to give of their time on an

individual basis.

The main campus features more than 46 traditional and modern buildings. An additional

34 structures are on the 1,011-acre University Farm, which is considered one of the most modern

and well-equipped agricultural facilities in the West. Outstanding computer, engineering,

electronics, and industrial technology laboratories are complemented by cultural and recreational

facilities. The campus has one student union, indoor and outdoor theaters for drama and music,

and swimming facilities. Students can make use of many individual and team sport facilities, a

baseball stadium, Beiden Field that seats 4,575 spectators and a 41,000-seat football stadium.

The Fresno State campus is fully accessible and students with mobility impairments will find the

naturally flat terrain easy to navigate. In 2003 the University opened the Save Mart Center to

serve as a cultural center for the Central Valley. The center was inaugurated on November 7,

2003 by a concert by Andrea Bocelli. In 2006, the University opened Student Recreation Center

to serve as a venue for student recreational and sports activities.

Fresno State was fully accredited in 1997 by the California Board of Education and the

Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Fresno State is also a member of the Western

Association of Graduate Schools, the Council of Graduate Schools in the United States, and the

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Accreditation of schools, departments

or programs, certified memberships, and other accreditation account for 35 additional

accreditations (see Appendix G). As part of its evolution, the Department of Public Health

welcomed the first cohort of MPH students in 1993. The Master of Public Health Program

received initial accreditation in 1996 from the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH).

1.3.b. One or more organizational charts of the university indicating the program's

relationship to the other components of the institution, including reporting lines and clearly

depicting how the program reports to or is supervised by other components of the

institution.

The following charts represent the Fresno State organizational structure (Figure 1.3.b.1),

the College of Health and Human Services organizational structure (Figure 1.3.b.2), the

Department of Public Health’s organizational structure is shown elsewhere in this document.

Figure1.3.b.1. Fresno State Organizational Structure

The Dean of the College of Health and Human Services (CHHS) serves as the primary

link between the central administration and the college. Additionally, faculty members in each

of the academic departments represented in the CHHS serve on different university wide

committees. As indicated above, the CHHS dean is the chief administrator in the college.

Figure 1.3.b.2 denotes the organizational structure of the college.

Figure 1.3.b.2. College of Health and Human Services Organizational Structure

Dean

Dr. Andrew Hoff

Dean's Support Staff Associate Dean

Dr. Jody Hironaka-Juteau

Central Valley Health Policy

Institute

Dr. John Capitman

Dean's Office Administrative Staff

Kinesiology

Dr. Michael Coles, Chair

Nursing

Dr. Mary Barakzai, Chair

Physical Therapy

Dr. Peggy Trueblood, Chair

Communicative Disorders & Deaf Studies

Dr. Don Freed, Chair

Social Work Education & Gerontology

Dr. Virginia Rondero Hernandez, Chair

Recreation Administration & Leisure Studies

Dr. Nancy Nisbett, Chair

Public Health

Dr. Miguel A. Perez, Chair

Central Valley Children’s Institute

Dr. Cassandra Joubert


The MPH program director reports directly to the department chair as denoted in Figure 1.3.b.2

in section 1.3.b. The department chair reports to the dean (see Figure 1.3.b.2 in section 1.3.b.)

who in turn reports to the provost and vice president for academic affairs.

1.3.c. A description of the program's involvement and role in the following:

budgeting and resource allocation, including budget negotiations, indirect cost

recoveries, distribution of tuition and fees and support for funding raising

personnel recruitment, selection and advancement, including faculty and staff

academic standards and policies, including establishment and oversight of curricula

Budgeting and resource allocation. The budgeting system for our campus is the same

as for other campuses in the CSU System. The budget for the entire 23-campus system is set

annually by the California State Assembly, that dollar amount is divided among the 23 campuses

by the CSU Chancellors’ Office and the Board of Trustees. Once the money gets to our campus,

it is dispersed by the administration and the University Budget Committee with a given amount

allocated to each school/college. In our case, the Dean of College of Health and Human

Services, and his budget officer, gives each department a budget. At the annual budget meeting,

the dean provides an allocation to each department based on programmatic needs discerned from

previous years. At this meeting, department chairs address budgetary concerns and requests

based on among other issues, shifting program needs and FTE. During this meeting the chairs

can extend requests for additional funds based on program needs.

We have a full-time fundraiser for our college. We have had a few very small donations

that have gone into our scholarship account or our Annual Fund account. This small account

allows the chair some (maybe $1,000 per year) discretionary money to buy lunches for guests or

some other such expenditure. Since the department has no grant research money going through

the university, we have no indirect cost recovery.

The budgeting and allocation process on CSU campuses is vastly different from the UC

system which houses the Schools of Public Health. The CSU system with its MPH programs

gets by with far fewer resources.


Personnel recruitment, selection, and advancement, including faculty and staff .

Faculty. The faculty recruitment process is described in sections 301-320 of the

Academic Policy Manual (http://www.fresno.edu/academics/aps/forms_policies/ apm/300.html).

Requests for new faculty lines are generated by the college and the department faculty and

approved by the dean. Requests are forwarded to the provost who makes the final approval

decision for all new faculty lines. Applicants for faculty positions are reviewed by a search

committee comprised of three faculty members and one EEO officer. The committee reviews all

applications, ranks applicants, and makes a recommendation for three candidates to be

interviewed. The department chair makes a separate recommendation to the dean who has the

authority to negotiate the salary, start up and relocation elements of an offer. Only the Office of

the Provost is authorized to extend an offer of employment.

Faculty in the department are generally hired at the assistant professor level. Sections

321-335 of the Academic Policy Manual describe the process for promotion from assistant to

associate professor and from the rank of associate to full professor.

Staff. Staff lines are determined through the Central Administration. Staffing is similar

in all departments, i.e., most departments of our size have a full-time administrative support

coordinator, a full or part-time clerical assistant and some student assistants. The procedure for

staff promotion or advancement is established by the University. Each staff member undergoes

an annual evaluation.

Academic standards and policies. The Academic Senate, through its standing and ad

hoc committees, is the body responsible for the development of academic policies at Fresno

State.

Each department is responsible for the development of its curriculum. The approval

process is then similar to what is found at other universities. For example, a new MPH course

(or changes to an existing course) would first be approved at the department level by the MPH

graduate faculty and reviewed by the department Curriculum Committee. Next, the documents

would be reviewed by the College of Health and Human Services Curriculum Committee.

Following their approval, the proposal would be sent to the University Graduate Curriculum

Subcommittee. The next step is the University Graduate Committee. Following their approval,

the proposal is sent to the University Budget Committee. The next stop is approval by the

http://www.fresno.edu/academics/aps/forms_policies/%20apm/300.html


Academic Senate. The final approval rests with the Dean of the Graduate Division and the

Provost.

It is very likely that at each stop during this process, changes, additions, or deletions are

requested in the curriculum proposal. It is a very rigorous process.

1.3.d. If a collaborative program, descriptions of all participating institutions and

delineation of their relationships to the program.

Not applicable to the MPH program at Fresno State.

1.3.e. If a collaborative program, a copy of the format written agreement that establishes

the rights and obligations of the participating universities in regard to the program's

operation.


1.3.f. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met and an analysis of the


The MPH program is an integral part of the academic environment at Fresno State. As a

recognized program, the MPH program has access to shared resources among academic units,

including “smart” classrooms, excellent computer labs, technology services, and meeting space.

These resources enable the MPH program to deliver a quality instruction using advanced

technology resources.

As with many MPH programs, budget and resource allocation continue to be an issue.

