University of Saskatchewan School of Public Health Task Force Report
January 13, 2016
Submitted to Dr. E. Barber, Interim Provost & Vice President, Academic,
University of Saskatchewan by:
Lois Berry (Chair)
Sylvia Abonyi
Liz Harrison
Julie Kryzanowski
Dana Ramsay
John Rigby
Suresh Tikoo
Robert Tyler
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During its existence, the University of Saskatchewan School of Public Health (SPH) has
experienced many challenges. Multiple reviews have been completed, addressing leadership
challenges, internal and external relationships, academic program challenges, programming
issues, and concerns with respect to the student experience. Following the most recent review
of March 2015, Dr. Ernie Barber, Provost and Vice President Academic, appointed a task force
of university faculty and leaders, an SPH student and a community-based public health provider
to conduct a consultation process that would lead to the articulation of an action plan to
address issues within the School. The task force members reviewed relevant documents prior
to the consultation period, as these documents formed the basis for the consultation process.
The task force began its consultations in September, 2015, finishing in December, 2015.
Eighteen consultation sessions were conducted, involving sixty-eight participants. These
consultations involved faculty, students and current/former leaders from the School, faculty
and students from the Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, university leaders
from units working closely with the School, health science deans, employers and thought
leaders in public health delivery in the province, and senior university leaders involved the
formation of the School and its operations since its formation. This report summarizes the
findings and recommendations arising from this consultation process.
The consultation process revealed the following:



There continues to be strong commitment to the original vision and mission of the
School. Those consulted within the university community and the provincial public
health sector strongly support the academic, teaching and outreach mission of the
School as it was originally articulated. However, some consultation participants were
cautious in their support of the School, given its past challenges. While support and
enthusiasm were evident, it was conditional on a commitment on the part of the School
and the University to address the existing challenges.
The School has deviated from its original mission and requires refocusing and
balancing of its activities. There was general consensus that the rapid and very
substantial growth of the Master of Public Health (MPH) program and the decision to
seek accreditation for the MPH program from the European-based Public Health
Education Association resulted in the School’s moving away from its focus on building
interdisciplinary partnerships within the university and community partnerships with
the public health community at large.
There is support within the University and at the community level to maintain the
School as a distinct academic and research entity. While there was discussion at a
number of consultation sessions about merging the School into another unit on campus
1
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016





as a way of addressing the current issues, there was much more support for maintaining
the School as a distinct, free-standing academic entity. This finding is supported by
current national trends which show that public health is generally no longer seen as a
subspecialty of medicine, but as a distinct research and academic entity.
There is urgent need to rebuild trust and focus on partnership development if the
School is to succeed in the future. Rebuilding relationships that broke down as a result
of historical leadership decisions and actions is essential to the future success of public
health initiatives at the University of Saskatchewan.
The School has not succeeded in developing strong, mutually beneficial, capacitybuilding relationships with the public health community, most significantly with
Indigenous communities. Too often the primary contact with the community occurred
when the School sought practicum placements for its MPH students. Strong
relationships with the Saskatchewan public health community need to be developed in
order to ensure that the School’s programs are meeting community needs, and to build
research relationships that address real life public health challenges.
While some challenges continue to exist for students, the student experience has
improved in recent months. Previous reviews have indicated significant difficulty for
students in navigating the challenges of academe. Students consulted during the current
process, however, reported general satisfaction with the quality of programs and
teaching in the School. While some logistical and administrative issues remain, the
student experience appears to have improved considerably beyond that described in
previous reviews.
Faculty relationships within and beyond the School require continued attention and
development. Students and faculty within the School and beyond report tension
between some faculty members within the School. Difficulties have been identified in
the relationship between the School and the Department of Community Health and
Epidemiology. Current leaders in both units are working hard to promote collaboration.
While continued efforts are needed to address the hurts resulting from past actions,
current leaders are attempting to nurture the potential and the synergies that are
evolving between the two units.
Systemic issues at the University level have exacerbated problems in the School.
University level processes have resulted in issues at the School level in two major areas:
joint appointments and attribution of research funding. The forty joint appointments
that existed in the early days of the School have dwindled to five currently, due in part
to challenges related to the University’s joint appointment process. When faculty
members with joint appointments were not adequately supported by unit leaders, lack
of communication and support resulted in greater than full-time workloads. In addition,
processes related to attribution of research grant funding have resulted in a reported
research output from the School which appears to be lower than it actually is. These
system level issues have resulted in challenges for the School in achieving the necessary
2
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016

support to teach its classes, and have contributed to an exaggerated view of the
School’s lack of research productivity.
The status quo is not sustainable. The difficulty in meeting the School’s current
teaching requirements, the lack of research time for junior faculty who carry a
disproportionate share of the teaching load, the inability to adequately support the
current student numbers in the MPH program, and the failure to develop productive
relationships within and beyond the University render the status quo unsustainable in
the near future.
Based on these findings, the Task Force offers the following recommendations:








The School of Public Health should remain a distinct, free standing academic and
research entity, with re-evaluation of this status within two years. If at the end of the
evaluation period the School has failed to meet designated targets, it should be
disbanded and programs dispersed to other units.
The vision of the School must be refreshed and the University re-engaged in the
School’s success. Student numbers in the MPH program should be reduced
substantially, and a reasonable student cohort number established that would allow for
better balance and focus within the program and more effective and responsive
engagement of the School in the University and public health communities.
The School and the University both must commit to the success of the School, and be
held accountable for this success.
The University must ensure short-term and long-term transformational leadership of
the School. A passionate, experienced, dynamic interim leader should be sought to lead
the School through the rebuilding phase over the next two years.
The public health community must be engaged with the School in mutually beneficial,
capacity building ways. This engagement will strengthen school programs and student
experiences, provide support to the public health community, and increase research
partnership opportunities.
The University and School leadership must work together to address systemic issues
that limit the effectiveness of the School. Issues related to joint appointments and
attribution of research funding success should be addressed in a timely way to reduce
their impact on the School’s operations.
Intensive University level support and monitoring must be available during the
rebuilding period. A support committee of senior leaders and/or their designates must
work in tandem with the interim leader to seek solutions and to support and monitor
progress throughout the rebuilding period.
Timelines, accountabilities and deliverables must be identified and progress toward
the accomplishment of goals monitored. The support committee and interim leader
must work with faculty, students and senior leaders to clearly define the outcomes
expected of the rebuilding phase, and monitor progress toward these goals.
3
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
Contents
...................................................................................................................................................................... 0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 57
2.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS........................................................................................................... 57
3.
FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................. 78
Commitment to original vision ............................................................................................................... 78
Deviation from original vision—the need for engagement, focus and balance ................................... 810
There is commitment to public health as a distinct academic and research initiative ........................ 911
Past issues of leadership bear the major responsibility for today’s challenges ................................... 911
Lack of focus on the outreach and engagement mission intended for the School .............................. 911
The student experience is improving.................................................................................................. 1113
Challenges with faculty relationships exist within and beyond the School ........................................ 1214
Systemic issues at the University level have contributed to the school’s challenges ........................ 1315
The University and the School need to be accountable for the school’s performance. .................... 1416
The status quo is not sustainable ....................................................................................................... 1416
4.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLAN ...................................................................................... 1417
Retain the School of Public Health as a distinct academic and research entity, subject to review after
two years............................................................................................................................................. 1417
Refresh the original vision and re-engage the University community ............................................... 1517
Ensure short-term and long-term transformative leadership ............................................................ 1618
Engage the public health community in mutually beneficial, capacity building ways ....................... 1719
Address University-level systemic issues that hinder success ............................................................ 1720
Provide University-level support and monitoring during the rebuilding period ................................ 1820
Set timelines, identify accountabilities and deliverables, and act on the results .............................. 1821
5.
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 1921
APPENDIX 1: TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................... 2023
APPENDIX 2: DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ................................................................................................... 2225
APPENDIX 3: CONSULTATION PROCESS .................................................................................................. 2427
Memo to Stakeholders........................................................................................................................ 2427
The University of Saskatchewan School of Public Health Backgrounder, June 2007 ......................... 2629
School of Public Health Task Force Consultations .............................................................................. 2730
APPENDIX 4 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 2831
4
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
1. INTRODUCTION
This report was commissioned by Dr. Ernie Barber, Provost and Vice President Academic
of the University of Saskatchewan, in May 2015, and outlines an action plan that
establishes a way forward for the University’s School of Public Health (SPH, the School).
The SPH has had a tumultuous history since its founding vision was articulated in 2007
and has been the subject of numerous internal reviews and one external review. The
latest external review was completed on March 24, 2015 (Aronson, Janes, Virnig & Tyler,
2015). On the submission of the March external review report, Dr. Barber struck a task
force to develop an action plan to address the issues plaguing the SPH and chart a way
forward. The task force report was intended to be forward and action-focussed, building
on previous reports. Dr. Barber’s intent was that the action plan would serve as a
discussion point around which to build consensus among the University’s key decision
makers.
2.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS
Dr. Barber appointed four campus faculty members to the initial task force team: Dr. Lois Berry,
then Associate Dean, North and North Western Campus and Rural and Remote Engagement,
College of Nursing (chair); Dr. Liz Harrison, Associate Dean, Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation
Sciences, College of Medicine; Dr. John Rigby, Interim Associate Provost, Institutional Planning
and Assessment, and Dr. Robert Tyler, Associate Dean, Research and Graduate Studies, College
of Agriculture and Bioresources. The members of the task force were chosen, not for their
expertise in public health or for their knowledge of the events that led to the circumstances of
the day, but for their ability to think broadly and openly about the topic and to engage in
possibilities for resolution of the outstanding issues. Dr. Tyler had served as the internal
member of the review team that produced the March 2015 report, and was appointed to the
task force to provide context to the March report.