The CSU is funded by the California Legislature through the Chancellor’s Office. Campus

allocations rely on FTE goals to determine operating budgets to the departments. As with other

states, California continues to experience economic constraints that have led to budget reductions

across our system and campus. As a result, a weakness relating to this criterion is the inability to

have a set amount of monies dedicated to the program.

In spite of the economic climate, the MPH Program has continued to maintain resources

to deliver our curriculum and no classes have been cancelled. The program has benefited from

continued support from the Dean’s office to ensure that instructional needs are met. The faculty

feel this criterion is fully met.


Criterion 1.4

Organization and Administration

The program shall provide an organizational setting conducive to public health

learning, research and service. The organizational setting shall facilitate

interdisciplinary communication, cooperation and collaboration that

contribute to achieving the program's public health mission. The

organizational structure shall effectively support the work of the program's

constituents.

1.4.a. One or more organizational charts delineating the administrative organization of the

program, indicating relationships among its internal components.

Figure 1.4 Department of Public Health Organizational Chart


Department Chair

The organizational responsibilities of each of the people shown in Figure 1.4.a. above is

determined by university policy. The APM 125-1 states “Each department shall have a Chair al

faculty. The position of Department Chair is an instructional administrative assignment and does

not carry tenure with it. Each Department Chair serves at the pleasure of the President. Each term

of a Department Chair shall be for four (4) years. The Chair reports to the respective School

Dean.” The same policy states “It is the responsibility of the Department Chair to consult with

the full-time departmental faculty on policy matters, plans, and procedures which affect the

department. In those cases when consultation is not possible, the Chair may make an interim

decision until such time as full-time faculty can be assembled for consultation. The Department

Chair is also responsible for the overall direction and management of the department.”

Program Director


The program director’s responsibility is defined in the Procedures and Guidelines for the

Graduate Coordinator Handbook published by the Division of Graduate Studies. The

aforementioned document indicates “As graduate coordinator/director you are essential to the

welfare of our graduate community: You bear the major responsibility for leadership of the

graduate program within your department or college/school. As such, you have the important

role of liaison with the Division of Graduate Studies, and will need to stay current on policies

and procedures relating to graduate education.”

The aforementioned document states that program coordinator’s job responsibilities

include “direct and coordinate the graduate program; lead marketing and program recruitment

efforts; coordinate procedures for admission or denial of graduate program applicants; provide

initial graduate student advising; maintain departmental graduate student records and track all

students in the program; and handle graduate student petitions and appeals, lead graduate

program planning and curriculum development, and coordinate program review and assessment.”

Furthermore, “more specific duties and responsibilities are determined by the department chair

or appropriate administrator.”

The director of the MPH program receives the equivalent of one class release time (10

hours per week) each semester to carry out these responsibilities. The limited time assigned for

the program director has an impact on the ability to reach all constituents in a timely basis.

1.4.b. A description of the manner in which interdisciplinary coordination, cooperation,

and collaboration occur and support public health learning, research and service.

The MPH program offers academic training in one specific area: health promotion.

Program faculty represent a cadre of professionals from a range of areas, including health

promotion, health services administration and management, health policy, environmental health,

and occupational safety. This arrangement allows for interdisciplinary collaboration which takes

place at the individual level. Examples of interdisciplinary collaboration include joint research

projects, publications, and grant proposals. A second internal interdisciplinary collaboration

includes faculty members serving on thesis committees of students regardless of the student’s

academic option.

Outside the department, program faculty collaborate in a variety of settings which include

research initiatives with faculty in other departments. The Central California Center for Health


and Human Services facilitates interdisciplinary collaboration through training grants, grant

writing, and research projects.

It should be noted, however, that all interdisciplinary cooperation has its genesis in the

interest shown by individual faculty. Interdisciplinary collaboration thrives due to the myriad

mechanisms available in the college and university including the Central Valley Health Policy

Institute, the Central California Center for Health and Human Services, Central California

Children’s Institute, and California Agricultural Technology Institute, among others. At the

present time, the university has implemented a “cohort” hiring mechanism that facilitates the

recruitment of a group of faculty that address a specific issue(s) in a focus on inter-disciplinary

research programs. The Department of Public Health has been approved to search for a faculty

member to address water and health issues.

1.4.c. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met and an analysis of the


The faculty believe this criterion is fully met. Faculty maintain a strong interdisciplinary

relationship that results in our ability to address program issues from a range of perspectives.

This has been a strength to the program in a number of ways. For example, the primary MPH

faculty consists of two individuals in health promotion and one in health policy. This

interdisciplinary approach strengthens our program with expertise across our curriculum. Within

our service region, there has been increased policy activity (i.e., passing of local ordinances for

related to health promotion issues, advocacy for change in local zoning for improved health

outcomes, workforce development, etc.) that necessitate an interdisciplinary approach. Another

example of the strength derived from our interdisciplinary relationship is the integration of

opportunities that allow students to be engaged in the practical application of knowledge and

skills. Workforce development now necessitates that public health professionals participate in an

interdisciplinary settings to address the complex needs in our local service area.

A weakness to the structure of the MPH program is the time allocation for the

coordinator position. While the MPH coordinator does receive release time (three units,

equivalent to 10 hours), there remains a considerable workload (i.e., overseeing the program

policies, administration, student management and records) has resulted in high turnover in this

position. This reduces the continuity needed to maintain consistency throughout the

accreditation periods. As a result, the MPH program director position needs to be increased to


six release time units and be a 12-month position to ensure adequate time to oversee the

program.


Criterion 1.5

Governance

The program administration and faculty shall have clearly defined rights and

responsibilities concerning program governance and academic policies.

Students shall, where appropriate, have participatory roles in the conduct of

program evaluation procedures, policy setting and decision making.

1.5.a. A list of standing and important ad hoc committees, with a statement of charge,

composition and current membership for each.

As indicated several times throughout this self-study, the MPH program does not have a

separate committee structure from that present in the Department of Public Health. The only

committee germane to the Master of Public Health program is the Advisory Board whose

functions are described in Appendix G. The following committees play a role in the function of

the MPH program.

Personnel Committee. The Personnel Committee is designed to review departmental

recommendations concerning reappointment, tenure, leaves of absence, and promotions. Upon

request, the committee may advise the dean other personnel matters. Committee composition for

2012-2013: Chris Tennant (Chair), John Capitman, Cassandra Joubert, Suzanne Kotkin-Jaszi,

Vickie Krenz, Don Matlosz, Miguel A. Perez, Helda Pinzon-Perez, and Mohammad Rahman.

Curriculum Sub-committee. The Curriculum subcommittee is designed to review curriculum

proposals from the department and programs, including fiscal implications of such proposals,

and make recommendations to the dean. All faculty in the Department of Public Health serve on

this committee. Dr. Kara Zografos serves as the department’s representative to the college.

Committee on Program Evaluation. The Committee on Program Evaluation is designed to

monitor SOAP data and to make recommendations to the faculty. Committee composition for

2012-2013: Mohammad Rahman (Chair), Health Pinzon-Perez, Michael Waite, Miguel A. Perez,

and Vickie Krenz (ex-officio).


Re-Admissions Committee/Academic Probation and Disqualification. The Re-Admissions

Committee/Academic Probation and Disqualification is designed to review and make

recommendations on student petitions for re-admission to the university and department. In

addition, the committee reviews student files in cases of academic probation and/or

disqualification. Committee membership for 2012-2013: Suzanne Kotkin-Jaszi (Chair), Kara

Zografos, Jaymin Kwong, and Helda Pinzon-Perez.

Committee on the Protection of Human Subjects. The Department of Public Health has

established a Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects designed to monitor compliance

within the department. Committee composition for Academic year 20121-2013 is: Gregory

Thatcher (Chair), Vickie D. Krenz, Suzanne Kotkin-Jazsi, Eric W. Krenz.

1.5.b. Identification of how the following functions are addressed within the program's

committees and organizational structure:

General program policy development

planning and evaluation

budget and resource allocation

student recruitment, admission and award of degrees

faculty recruitment, retention, promotion and tenure

academic standards and policies, including curriculum development

research and service expectations and policies

General program policy development. As noted in Criterion 1.4, the department chair

is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the department. The department chair receives six

units release time (equivalent to two classes) each semester and is the only faculty member who

has a 12-month appointment and is part-time during the summer months. MPH governance is

the responsibility of the program director who consults with faculty and administrators as

necessary. Policy setting is a shared responsibility between all tenured and tenure-track

faculty in the department. Policy recommendations may be made by any faculty member and

must be approved by a majority of all faculty members.

Planning and evaluation. The University has developed criteria for faculty who are

considered members of the graduate consultative body. Appointment to graduate group

membership is based upon the faculty member's scholarly/professional interests in and

contributions to the discipline or field; their request for such appointment; their eligibility as

determined by written departmental or program criteria; and in accordance with university


standards. Only members of the faculty graduate group are allowed to chair a thesis, project, or

examination committee. In order for a member to chair a thesis, project, or examination

committee, he/she must have previously served as a second or third member of such a

committee.

Criteria for appointment for a graduate faculty in the MPH is as follows:

• The faculty member shall be full-time tenured or tenure-track;

• The faculty member shall be willing to serve and assume the responsibilities of the

graduate faculty group, including serving on and/or chairing theses, projects, and/or

examination committees;

• The faculty member must have taught at least one graduate-level course or supervised

at least one project or thesis during the most recent five years;

• The faculty member participating in a graduate group shall show evidence of ongoing

scholarly activity appropriate to the graduate program including:

Research based publications appearing in refereed academic journals, books, or

chapters in edited books;

External grants in the last five years;

Presentation of scholarly work at professional academic organizations or

membership in editorial boards

• The faculty member participating in a graduate group shall have been recommended

by the program director and approved by the department chair and college dean.

As indicated in the introduction to this document, the MPH program is a division of the

Department of Public Health. The department’s committee and governance structure is discussed

in section 1.5.a.1. However, as appropriate and needed, academic standards and policies specific

to the MPH program are determined at regularly scheduled departmental and program faculty

meetings. This does not include university and college standards and policies which are

determined at other levels.

Budget and resource allocation. The MPH program director oversees the day-to-day

operations of the MPH program. Program issues are handled by the entire graduate faculty

during regularly scheduled faculty meetings. Budget and resources are allocated by the Dean

and Administration. During the 2010-11 academic year, the MPH program received an

allocation of $5,000 to develop and implement its marketing plan.

Additional resources are made available through the dean's office including enhancement

funds for academic year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Approximately $15,000 have been


allocated to the MPH program. Furthermore, travel support has been made available to support

the MPH director for attendance to the CEPH accreditation workshop and CSU MPH

Coordinators meetings.

Resources have also been made available to individual faculty members. For example,

funding opportunities are made available through university and college sources.

Announcements of enhancement funds are made available to faculty via university and college

listserves.

Student recruitment, admission and award of degrees. Student recruitment is a shared

responsibility of the department faculty. The marketing plan shown in Appendix H displays the

faculty activities to recruit high quality students. The implementation of these plans is primarily

the responsibility of the program director.

The Division of Graduate Studies maintains a full-time recruitment specialist for all

graduate programs. This individual is dedicated to the recruitment and retention of students for

all graduate programs, including certificates of advanced study, master's degree and doctoral

programs, coordination of related recruitment, special events, and marketing events. The

Division of Graduate Studies also recruits via its website at

http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/gradstudies/forms/information.html. Information

gathered via this method is shared with programs on a weekly basis.

Admissions procedures are described in the Policies and Procedures Manual of the

Master of Public Health Program. The admission procedures require “Each application to the

Master of Public Health program is reviewed by the faculty members in the option selected by

the applicant although all faculty in the department may provide input in this process. Each

faculty member makes a recommendation for admission, and where appropriate, suggests

conditions for admissions. The director makes final decision based on a majority

recommendation from the faculty.”

Awarding of degrees is a process initiated in the program. The university forms require

the signature of the program director who certifies that students have made progress toward the

successful completion of their degrees. Once approved by the program director and the

Department Chair, the Application for Graduation is forwarded to the Division of Graduate

Studies which verifies students have completed degree requirements and are in compliance with

http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/gradstudies/forms/information.html


all applicable university policies. At the end of this process the Division of Graduate Studies

forwards the application to the Provost for final degree certification.

Faculty recruitment, retention, promotion and tenure. The MPH adheres to all

University policies and procedures. Faculty recruitment procedures are delineated in sections

301 and 302 of the Academic Policy Manual

(http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/aps/forms_policies/apm/300.html). A search committee

is established at the department level for each faculty search. At the end of its charge, the

committee is disbanded. Review of faculty finalists typically involves faculty participation who

interact and meet with each of the top three candidates. The interviews include a formal faculty

presentation and discussion, informal lunch meeting, a teaching demonstration, and an interview

with the dean.

Faculty retention procedures are delineated in sections 321 to 330 of the Academic Policy

Manual. The University’s retention and tenure, and promotion policies involve formal

opportunities for input and peer review from the department personnel committee which is

comprised of all tenured faculty members in the department. The first level of retention, tenure,

and promotion recommendations are made the personnel committee, this is followed by a review

of the college personnel committee, a review by the dean, a review by two university

committees, and a final decision by the Provost. Tenured faculty are reviewed by similar

committees on a periodic basis. It should be noted that the department has a representative to the

college personnel committee.

California State University, Fresno utilizes a probationary plan (see sample in Appendix

I) to assist probationary faculty move through the promotion and tenure process. This is a highly

structured process which spells out the responsibilities for the faculty member in order to be

promoted and tenured. College records show that most faculty hired since this system was

implemented have been granted promotion and tenure.

Alongside the probationary plan the university utilizes a system of mentors to assist

probationary faculty move through the promotion and tenure process. Faculty mentors are senior

faculty members who assist probationary faculty in a formal and informal basis.

Academic standards and policies, including curriculum development. The

MPH adheres to all University policies and procedures. Graduate curriculum development

procedures are delineated in sections 222 and 226 of the Academic Policy Manual

http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/aps/forms_policies/apm/300.html


(http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/aps/forms_policies/apm/200.html). The MPH maintains

a designated group of full-time faculty members to serve as the consultative body ("graduate

faculty group"). This faculty group makes recommendations to the department and MPH

program on program curriculum needs and development.

Research and service expectations and policies. The MPH does not have a separate

committee structure to address research and service expectations policies. Faculty workload is

set by the collective bargaining agreement between faculty and administration. However,

research and service are considered to be a part of faculty responsibilities. The Academic Policy

Manual (http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/aps/documents/apm/336.pdf) outlines faculty

responsibilities in research and service.

Probationary faculty are provided specific minimum criteria for the areas of teaching,

research, and service in order to be promoted and tenured. The Academic Policy Manual

(http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/aps/documents/apm/328.pdf) does require that all tenured

faculty be periodically evaluated at least every five years. The five-year post tenure review

assesses research and service expectations through professional development and university and

community service. However, this policy has not been fully implemented in the Department of

Public Health.