The four original task force members were charged with identifying additional members. The
task force members, under the guidance of the Provost, opted not to seek additional members
who “represented” their constituencies, but members who were well-respected by their
colleagues and knowledgeable in their roles, and were known to be open-minded and willing to
engage in consultation and to consider all possible outcomes. Student and public health
practitioner members were seen as essential to the process. Following extensive discussion and
consultation with campus and professional leaders, the following additional members were
appointed to the task force: Dr. Sylvia Abonyi, faculty member, Community Health and
Epidemiology and Acting Director, Saskatchewan Population Health and Evaluation Research
Unit, College of Medicine; Dr. Julie Kryzanowski, Deputy Medical Health Officer, Saskatoon
Health Region; Dana Ramsay, PhD student, School of Public Health; Dr. Suresh Tikoo, faculty
member and Interim Assistant Executive Director (Research), School of Public Health. Meetings
5
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
of the task force to articulate its terms of reference, operational approaches and underlying
assumptions commenced in late May, and concluded once the task force membership was
finalized in late August. Terms of reference and underlying assumptions are contained in
Appendix 1.
The goal of task force members was not to repeat previous reviews of the School and its
programs, but to use these reviews to increase understanding of the context surrounding the
School, its origins and the history of its operation. The task force members reviewed a number
of the past reports in depth. The external report of March 2015 was deemed to be an
appropriate starting place for the work of the task force. While it was important to have a sense
of the issues that have led to the current situation, task force members focussed on gaining
insight that would provide direction for action moving forward. A list of the documents
reviewed by the task force members is included in Appendix 2.
Upon confirming its terms of reference and the underlying assumptions guiding its work, task
force members developed a list of stakeholders with whom it planned to consult, and then
developed a memo to be distributed to these stakeholders prior to consultations with them.
Stakeholders were considered to be individuals, groups or organizations that had been involved
in the development and ongoing operation of the School, who were students or employers of
graduates of the School’s programs, or who were engaged with the School in teaching, research
or outreach capacities. The memo was intended to provide information about the consultation
process. The consultation process sought input to determine whether those surveyed felt that
the University’s original vision with respect to public health teaching, research and outreach was
still valid and relevant. It also sought feedback regarding what structures and processes would
best serve the University’s public health mandate in the future. The memo to stakeholders is
included in Appendix 3, along with the Backgrounder document that accompanied the memo.
It should be noted that a fundamental assumption underlying the consultation process was that
no job loss would occur as a result of any recommendations arising from it.
Consultations began on September 8 and concluded on November 17, 2015. A total of 18
consultation sessions were held, each lasting 0.5-2 hours, with 68 participants in total. A
minimum of three (more frequently four) task force members attended each consultation, with
the exception of the final consultation session at which two members were present. Participants
were assured that anything that they said during the consultation process was confidential and
would not be attributed to them in the reporting process without their expressed consent. The
list of consultation sessions is included in Appendix 3.
6
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
3. FINDINGS
Commitment to original vision
In all of the consultations, strong support was expressed for the University’s original vision for
the SPH with respect to public health teaching, research and outreach. Faculty members,
university leaders, public health practitioners and employers, and students affirmed that there is
an identifiable need for public health education, research and outreach in Saskatchewan and
beyond. University faculty and leaders indicated that all of the “pieces” that existed in 2007 and
that led to the formation of the SPH continue to be present on campus, and in fact new pieces
exist to support the original vision. Several leaders expressed the view that we are well
positioned to draw on the expertise and resources on campus to provide national-level
leadership in a number of areas, including One Health, zoonoses, vaccinology, environmental
sustainability, health inequities, Indigenous health, and food security. Public health practitioners
expressed the need for education and research in this area, and looked to the U of S to provide
leadership. Students in the SPH spoke passionately about their programs and the importance of
access to public health educational programming.
However, there were some cautions expressed during the consultation process. A significant
number of consultation participants commented on the exponential growth of the Master of
Public Health (MPH) program and the challenges of meeting the needs of such a large student
population that grew so quickly. The challenges of teaching this large number of students and
finding suitable practicum placements for them were noted repeatedly. The demands of
teaching and associated activities, e.g. advising and practicum supervision, have significantly
impacted the ability of faculty to engage intensively in research, to the detriment of the SPH and
its faculty, especially early career faculty members attempting to achieve tenure and/or
promotion.
It also was clear from the consultations that the resources originally available to the SPH
through joint and adjunct appointments had diminished substantially over time. This decline
was attributed by many of those interviewed to previous leadership directions of the School,
which were described as not nurturing of these appointments. Some individuals reported that a
number of these appointments were actively dismantled. It was stated that at its peak, the
School had 40 joint appointments. Currently, there are just five joint appointments remaining.
Systemic barriers within the University also appeared to contribute to the demise of joint
appointments within the School (see Systemic barriers within the University, page 13).
Consultation participants from community-based public health organizations and stakeholder
groups told the task force that there had been little attempt by the previous leadership of the
School to engage them as community partners, something that they viewed as an important
part of the original vision of the School.