1.5.c. A copy of the bylaws or other policy document that determines the rights and

obligations of administrators, faculty and students in governance of the program, if

applicable.

The Academic Policy Manual is the University’s principal policy document

(http://www.csufresno.edu/aps/forms_policies/apm/index.shtml). A printed copy will be

available during the site visit.

1.5.d. Identification of program faculty who hold membership on university committees,

through which faculty contribute to the activities of the university.

Table 1.5.1 displays the program faculty who hold membership on university committees,

through which faculty contribute to the activities of the university.

http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/aps/forms_policies/apm/200.html

http://www.csufresno.edu/aps/forms_policies/apm/index.shtml


ß

1.5.e. A description of student roles in governance, including any formal student

organizations.

Student Organizations. The MPH program does not have any student organizations.

Graduate students who desire involvement at this level are encouraged to participate in the

Student Public Health Association (SPHA) which is responsible for organizing and

implementing the annual banquet that serves as the graduation activity for the Department of

Public Health. Graduate student involvement is difficult to ascertain on a commuter campus

where students generally attend classes once a week. A feasibility study for an alumni group

conducted by a graduate student during the Fall 2006 semester showed that while interest was

high for such a group it would not be possible due to the lack of interested leaders for such a

group. This finding is reinforced by previous efforts to include graduate students in leadership

positions in the SPHA which have not been fructiferous. Students have not been enthusiastic

about starting a graduate organization due to their professional work requirements.

Program Functioning. Master of Public Health students play a key role in the

evaluation of program functioning and do so at different levels.

Table 1.5.1. Faculty Participation in University Activities

University Committee Faculty

Undergraduate Academic Program Review

Committee for Faculty Equity & Diversity Suzanne Kotkin-Jaszi (Chair)

Academic Senate Suzanne Kotkin-Jaszi

University Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects Kara Zografos

Chairs Council Miguel A. Perez

Alcohol Advisory Council Vickie Krenz

Gregory Thatcher

Kara Zografos

Committee on Controlled Substances in Teaching and

Research

Miguel A. Perez

Athletics Advisory Council Vickie Krenz

Arboretum Sub-committee Kara Zografos

Education Sub-committee Kara Zografos

Wellness Advisory Council Vickie Krenz

Undergraduate Program Review Miguel Perez

Library Copyright Committee Greg Thatcher

Graduate Research Advisory Board John Capitman


1. As a group, MPH program students evaluate each of the faculty members teaching in the

program. This information is reviewed by the department chair with individual faculty

members who are encouraged to use it to improve their classrooms. Personnel policies,

however, prevent the information from being shared in a public manner.

2. MPH program students are members of the advisory board and play a key role in its

functioning. The MPH program advisory board by-laws (see Appendix F) require that

students be represented on the board.

3. MPH program students are represented and have direct access to the program director.



The faculty feel that this criterion is fully met and will continue to be met in the future.

Faculty governance is an important value among the MPH program faculty. This is

demonstrated by faculty involvement at all levels of the university and program. Faculty

participate in policy making through their participation in department, college, and university

committees. Furthermore, the MPH faculty require a strong commitment to program from all

individuals involved.

The university search policies have enabled the MPH program to attract highly qualified

applicants. The institution has established and demonstrated a strong commitment to diversity

and equal opportunity in all aspects of the search process. Recruitment activities must

demonstrate efforts to attract highly qualified under-represented applicants. In addition, the

Provost’s “cohort hiring” plan has yielded the department a position in the environmental health

area.

Retention and promotion policies have been highly effective in maintaining a highly

qualified faculty. The probationary plan clearly delineates the progress required for tenure-track

faculty. The tenure track process affords junior faculty with the resources to achieve tenure and

promotion which continues stability for our program. The strength of this approach is

demonstrated by the long-term commitment of faculty in the MPH program, ranging from six to

over 30 years of service.

As noted previously, budgetary resources continue to be a problem for the MPH program

to attract a broader cohort of highly qualified applicants. Consistent with MPH programs in the

CSU, the program relies on resources allocated through the department operating budget.


However, it should be noted that the department is very supportive the MPH program and has

made adequate resources available to meet our programmatic needs. In addition, the Dean has

been very generous with resources, including funds for student recruitment, writing assistance,

and graduate student assistants.

Over the past three years, student recruitment has been a concern for the MPH program.

The probationary status of the program has reduced the number of quality applicants to the

program. At the present time, active recruitment efforts have slowed to allow for faculty to

address the pressing concerns raised by CEPH to strengthen the program. As noted in our

previous interim reports, the MPH program has continued to significant changes have been

implemented to ensure that the deficits are corrected.


Criterion 1.6

Fiscal Resources

The program shall have financial resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission

and goals, and its instructional, research and service objectives.

1.6.a. A description of the budgetary and allocation processes, including all sources of

funding supportive of the instruction, research and service activities. The description

should include as appropriate, discussion about the legislative appropriations, formula for

funds distribution, tuition generation and retention, gifts, grants and contracts, indirect

cost recovery taxes or levies imposed by the university or other entity within the university,

and other policies that impact the fiscal resources available to the program.

The MPH program’s budget is incorporated in the budget for the Department of Public Health.

See section 1.6.1. below.

1.6.b. A clearly formulated program budget statement showing sources of all available

funds and expenditures by categories, since the last accreditation visit or for the last five

years, whichever is longer. If the program does not have a separate budget, it must present

an estimate of available funds and expenditures by major category and explain the basis of

the estimate. This information must be presented in a table format as appropriate to the

program. (See CEPH Data Template 1.6.1.)

The funding mechanisms for the MPH program are the ones determined for all academic

units by the California State University. The 23 campuses in the CSU system do not provide

separate budgets for graduate programs. Current accounting procedures do not allow for the

separation of undergraduate and graduate funding. Operating budgets are based on formulas

consisting of FTEs and FTEF. Equipment allocations are based on the Dean’s review of

proposals from departments every year. Tuition and fees are considered part of the university

budget that is distributed among its divisions. There is no separate allocation of tuition or fees to

our college, department, or program. Within the MPH program, the MPH director

receives three units of release time per semester and one graduate student for 20 hours per week

to run the program.


Table 1.6.1. Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major Category, 2008 to 20131

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Source of Funds

Tuition & Fees -- -- -- -- --

State Appropriation $1,692,770 $1,360,934 $1,517,201 $1,436,467 $1,435,291

University Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Grants/Contracts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Indirect Cost Recovery $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Endowment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Gifts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other (explain) -- -- -- -- --



Total $1,692,770 $1,360,934 $1,517,201 $1,436,467 $1,435,291

Expenditures

Faculty Salaries & Benefits $669,427 $582,157 $714,741 $1,393,096

Staff Salaries & Benefits $14,848 $14,848 $14,848 $13,584

Operations $9,965 $6,281 $11,482 $43,371

Travel $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Student Support $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000

University Tax $0 $0 $0 $0

Other (explain) -- -- -- --

Total $701,240 $610,286 $748,071 $1,457,051


1.6.c. If the program is a collaborative one sponsored by two or more universities, the budget

statement must make clear the financial contributions of each sponsoring university to the overall

program budget. This should be accomplished by a description of how tuition and other income is

shared, including indirect cost returns for research generated by public health program faculty

who may have their primary appointment elsewhere.


1.6.d. Identification of measurable objectives by which the program assesses the adequacy of its

fiscal resources, along with data regarding the program's performance against those measures for

each of the last three years.