While most individuals consulted by the task force expressed a commitment to the original
vision of the School, and a willingness to continue to engage or to re-engage with the School,
some indicated that the past issues (as discussed in the remainder of the Findings section) made
7
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
them somewhat leery of re-engaging. Others expressed a sense of institutional fatigue in
relation to the ongoing issues within SPH. These individuals indicated that they wanted to see
how things evolved, and how the University chose to support the School in the future. Task
force members noted that while there was support for the original vision for the School, there
was also an expectation that issues would be dealt with and that deadlines would be set for
when the School would have righted itself and moved forward toward successfully fulfilling its
vision and mission. There was a clear expectation on the part of community stakeholders that
there would be a role for them in re-envisioning and rebuilding the School if such a course of
action was chosen.
Deviation from the original vision—the need for engagement, focus and balance
The rapid growth of the MPH program, the loss of joint appointments and the limited
engagement of partners or the active discouraging of potential partnerships within the
University and beyond indicated a significant departure from the original vision of the University
in establishing the SPH. This can be summarized as a breakdown in engagement, focus and
balance. The focus quickly became one of increasing student numbers in the MPH program,
under the assumption that this would bring additional resources to the School. This assumption
was not accurate as the funding of the graduate schools for the first number of years was
disconnected from actual student numbers in order to give each school time to strategically
build a healthy student body. In addition, there appears to have been an expectation that the
additional tuition fees charged to international students would flow directly to the School,
whereas these fees actually went elsewhere.
Another departure from the original vision of the School occurred when the focus shifted
toward achieving accreditation. Since the School was nowhere close to meeting the
accreditation standards of the Council on Education for Public Health, accreditation for the MPH
program was sought under the European Agency for Public Health Education Association. While
the Aronson et al. (2015) review report indicated that this accreditation demonstrated that the
MPH program met international standards, the report identified that the focus on the MPH
program and its accreditation was to the detriment of the other graduate programs within the
School, to relationships with other faculty members and departments within the University, and
to the development of robust research programs for newly recruited junior faculty, who
currently do a disproportionate amount of the teaching within the School in order to meet the
teaching requirements of the large cohort of students in the MPH program. In addition,
outreach and engagement with community-based public health partners appear to have been
primarily focussed on requests for practicum placements, a significant missed opportunity on
the part of the School to situate itself within the public health system of the province, to gain
support for its initiatives, and to breathe life into its research programs. In short, the focus
became the growth and accreditation of the MPH program, and a balanced approach to
education, research and community engagement was not realized. The School was being driven
by its MPH program and its accreditation agenda, rather than a broader vision and mission with
respect to public health.
8
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
There is commitment to public health as a distinct academic and research initiative
While there were some university-based individuals who expressed the opinion that public
health teaching, research and outreach could be incorporated successfully into other University
departments or colleges, the general consensus of those consulted within and beyond the
University was that public health needs to be a distinct academic and research entity. This
opinion generally was supported by the employers and community practitioners of public health
with whom the task force consulted. It echoes the trends identified by Jung, Alexandre, Sarker &
La Prairie (2015), who surveyed Canadian public health academic institutions and identified that
public health is no longer viewed as a subspecialty of medicine but as a distinct academic and
research entity, requiring interdisciplinary collaboration. Not surprisingly, students within the
School’s programs were committed to public health programming as a distinct academic
enterprise.
The view of a stand-alone structure for the School supports the original vision for the SPH and
indeed the vision for the formation of all of the graduate schools at the University of
Saskatchewan. The primary purpose for the formation of the schools was to provide a structure
in which interdisciplinarity could flourish. Some of the consultation participants noted that U of
S graduate schools were created because the University had not found ways to work
successfully across the boundaries formed by college structures. Task force members were told
by senior leaders involved in the creation of the schools that schools were viewed as a
mechanism that could do what could not easily be done within individual colleges. The schools
were intended to work across these boundaries internally, but also to extend the University into
the community. The structure of a school as a distinct interdisciplinary entity was intended to
bring diverse disciplines together to work on current public health challenges that inevitably
transcend disciplinary boundaries.
Past issues of leadership bear the major responsibility for today’s challenges
The issues of leadership in the early days of the School have been addressed in previous reports,
and articulated clearly in the Aronson et al. (2015) report. While it is not necessary to rehash
those issues here, it is clear that there is a significant need to rebuild trust between the School
and its previous and potential partners. Individuals reported that considerable damage had
been done, through benign neglect as well as through active severing of relationships within and
beyond the University. Acknowledgement of past harms and intensive rebuilding of these
relationships were identified as essential to the success of the school (see the section on
outreach and engagement below).
Lack of focus on the outreach and engagement mission intended for the School
Several individuals interviewed during the consultation process noted with concern that
collaborative relationships were not currently being built between the School and partners,
either within or beyond the University. Such relationships should include individuals,
organizations, geographic communities, government, researchers, service delivery
organizations, etc. Participants from both within and outside of the School noted with great
concern that relationships do not exist between the School and Indigenous communities, groups
and individuals. This was identified as a serious omission on the part of the School. The need for
9
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
the School’s engagement in Indigenous initiatives is particularly important at this time, in light of
the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which called for the creation
of space in which these important relationships can be shaped and nurtured on an ongoing
basis. Such relationships would foster innovative philosophical perspectives on public health as
well as training and research opportunities.