The MPH faculty have agreed on the following broad outcome measures that indicate the adequacy

of the program’s resources.

1. The program has sufficient faculty resources to meet its instructional objectives.

2. The program has sufficient institutional resources (specifically, library, computer facilities,

space, technology-enhanced classrooms) to adequately support its instructional objectives.

3. The program has adequate resources to provide assigned time for program leadership.

4. The program has sufficient extramural and in-kind support to provide meaningful, community-

based learning.

Table 1.6.2 displays the measurable objectives for the last three years.


Table 1.6.2. Outcome Measures for the Last Three Years

Outcome Measure Target Year 1

AY 2009-10

Year 2

AY 2010-11

Year 3

AY 2011-12

Sufficient faculty

resources to meet its

instructional

objectives

Ample faculty

resources to meet

its instructional

objectives

All MPH courses

offered as planned

by qualified

instructors

All MPH courses

offered as planned

by qualified

instructors

All MPH courses

offered as planned

by qualified

instructors

Sufficient

institutional

resources (library,

computer facilities,

space) to support its

instructional

objectives

Ample institutional

resources (library,

computer facilities,

space) to support

its instructional

objectives

Excellent library

resources

Adequate

computer facilities

Adequate office

space

Adequate number

of classrooms, few

SMART rooms

Inadequate space

for graduate

student research.

Excellent library

resources

Adequate

computer facilities

Adequate office

space

Adequate number

of SMART

classrooms

Inadequate space

for graduate

student research.

Excellent library

resources

Adequate

computer facilities

Adequate office

space

Adequate number

of SMART

classrooms.

Inadequate space

for graduate

student research.

Sufficient resources

to provide assigned

time for program

leadership

Ample resources to

provide assigned

time

1 class per

semester assigned

time for MPH

Director

1 class per

semester assigned

time for MPH

Director

1 class per

semester assigned

time for MPH

Director

Sufficient

extramural and in-

kind support to

provide meaningful,

community-based

learning

Ample extramural

and in-kind

support to provide

meaningful,

community-based

learning

Abundant

fieldwork sites.

Research

opportunities with

faculty members.

Research

opportunities with

central valley

health policy

institute.

Abundant

fieldwork sites.

Research

opportunities with

faculty members.

Research

opportunities with

central valley

health policy

institute.

Abundant

fieldwork sites.

Research

opportunities with

faculty members.

Research

opportunities with

central valley

health policy

institute.

NOTE: Use this table for the following documentation requests: 1.2.c, 1.6.d, 1.7.j, 2.7.b (for measures other than

graduation and employment), 3.1.d, 3.2.d, 4.1.d and 4.3.f.


Resources in the past three years have been adequate to meet the needs of the program,

including faculty salaries, professional development funds, program enhancement funds,

fellowships through the CVHPI and the college.

1.6.e. Assessment of the extent to which this criterion is met and an analysis of the


The faculty feel this criterion is fully met. A strength of the program is that it receives

sufficient resources to deliver a high quality curriculum. Funds are available to faculty from the

Provost’s and Dean’ offices to enhance faculty needs. In addition, the Dean’s office has been

highly supportive of the MPH program and has provided additional funds to enhance specific

program needs.

A weakness of the MPH program is the lack of a separate operating budget dedicated to

the program. Department resources are allocated as a part of the Department of Public Health

operating budget. As a result, the MPH program does not have a separate operating budget

dedicated solely to the program.


Criterion 1.7

Faculty and Other Resources

The program shall have personnel and other resources adequate to fulfill its

stated mission and goals, and its instructional, research and service objectives.

1.7.a. A concise statement or chart defining the number (headcount) of primary faculty

employed by the program for each of the last three years, organized by concentration. (See

CEPH Data Template 1.7.1.)

Table 1.7.1 Headcount of Primary Faculty

2010 2011 2012

Health Promotion 3 3 2

Health Policy and

Administration

2 2 1

Environmental Health

and Occupational Safety

1 0 0

The Department of Public Health has assigned three full-time faculty to the MPH program on a

half-time basis, including Dr. Helda Pinzon-Perez, Dr. Mohammad Rahman, and Dr. Kara

Zografos. In addition, the MPH Program Director is dedicated full-time to the program. It

should be noted that the MPH program is a half-time program to accommodate the needs of

working professionals. Therefore, each of the full-time faculty are assigned 50% of their WTUs

to the MPH program (equivalent to 100% of program time).

1.7.b. A table delineating the number of faculty, students and SFRs, organized by

concentration, for each of the last three years (calendar years or academic years) prior to

the site visit. Data must be presented in a table format (see CEPH Data Template 1.7.2)

and include at least the following information: a) headcount of primary faculty, b) FTE

conversion of faculty based on % time devoted to public health instruction, research and

service, c) headcount of other faculty involved in the program (adjunct, part-time,

secondary appointments, etc.), d) FTE conversion of other faculty based on estimate of %

time commitment, e) total headcount of primary faculty plus other (non-primary) faculty,

f) total FTE of primary and other (non-primary) faculty, g) headcount of students by


department or program area, h) FTE conversion of students, based on definition of full-

time as nine or more credits per semester, i) student FTE divided by regular faculty FTE

and j) student FTE divided by total faculty FTE, including other faculty. all programs

must provide data for a), b) and i) and may provide data for c), d) and j) depending on

whether the program intends to include the contributions of other faculty in its FTE

calculations.


Table 1.7.2 Faculty, Students and Student/Faculty Ratios by Department or Specialty Area

HC

Primary

Faculty

FTE

Primary

Faculty

HC Other

Faculty

FTE Other

Faculty

HC Total

Faculty

FTE Total

Faculty

HC

Students

FTE

Students

SFR by

Primary

Faculty

FTE

SFR by

Total

Faculty

FTE

Health

Promotion

2012-13

3 2 5 32

Health

Promotion

2011-12

1 7 8 18

Health

Promotion

2010-11

1 6 7 13

* Table must include footnote explaining the school/program’s method for calculating faculty FTE. CEPH does not specify the manner in which this should be

done for faculty FTE. For students, 1 FTE = 1 student taking 9 or more semester-credits per semester.

Refer to Criterion 1.7.b. for further explanation of template categories.

Key:

HC = Head Count

Primary = Full-time faculty who support the teaching programs—see CEPH Technical Assistance Paper on Required Faculty Resources for definition

FTE = Full-time-equivalent

Other = Adjunct, part-time and secondary faculty

Total = Primary + Other

SFR = Student/Faculty Ratio

http://www.ceph.org/pdf/FTE_TA.pdf


1.7.c. A concise statement or chart concerning the headcount and FTE of non-faculty, non-

student personnel (administration and staff) who support the program.

1. The Department of Public Health staff includes a full-time assistant to chair/office

manager/administrative support coordinator (Ms. Carmen Chapman),

2. The Department of Public Health staff includes a full-time administrative support assistant for

faculty and students (Ms. Jeannie McIntosh).

3. The Department of Public Health staff includes a half-time Fieldwork/Internship coordinator (Ms.

Manal Samaha, MPH). This person works closely with the Graduate Program Director to articulate

individual student fieldwork learning objectives.

4. The Department of Public Health staff includes two (20 hr/wk) student assistants.

5. The Master of Public Health program has one (20 hr/wk) graduate assistant to the director for self-

study development (Ms. Diana Valvidinos).

6. The department also received one part-time student to assist faculty in grading papers (Ms. Alida

Espinoza).