The most frequent time that the School interacted with communities and community-based
organizations was when it was searching for student practicum placements. However, for a
number of individuals consulted, this practice was viewed as the School making isolated
requests for practicum placements, rather than building practicums into a broader, ongoing
relationship of mutual benefit and capacity building. A number of the placement partners
indicated that the projects that students worked on during their practicums were beneficial to
them, and that they would like to see more such exchanges of ideas between students, faculty
and agency staff. Others felt that there was little consultation between the School and the
placement partners regarding student progress and little mentoring of students by SPH faculty.
Difficulties were experienced in addressing issues when students were not meeting placement
objectives. Communication between the School and practicum partners, while generally viewed
as improving over time, still seemed to be an issue for many of the placement partners. Some
community agency representatives stated that the mentorship and training time they had to
invest when working with students presented challenges. This was especially true during the
summer when fewer staff were available to work with students.
Saskatchewan public health stakeholders who were consulted identified an important gap in
public health training that was not being filled by the School. They consistently noted that little
attempt was being made to provide continuing education opportunities to individuals already
employed in health, social service and educational institutions within communities. This would
require distributed and concentrated forms of educational delivery. Provision of education for
such individuals also was identified as a national gap by Jung et al. (2015).
Some participants were adamant that relationships with communities and community partners
must become a strong and consistent focus for the School. Failure to develop these
relationships results in unmet community needs, an inability to enact a true public health vision,
paternalistic relationships, unmet student educational requirements, and a loss of important
and valuable research opportunities that would positively impact health in communities if
pursued. It was clear, however, that there is a legacy of ongoing mistrust that the School is
slowly working to overcome.
A number of the public health community representatives interviewed expressed a real
investment in the School on their part. They were passionate in their view of the importance of
such an academic entity in Saskatchewan, and at the University of Saskatchewan. One
participant’s feedback was very clear: “Don’t take away MY school”. The public health
community consulted in the task force consultation process remains invested in public health
research, teaching and outreach.
10
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
The student experience is improving
Previous reports, including the Aronson et al. (2015) report, noted significant challenges for
students in the School, most specifically in the MPH program. A number of consultation
participants felt that the exponential growth of the MPH program and the admission of a large
number of international students created a situation where these students were not able to be
adequately supported within the School or at the level of the University. Community partners
indicated that they felt that the School had not paid attention to Saskatchewan-based public
health employment needs when expanding its enrolment. The continuing education needs of
their current and potential local employees, and the needs of Saskatchewan’s Indigenous
communities were significant gaps identified by public health partners during the consultation
process.
As has been previously noted, this rapid growth in student numbers also resulted in significant
pressure on practicum placement sites. The necessary support and communication to both
students and community agency representatives were not always provided by the School.
Participants indicated that the quality and consistency of programming decreased, or became
inconsistent, as a result of the growth in student numbers.
Some students commented on the lack of meaningful relationships between the School and the
practice setting. The perception among students was that the School scrambled to find
practicum placements, and that some of these placements were not suitable. From the
students’ perspective, communication with the placement agency was sometimes lacking, and
there appeared to be confusion around how students were evaluated and the standard for
passing the practicum.
Some students also noted that while the school was built to be interdisciplinary, it was quite
isolated on campus. Despite the fact that there were many disciplines on campus, accessing
these disciplines was difficult. Faculty from other departments noted that under previous School
leadership, students were advised not to register in courses in other units, and were told that
they would not receive credit toward their degrees if they did. Courses in other schools and
colleges often were not available to them as students in the SPH, and exposure to faculty from
other disciplines through joint appointments in the School was limited. Some students were
aware of the lack of relationships, or animosity in existing relationships between the School and
other University departments, colleges and units. They viewed these relationship issues as
limiting their educational opportunities.
Despite the concerns cited above, the current students consulted during this process were
generally very pleased with their programs. They were positive about the quality of the teaching
they were receiving, and most spoke very highly of the practicum experiences they received.
Most of the students had come to the school from other universities. For most of them, the
University, School and program were chosen destinations—they sought out their programs
based on the wide variety of disciplines at the U of S, and the University’s reputation. One
student noted that he chose his program (MPH) based on its accredited status.
11
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
While previous reviews cited significant issues with respect to negative student experiences in
the School’s programs, there appears to have been significant improvement in this area. Senior
administrators dealing with graduate students on campus indicated that the School is becoming
more familiar with graduate policies and more consistent in applying them. Students appeared
to have fewer concerns than were articulated to the previous review team. However, students
did identify challenges in accessing faculty because of the teaching loads the faculty members
carried. The pressures resulting from the rapid growth of the MPH program and the loss of joint
appointments continue to be apparent, specifically in relation to practicum experiences and
teaching demands on professorial time.
Challenges with faculty relationships exist within and beyond the School
Much has been made in previous reports about dysfunctional faculty relationships, both within
the School itself and between the School and the Department of Community Health and
Epidemiology (CH&E). Consultations revealed that tensions continue to exist within a small
group of faculty in the School, as well as between SPH faculty and a similarly small number of
faculty members in CH&E. The Aronson et al. (2015) review focussed a significant amount of
report time on these tensions. During consultations with the task force, faculty members in
CH&E expressed concern at the characterization of their department in previous reports. They
also made it very clear that they welcomed meaningful opportunities for participation in
consultation regarding the way forward for the School, as well as a need for active facilitation to
address the legacy of mistrust that remains. The task force reached two conclusions about
relationships between the SPH and CH&E as a result of the consultation process:
 Contrary to the conclusions of the previous Aronson et al. (2015) review report, the task
force members believe that CH&E should not be characterized as one of two public
heath units at the University of Saskatchewan. While there are significant areas of
mutual interest and, as a result, significant areas, such as teaching, where collaboration
between the two units makes sense, CH&E exists in significant measure for a very
different purpose than the SPH. CH&E faculty and the Dean of the College of Medicine
both emphasized that the CH&E, in addition to its social and population health focus,
directly contributes to the accreditation of undergraduate and graduate medicine
programs. Accordingly, characterizing the department as a public health unit and
moving it under the SPH mandate, one option proposed in the Aranson et al. (2015)
report, would fail to address the needs of the College of Medicine. Removing
responsibility and accountability of the CH&E unit from under the auspices of the Dean
of Medicine could endanger medical program accreditation, from the perspective of the
Dean. In addition, such a solution fails to recognize that the faculty in CH&E are diverse,
with some more firmly anchored in medicine with respect to their teaching and
research, and others more aligned with public and population health. In the formation
of the schools, negotiations regarding faculty involvement took place at the level of
individual faculty members, rather than units as a whole. However there has been, and
continues to be in some circles, an assumption that faculty in CH&E should be treated as
one entity in such negotiations. Task force consultations demonstrated that treating
CH&E as a homogeneous unit and assuming that a unit level move was a suitable
solution is not appropriate, and engenders immediate push back from CH&E.
12
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016

While there continue to be tensions between individual members of each unit, the unit
leaders and individuals within the units are taking important steps to build relationships
between the two units, and between individuals within the units where successful
collaboration is possible. Meetings with faculty from both units resulted in identification
of a number of situations where positive and effective teaching and research
relationships currently exist between members in these units. As a result, it is the
perspective of the task force members that forcing union of the two units at this point
would be counterproductive. There should be less focus on the dysfunction, and more
on the potential and the synergies that exist and are emerging. Strong leadership in
both units focussed on collaboration would neutralize the actions of those who express
their resentment destructively.
Systemic issues at the University level have contributed to the school’s challenges
Throughout the consultation process, task force members were informed of processes within
the University that negatively impacted the ability of the School to succeed. These processes
occurred in relation to joint appointments, and to attribution of research funding success to
appropriate academic units.
Joint appointments were developed during the implementation of the schools concept at the
University of Saskatchewan as a way of capturing the interdisciplinarity necessary to make the
schools work. Joint appointments allow faculty members to share their expertise between units.
However, one of the University’s senior administrators noted that “Joint appointments only
work if the two unit leaders can talk to each other.” If there is an effective relationship between
the two unit leaders, issues of workload can be effectively resolved. If this is not the case and
the two unit leaders are not willing to recognize teaching done in the faculty member’s other
unit, the individual in the joint appointment may well end up with a more than full-time
teaching load. The process issues around joint appointments are further clouded in the School
by the legacy of mistrust left by previous School leadership directions.
University of Saskatchewan policies around recognition of research funding success also
negatively impact the SPH. Research funding success is credited to the individual’s home unit in
the case of a faculty member with a joint appointment. Funding is also credited only to the
principal investigator on a grant, despite significant contributions by co-investigators. In a unit
which is dependent on joint appointments for a significant portion of its work, and which has a
faculty complement made up primarily of junior, untenured faculty members who are
establishing their research programs and frequently serve as co-investigators on projects led by
more senior researchers within and beyond the School, research success appears to be very low.
This does not capture the true picture.
Other practices around research funding attribution also negatively impact SPH. Three senior
faculty members who are tenured in the School hold multimillion dollar grants, but this grant
success is credited to VIDO-Intervac, where their research facilities are located. All of these
processes result in an impression that the School’s research productivity is lower than in fact it
actually is.
13
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
The current measures used to capture research productivity also do not support
interdisciplinary research, as the funding is attributed only to the principal investigator, which
does not capture the richness of a research team comprising multiple disciplines. As the schools
were created specifically to capitalize on the power, breadth and depth of interdisciplinary
opportunities at the University of Saskatchewan, these current measures do not optimize the
university’s advantage in relation to interdisciplinary research, and in fact, work against it.
The University and the School need to be accountable for the School’s performance
Throughout the consultation process, the task force members were confronted by examples of
situations where the SPH and the University failed to assume responsibility for what was
happening. The loss of joint appointments, the failure to fill research chair positions and to keep
Chairs that had been hired, the number of student issues, the massive growth in the MPH
program, and the focus on accreditation all signalled a deviation from the initial vision of the
School. In retrospect, this situation required more careful monitoring and involvement on the
part of the University. Several senior University leaders indicated that during the formation of
the schools, the SPH received less attention and support that the other two schools, because of
the perception that it was well positioned for success. This did not prove to be true. In
retrospect, the School leadership was not held accountable by the University to fulfill the
original mandate, and the University did not provide sufficient guidance, support, monitoring
and direct intervention to address issues as they arose.