1.7.d. A description of the space available to the program for various purposes (offices,

classrooms, common space for student use, etc.) by location.

The departmental offices comprise a 483 sq. ft. area in McLane Hall. An estimated total of 853

sq. ft. of offices house six faculty in an adjacent “J” wing of McLane Hall. Similarly space is allocated

to the program in McLane Hall 292 (229 sq. ft).

The Department of Public Health has several classrooms and one lab assigned to it for either

exclusive or allocated time use. MCL 277 is assigned to the department in assigned time blocks. The

department also uses the college’s 30 station computer laboratory and other university classrooms in

surrounding building’s on an “as needed” basis. Graduate research and meeting space has been made

available in McLane Hall J-Wing, Room 15 upon request.

1.7.e. A concise statement of the laboratory space and description of the kind, quantity and

special features or special equipment.

Our program no longer offers (since 2003) the Environmental Health option. We do not utilize

laboratory space in any of our current courses. All our courses are held in regular classrooms. We do

have some laboratory space and equipment that is utilized in our undergraduate Environmental Health

option.


1.7.f. A concise statement concerning the amount, location and types of computer facilities and

resources for students, faculty, administration and staff.

Faculty in the Department of Public Health and in the MPH program participate in the

university’s computer program which call for the updating of laptops every three years under an

agreement with Dell Corporation. As a result, all faculty and some of the staff listed in section 1.6.f are

equipped with IBM or MAC computers, printers, scanners, digital cameras, Microsoft software, Adobe

and Photoshop software, and specialized software as required by faculty. The department has a color

laser printer and a color copier accessible to faculty.

The College of Health and Human Services computer lab (MH 163) opened in the Fall 2006

semester and has 30 PC stations with a server is available to the department. The college-level computer

technician provides technical assistance to administration, faculty, and students as needed. The

department website is housed in a server maintained by the college.

The MPH office has a computer station dedicated to the student assistant, updated during the Fall

2011 semester and photocopier. Limited economic resources prevent the program from having a

dedicated fax line.

1.7.g. A concise description of library/information resources available for program use, including

a description of library capacity to provide digital (electronic) content, access mechanisms,

training opportunities and document-delivery services.

The Henry Madden Library at California State University, Fresno

(http://www.fresnostate.edu/library/) is the largest academic library in the San Joaquin Valley. The

Madden Library provides access to specialized databases, covering periodicals, newspapers, and full-

text sources on subjects ranging from agriculture to zoology. All of the databases are available to

Library users on the computers located throughout the building and via the Internet. Students and faculty

with Internet access and campus computer accounts can search many of these databases from their home

or office computers. Mellennium, the Madden Library's online system, which lists the Library's books,

media, and periodical holdings, is available to everyone at http://www.fresnostate.edu/library/ and

provides links to other library catalogues in the region, state, and beyond. The library provides access to

22 electronic databases such as Pubmed, Cinahl, and Psych Articles that contain abstracts and indexes of

journal articles and other publications, or other data such as statistics, in medicine, and related areas.

Four of them include full text of the journal articles that are indexed, either selectively or

http://www.csufresno.edu/library/alis.html


comprehensively. Since the last CEPH site visit, the libarary received a $10 million donation for a

library extension to expand the library itself and technological resources.

The library provides access to nine publishers’ packages of journals that specialize in medicine

or related subjects (e.g., Wiley InterScience and Elsevier ScienceDirect)

(http://www.fresnostate.edu/library/research/). These packages of journals and full-text databases offer

electronic access to current issues and back files of 410 journals in Public Health, 1555 in Medicine

(including Surgery, Dentistry, and Pharmacy), 392 in Anatomy, Physiology, and Nutrition, and 228 in

Nursing.

The library maintains 60 current subscriptions for journals in Medicine and Health. The library

reports 1363 bound volumes (191 titles) of journals in Public Health, 5955 volumes (59 titles) in the area

of Medical Science and Health, and 981 volumes (201) titles in Nursing. Additional volumes are

available in microfilm. The library holds 5587 book volumes (4938 titles) in Public Health, 23,250

volumes (20,918) in Medical Science and 3413 volumes (1506) in Nursing.

The Reference Desk provides help when the library is open by telephone or email. Document

delivery is provided quickly by the Link+ or InterLibrary Loan Online-ILLiad system

(http://libguides.csufresno.edu/other_libraries); users can easily click through from a citation in an index

to the Interlibrary Borrowing request form. Any librarian at the Reference Desk can provide help with

all resources. The Collection Development librarian, Jane Magee, is a specialist in health sciences

(http://libguides.csufresno.edu/JaneMagee) and regularly arranges individual sessions with students or

faculty members. Students and faculty members are welcome to use the library of the University of

California, San Francisco, Fresno branch. All the electronic resources of the University of California

system are available there, but must be accessed in person.

The Technology Innovations for Learning and Teaching (TILT) is located in the library and

provides faculty with technical assistance, training, and support for academic uses. This program

maintains technical support services and staff to assist faculty in implementing technology resources for

course delivery.

1.7.h. A concise statement of any other resources not mentioned above, if available.

No applicable to the MPH program.

1.7.i. Identification of measurable objectives through which the program assesses the adequacy

of its resources, along with data regarding the program's performance against those measures for

each of the last three years.


The MPH faculty have agreed on the following broad outcome measures that indicate the adequacy

of the program’s resources.

1. The program has sufficient faculty resources to meet its instructional objectives.

2. The program has sufficient institutional resources (specifically, library, computer facilities,

space, technology-enhanced classrooms) to adequately support its instructional objectives.

3. The program does not have adequate resources to provide assigned time for program leadership.

4. The program does not have sufficient extramural and in-kind support to provide meaningful,

community-based learning.


Table 1.7.3. Performance of MPH Program against Resource Outcome Measures, AY 2009-10 – AY

2011-12

Outcome AY 2009-10 AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12

Sufficient faculty

resources to meet its

instructional objectives

All MPH courses offered

as planned by qualified

instructors



instructors



instructors

Sufficient institutional

resources (library,

computer facilities, space)

to support its instructional

objectives

Excellent library resources

Adequate computer

facilities

Adequate office space

Adequate number of

classrooms, few SMART

rooms

Inadequate space for

graduate student research.


Adequate computer

facilities


Adequate number of

SMART classrooms




Adequate computer

facilities


Adequate number of

SMART classrooms.



Sufficient resources to

provide assigned time for

program leadership

1 class per semester

assigned time for MPH

Director



Director



Director

Sufficient extramural and

in-kind support to provide

meaningful, community-

based learning

Abundant fieldwork sites.

Research opportunities

with faculty members.


with central valley health

policy institute.






policy institute.






policy institute.


Resources in the past three years have been adequate to meet the needs of the program,

including faculty salaries, professional development funds, program enhancement funds,

fellowships through the CVHPI and the college.

1.7.j. Assessment to the extent to which this criterion is met and an analysis of the


The faculty feel this criterion is fully met. A strength of the program is the dedication of

three primary faculty dedicated to the MPH program. As a part-time program, these three

faculty have a minimum of 50% of their time dedicated to the program. This re-allocation of

faculty resources has strengthened faculty commitment and increased stability to the program.

A graduate assistant has been dedicated for 20 hours to the MPH program to assist the program

director. In addition, the Department of Public Health has dedicated an estimated 20% time of

the office staff to the MPH Program.

Adequate resources have been allocated to the program. The MPH program has been

dedicated sufficient office space for faculty and classrooms to deliver the program. In addition,

computer lab space has made available through College of Health and Human Services.