The status quo is not sustainable
A number of people interviewed by the task force indicated that they felt that the status quo at
SPH was untenable, a point that was also made in the March 2015 external review (Aronson et
al., 2015). The exponential growth of the MPH student body without the necessary faculty,
administrative and community resources to sustain it, the loss of joint appointments and
research chairs, the failure to develop partnerships within and outside the University, the
leadership challenges and the failure to address faculty relationship issues within the School and
beyond damaged the reputation of the School within the University and with community and
external partners. The resulting situation requires immediate, intensive remediation. Failure to
address these issues will render the School irrelevant to external partners and unsustainable in
the very near future.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLAN
Retain the School of Public Health as a distinct academic and research entity, subject
to review after two years.
The task force members recommend that the School of Public Health remain a distinct academic
and research entity. This recommendation is based on feedback from the University community
and from public health communities, on knowledge of current trends in Canadian academic
approaches to public health teaching, research and outreach, and on the current state of needs
and relationships at the University of Saskatchewan. However, this is not an endorsement of the
status quo. In order for the University of Saskatchewan to continue to invest in public health as
a distinct academic and research entity, the School’s vision of public health teaching, research,
14
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
outreach and engagement must be re-affirmed, and its activities refocussed and balanced. The
School’s original purpose as a hub of interdisciplinary public health activity must be realized. The
original intent for the School to serve as the interface between the University and its public
partners must be prioritized. Its activities should be driven by a revitalized vision of its role in
public health, rather than by its programs or an agenda for accreditation status. Engagement,
commitment and support of the University at all levels, and meaningful engagement with
communities, including Indigenous communities, are essential elements of this process, as
outlined in the recommendations that follow.
This rebuilding and recommitting phase cannot be open-ended. The task force members
propose a maximum two-year period of support and rebuilding, after which time progress
would be measured according to transparently determined outcome indicators, as well as the
measures used in reviewing other schools on campus (see section below entitled Set timelines,
identify accountabilities and deliverables, and act on the results). The University will then be able
to determine whether the School should continue, or whether its activities and programs should
be dispersed to other units and the School disbanded.
Refresh the original vision and re-engage the University community
The task force members recommend that the University and the School jointly host public
consultations to refresh the original vision for the School. This will give the University and public
health communities an opportunity to truly engage, and also will update the vision in the light of
changes in public health and in teaching, research, outreach and engagement around public
health, as well as changes in the University environment and direction in the years since the
School was originally conceptualized. Such a process would contribute to a resetting of the
vision and to a recommitment to engagement on the part of the participants. In conducting
consultations with the campus community, there was much support voiced for the original
vision of the School. Such a consultation process will give campus members an opportunity to
put action and commitment to those words of support. The intent of this process is to re-engage
previous champions, and seek out new ones to support the intensive work that will need to be
done in order to rebuild and sustain the School.
In order to focus and balance the School’s initiatives, task force members recommend reducing
enrolment in the MPH program to no more than the student numbers originally envisioned.
According to the submission to University Council in 2007, the total student body in the MPH
program was originally planned to be 60 students (all years). This reduction would allow the
School to focus on improving the quality of programing and the student experience for a smaller
number of students. It would increase the likelihood of research success for new faculty
members by providing them with less teaching and more research time. It also would reduce the
resources required from other units to meet the teaching load of the School, and would reduce
the number of practicum placements required.
The School should carefully consider its proposed timeline for renewed accreditation of its MPH
program. While accreditation was seen as desirable by some of those involved in the
consultations, task force members believe that the focus at this point in time should be
renewing the School’s vision and mandate and ensuring that teaching, research and outreach
15
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
activities are properly balanced in order to fulfill that mandate. If such a focus results in
positioning the School well for renewed accreditation, this is a bonus. However, the focus
should be on the renewed vision of the School, and accreditation of the School and its programs
should not drive that agenda.
In order for the School to be successful in the future, it must re-engage the University
community. The School always was intended to have strong relationships with individuals in
other disciplines on campus. The task force members recommend that formal partnership
agreements with other colleges and units on campus be established, with written commitments
outlined and timelines defined. Clarification of the workload processes related to joint
appointments and re-engagement of faculty members in these positions also would improve the
interdisciplinarity of the School.
Ensure short-term and long-term transformative leadership
The consultation process has reaffirmed what many of the previous reviews have stated: many
of the issues arising within the School of Public Health occurred as a result of leadership
decisions and actions in the early days of the School. Damage to both internal and external
relationships, a redirection of School energies toward massive growth of the MPH program, and
a narrowing of focus toward achieving accreditation for the MPH program altered the course of
the School and resulted in many of the challenges faced by the School today. It will require
strong and transformational leadership to get the school back on course.