Graduate students have a dedicated space for meetings and group work through the Department

of Public Health.

A weakness of the program is the time allocation for the MPH program director. This

position is allocated 25% time (approximately 10 hours per week) for 10 months. As a result,

there has been high turnover in individuals who administer the program. Furthermore, the MPH

program director is not available to students over the summer.

The MPH program continues to re-evaluate the use of program faculty and resources.

Focus has been on the efficient program administration and the achievement of outcome

measures. The MPH program director and primary faculty continue to be committed to ensuring

a quality curriculum and believe that adequate resources are available to achieve their goals.


Criterion 1.8

Diversity

The program shall demonstrate a commitment to diversity and shall evidence

an ongoing practice of cultural competence in learning, research and service

practices.

1.8.a. A written plan and/or policies demonstrating systematic incorporation of diversity

within the program. Required elements include the following:

i. Description of the program's under-represented populations, including a rationale

for the designation.

ii. A list of goals for achieving diversity and cultural competence within the program,

and a description of how diversity-related goals are consistent with the university's

mission, strategic plan and other initiatives on diversity, as applicable.

iii. Policies that support a climate free of harassment and discrimination and that value

the contributions of all forms of diversity; the program should also document its

commitment to maintaining/using these policies.

iv. Policies that support a climate for working and learning in a diverse setting.

v. Policies and plans to develop, review and maintain curricula and other

opportunities including service learning that address and build competency in

diversity and cultural considerations.

vi. Policies and plans to recruit, develop, promote and retain a diverse faculty.

vii. Policies and plans to recruit, develop, promote and retain a diverse staff.

viii. Policies and plans to recruit, admit, retain and graduate a diverse student body.

ix. Regular evaluation of the effectiveness of the above-listed measures.

Description of the program's under-represented populations, including a rationale

for the designation.

The MPH program is committed to diversity and the cultural competence in

learning, research and service practices. Table 1.8.1 displays the racial/ethnic distribution

of residents in our five county service area. A review of the program’s under-represented

populations indicates that the students are predominately female and minority.


Table 1.8.1. Racial/Ethnic Distribution of MPH Program’s Service Area

Hispanic

African

American/

Black

Asian American

Indian

White

California 38.1% 6.6% 13.6% 1.7% 39.7%

Fresno County 50.9% 5.9% 10.3% 3.0% 32.4%

Tulare County 61.3% 2.2% 3.9% 2.8% 32.0%

Kings County 51.4% 7.9% 4.2% 2.9% 35.0%

Madera County 54.5% 4.4% 2.2% 4.5% 37.5%

Merced County 55.7% 4.3% 7.9% 2.4% 31.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, American

Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business

Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits, Consolidated

Federal Funds Report . Last Revised: Thursday, 16-Aug-2012 10:28:55 EDT

California State University, Fresno has been designated as a “Hispanic-Serving

Institution.” While the program may exceeds the university’s diversity goals, there

remains a significant gap in our service area for qualified MPH students to meet the

needs of a predominately Hispanic/Latino population.

A list of goals for achieving diversity and cultural competence within the program,

and a description of how diversity-related goals are consistent with the university's

mission, strategic plan and other initiatives on diversity, as applicable.

The goals for achieving diversity and cultural competence within the program

include:

Increase the cultural competence of MPH program students to meet the needs

of a diverse service population.

Increase the number of MPH program students from under-represented

populations.

Increase the number of MPH program faculty from under-represented

populations.

Increase the number of MPH program staff from under-represented

populations.

Increase the number of MPH program military veterans.


California State University, Fresno’s Affirmative Action Plan (AAP)

(http://www.fresnostate.edu/hr/eeo-diversity/affirmative/aap.shtml) clearly identifies the

need to increase diversity within under-represented groups. The plan identifies females,

minorities, disabled, and military as priority areas. The MPH program’s diversity plan is

consistent with the university’s AAP.

Policies that support a climate free of harassment and discrimination and that value

the contributions of all forms of diversity; the program should also document its

commitment to maintaining/using these policies.

Fresno State strives to provide a climate free of harassment and discrimination for

all faculty, staff, and students. The university has implemented a policy (“Policies and

Procedures for Addressing Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation,” G-25.1) that

clearly denotes the guidelines and procedures that address harassment and discrimination

for faculty, staff, and students. A copy of the university’s policy is available in Appendix

I.

Policies that support a climate for working and learning in a diverse setting.

Fresno State has maintained a strong commitment to ensuring a support climate

for working and learning in a diverse setting. This value is further supported at the

college, department, and MPH program level. This is reflected on the university website

which provides links for university policies, complaint process, resources, and training

(http://www.fresnostate.edu/hr/eeo-diversity/index.shtml). Furthermore, the university is

committed to ensuring a supportive learning environment for low income and first

generation students.

Policies and plans to develop, review and maintain curricula and other

opportunities including service learning that address and build competency in

diversity and cultural considerations.

Policies and plans to recruit, develop, promote and retain a diverse faculty.

California State University, Fresno maintains a strong commitment to the

recruitment, development, promotion, and retention of a diverse faculty. As noted on the

university’s “Equal Employment Opportunities and Diversity” website

(http://www.fresnostate.edu/hr/eeo-diversity/index.shtml), the institution is committed to

ensuring a diverse campus environment that promotes academic excellence at all levels.

http://www.fresnostate.edu/hr/eeo-diversity/affirmative/aap.shtml

http://www.fresnostate.edu/hr/eeo-diversity/index.shtml


Executive Order No. 883 (CSU Chancellor, available in Appendix J) has mandated that

the campus president has the responsibility of implementing all state and federal

nondiscrimination and affirmative action laws and regulations. Our University President

continues to re-affirm his commitment to ensuring a diverse campus community

(http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/diversity/). This is further reinforced by our

Provost’s diversity initiatives (http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/diversity/value-

diversity.html) that strongly reflect the university, college, department, and MPH

program’s values of diversity.

Policies for faculty recruitment are given careful consideration for diversity

among the potential pool of applicants. California State University, Fresno maintains

aggressive practices to ensure that all state and federal guidelines and laws are observed

in faculty searches. Search committees are required to have an Equality Employment

(EEO) designee to provide ongoing review of the search process. It should be noted that

two faculty (Drs. Perez and Krenz) from the Department of Public Health serve as EEO’s

on university search committees. A copy of the university’s policies and procedures for

the appointment of tenure track faculty is available in Appendix K.

Policies and plans to recruit, develop, promote and retain a diverse staff.

Consistent with faculty searches, California State University, Fresno maintains a

strong commitment to the recruitment, development, promotion, and retention of a

diverse staff. The Human Resources Department maintains strong policies and

procedures to ensure that the university attracts and maintains a qualified and diverse

workforce

(http://www.fresnostate.edu/hr/employment/recruitment/index.shtml).

Policies and plans to recruit, admit, retain and graduate a diverse student body.

Fresno State is committed to the recruitment, admission, retention, and graduation

of a diverse student body. As noted on the California State University (CSU) website

(http://www.calstate.edu/hr/studentequity/), Executive Order No. 1045 states “no student

or applicant for admission as a student shall, on the basis of disability, gender,

nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or age, be unlawfully excluded

from participation in or be denied the benefits of any CSU Program or activity.

http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/diversity/

http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/diversity/value-diversity.html

http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/diversity/value-diversity.html

http://www.fresnostate.edu/hr/employment/recruitment/index.shtml


Furthermore, The California Equity in Higher Education Act (CA Education Code

66250) prohibits the unlawful discrimination and harassment of students and applicants

for admission. In addition, Fresno State, the Public Health Department and MPH

program maintain compliance with all federal laws applying to diversity including:

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

Section 504 of the Rehabilition Act of 1973

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Regular evaluation of the effectiveness of the above-listed measures.

California State University, Fresno provides regular evaluation of all policies pertaining

to diversity. The Human Resources Department is the administrative body responsible for

ensuring the effectiveness of the university’s diversity policies. This department maintains

university-wide faculty, staff, and student data to monitor compliance with the university’s

diversity plan. Furthermore, the Human Resources Department is responsible for the

identification of areas where improvement is needed. California State University, Fresno has

maintained a highly proactive position through its policies and procedures to ensure a diverse

academic environment. The College of Health and Human Services, Department of Public

Health, and the MPH program continues to be vigilant in creating a environment that embraces

diversity.

1.8.b. Evidence that shows that the plan or policies are being implemented. Examples may

include mission/goals/objectives that reference diversity or cultural competence, syllabi,

and other course materials, lists of student experiences demonstrating diverse settings,

records, and statistics on faculty, staff and student recruitment, admission and retention.

Mission/goals/objectives. As detailed in Criterion 1.1.b, the MPH program is guided by

the values of the public health profession. Diversity is highly valued and integrated into the

program’ goals and objectives. These values are acknowledged on the MPH program website

(http://www.fresnostate.edu/chhs/public-health/degrees-programs/mph/values.html), MPH

program brochure, and Student Orientation Handbook.

http://www.fresnostate.edu/chhs/public-health/degrees-programs/mph/values.html


Syllabi. MPH program syllabi include course instructional goals and objectives. As

noted in Criterion 1.1.b, the program’s mission, goals, and objectives reflect the values of

diversity operationalized through our curriculum. Course syllabus contain statements of the

MPH program mission, goals, and objectives.

Student experiences in diverse settings. The MPH program strives to provide diverse

experiences for students. Field placements represent the diversity of the central valley

communities. Student placements are arranged with organizations that reflect this regional

diversity. In addition, the MPH program has developed a service-learning course that requires

students to be engaged with organizations that represent diverse underserved populations.

Faculty. The Department of Public Health has continued to recruit and retain a diverse

faculty. Detailed data on faculty diversity is presented in Criterion 4.

Staff. The Department of Public Health and MPH program continues to maintain a

strong commitment to diversity. The staff consists of two females, including one Hispanic and

one African American. Two students assistants are employed to assist faculty and students (one

male and one female, both are Hispanic). In addition, the MPH program is allocated one

graduate assistant (Hispanic female, who is an Iraqi military veteran).

Students. The MPH program has demonstrated a strong commitment to diversity

through its student and faculty. As documented by 2011 Institutional Research data, the MPH

program students include 10 (17.5%) were African American, 8 (14.0%) were Asian, 23 (40.3%)

were Hispanic, 9 (15.8%) were White, 6 (10.5%) were Other/Unknown, and 1(.02%) was Non-

Resident Alien. In addition, 11 (19.3%) of the students were male and 46 (80.7%) were female.

A copy of the Fall 2011 Data Book (http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/oie/data/) will be

made available at the site visit. Furthermore, MPH student diversity is detailed in Criterion 4.

1.8.c. A description of how the diversity plan or policies were developed, including an

explanation of the constituent groups involved.

The Human Resources Department developed the university’s diversity plan to ensure

compliance with all federal affirmative action and equal employment opportunity laws

(http://www.fresnostate.edu/hr/eeo-diversity/index.shtml). This department is responsible for the

development, maintenance, and distribution of the university Affirmative Action Plan.

Furthermore, the Human Resources Department is responsible for the identification of areas that

need diversity outreach and the methods to achieve the diversity goals.

http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/oie/data/


1.8.d. A description of how the plan or policies are monitored, how the plan is used by the

program and how often the plan is reviewed.

As noted in 1.8.c, the Human Resources Department monitors the university’s diversity

plan to ensure compliance with federal affirmative action and equal employment opportunity

laws. The MPH program complies with the university’s policies to ensure that the faculty and

students are able to achieve the highest academic standards in a diverse learning environment. In

addition, the MPH program integrates diversity issues throughout the curriculum to foster this

professional value.

The Human Resources Department reviews the university’s diversity plan on an annual

basis. Through the SOAP process, the MPH program undergoes an annual program review to

ensure adherence to university policies.

1.8.e. Identification of measurable objectives by which the program may evaluate its

success in achieving a diverse complement of faculty, staff and students, along with data

regarding the performance of the program against those measures for each of the last three

years. (See CEPH Data Template 1.8.1.) At a minimum, the program must include four

objectives, at least two of which relate to race/ethnicity. For non-US-based institutions of

higher education, matters regarding the feasibility of race/ethnicity reporting will be

handled on a case-by-case basis.

All faculty searches strive adhere to the university EEO plan summarized in section 4.3.e,

have a non-voting EEO representative, and are advertised not only in professional journals, but

also in publications targeting under-represented groups. The ethnic/racial and gender

composition of the faculty is presented in section 4.3.a. The MPH program has established four

outcome measures by which it evaluates its success in achieving a diverse faculty and staff:

1. All new Public Health full-time faculty and staff positions are widely announced,

including outreach to under-represented minorities;

2. All new Public Health full-time faculty and staff selection processes emphasize

diversity as a valued qualification;

3. All new Public Health full-time faculty and staff appointments enhance the

demographic diversity of the faculty-staff complement;

4. The MPH program retains a diverse core faculty complement.


Table 1.8.2. Summary Data for Faculty, Students and/or Staff

Category/Definition Method of

Collection Data Source Target Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Students—Female Self-Report Admissions Data 50% 60% 65% 70%

Faculty—Hispanic/Latino Self-Report Human

Resources

30% 20% 22% 25%

Students—First Generation College Self-Report Admissions Data 50% 50% 60% 65%

Staff—African American/Black Self-Report Departmental

Data

50% 50% 55% 60%




The test of a successful diversity recruitment, retention, and promotion program is to

have faculty be representative of the student population and the region they serve. While the

faculty feel this criterion is fully met, it is committed to continue to strive for a diversified

faculty group.

The MPH program’s strength is the diverse faculty and staff committed to engaging

students from diverse backgrounds. In addition, California State University, Fresno is a federally

designated “Hispanic Serving” institution. Our students represent a significant breath of

diversity that brings a richness to the MPH program. This has been extremely beneficial in the

recruitment of diverse student cohorts.

While the MPH program reflects a diverse study population, there has been a noticeable

decrease in the number of male applicants to the program. Over the past three years, the number

of male students to the program has dropped to one per cohort. This may be the result of

regional employment salary ranges and economic trends for public health professionals at the

MPH level. The current economic crisis in California and the Central Valley region have limited

the employment opportunities available and resulted in lower projected salaries. This has been

consistent with the regional public health workforce, which is largely a female profession at this

time.

The MPH program plans to continue recruitment efforts that focus on generating a

diverse and qualified applicant pool.


1 2011-2012 General Catalog, California State University, Fresno, p. 14.

http://www.csufresno.edu/catoffice/current/pdf/index.shtml. 2 2011-2012 General Catalog, California State University, Fresno, p. 14.

http://www.csufresno.edu/catoffice/current/pdf/index.shtml.

MASTER O F PUBLIC HEA LTH PROGRAM - Fresno State

Documents

Transcript of MASTER O F PUBLIC HEA LTH PROGRAM - Fresno State