The task force members recommend that the University’s senior administration seek a strong,
passionate, dynamic and transformational Interim Executive Director or Special Advisor to guide
the School in its revitalizing journey over the next two years. This leader should ideally have a
proven track record in transformational change, understand the Saskatchewan, national and
international contexts of population and public health, and be dedicated to rebuilding
relationships for the School, both on campus and in the community at large. This leader would
focus on some of the areas where mistrust and hurt are greatest, and would seek opportunities
for nurturing positive relationships. This would be a time of building faculty capacity and
addressing faculty relationships within and beyond the School. A main goal of the School for the
next two years must be on building a healthy organizational culture for its faculty, students and
partners both within and beyond the University. In addition, rebuilding credibility and
reputation with public and external partners requires specific attention. The interim leader
would play a key role in meeting these challenges.
The interim leader should consider establishing a strong, committed leadership team and
investing in leadership development for this group. With a strong interim leader and a solid
leadership team, an environment could be created which would serve to attract a subsequent
leader who could continue to move the School forward after the two-year period of transition
and renewal.
Improving relationships on campus and beyond would provide an opportunity to rebuild the
interdisciplinary connections necessary for the School’s success. It also would allow the School
16
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
to recommit to its vision. The presence of a strong leader who can unite faculty behind the
vision of the School would minimize the impact of faculty dissention and would galvanize faculty
behind the vision as the School evolves.
Engage the public health community in mutually beneficial, capacity building ways
In order for the School to succeed, it must engage the public health community at large as its
partners and stakeholders. It must develop relationships that are mutually beneficial and that
build capacity within the public health system. It must build on reciprocal relationships with
community partners whose current and future staff would benefit from the educational
opportunities provided by the School, and who would in return provide mentorship and
experience to students within the School’s programs. Such relationships would clarify the
provincial needs with respect to the nature of graduates required, the continuing educational
needs of current public health professionals, and the balance required between professional
MPH program graduate numbers and the need for graduates with research graduate degrees.
The relationship between the School and its public partners would benefit from administrative
support in the form of practicum placement coordination which would allow for more timely
and responsive communication, rather than relying on faculty members who are also balancing
teaching and research loads to deal with these administrative coordination duties.
Community partnership relationships are significant to the mission of the School and also serve
as important avenues for development of meaningful research partnerships that engage the
School in relevant and timely research that meets the needs of the public health community.
Practicum placements for students in the MPH program should be viewed as part of a
comprehensive community engagement strategy, and not the sole point of community contact
for the School. As noted previously, meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities is an
essential part of this process. The task force members recommend that these relationships be
captured in formal partnership agreements, outlining the roles and expectations of all involved.
Address University-level systemic issues that hinder success
In order for the School to succeed as an interdisciplinary entity, University-level administrators
need to review with the School leadership team the systemic challenges that have been
experienced around joint appointments and attribution of research funding success. Processes
need to be reviewed to determine why these challenges have arisen, and mechanisms to
eliminate these barriers to success need to be identified. Because the School faculty
complement is small, it is heavily reliant on joint appointments. While joint appointments under
current processes are problematic, they have the potential to be highly beneficial if the process
issues can be resolved. The School also has a disproportionately large number of young,
untenured or newly tenured faculty members who are establishing their research programs.
Failure to address University-level issues surrounding joint appointments and attribution of
research funding will seriously impact the School’s ability, and the ability of its faculty, to
succeed in the coming years.
17
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
Provide University-level support and monitoring during the rebuilding period
During the two-year rebuilding period recommended by the task force, intensive University level
commitment and energy will be required to support, mentor and monitor developments within
the School. The task force members recommend the formation of a support team of appropriate
senior leaders and/or their designates to engage with School faculty, students and stakeholders.
Members will be appointed to the team based on their ability to address the problems identified
within this report and by faculty, students and stakeholders themselves. Typical team members
might include leaders that can address issues related to joint appointments (perhaps the Vice
Provost, Faculty Relations), allocation of research funding (Office of the Vice President
Research), faculty relationships and leadership development (Human Resources), visioning and
strategic planning (Institutional Planning and Assessment), the student experience (Vice Provost,
Teaching and Learning, the Gwenna Moss Centre). Some members may come and go as
different challenges are addressed, bringing to the table individuals who have the knowledge
and skills to provide solutions to specific problems. The health sciences deans should be called
upon to actively engage with the School leadership and faculty and to provide support and
mentorship. Active and ongoing leadership, mentorship and support for the School’s
involvement in interprofessional education and interdisciplinary research initiatives should be
provided by the Assistant Vice-Provost, Health, and the leads for interprofessional education
and interdisciplinary research. This support team should be appointed by the Provost and report
regularly (monthly in the initial period, and then at intervals determined in consultation
between the team, the interim leader of the School and the Provost as the process proceeds).
Set timelines, identify accountabilities and deliverables, and act on the results
As noted previously, the task force recommends a two-year period of support, mentoring and
monitoring in order to increase the potential for the School’s success. The task force members
feel that this will give the University time to determine if progress can be made. During this
period, the task force recommends that benchmarks and timelines be identified through a
transparent and collaborative process that can then be used to determine the success of the
support efforts. Such benchmarks could include the number of new joint appointments,
interdisciplinary research projects underway, interdisciplinary research grants awarded and
partnership agreements signed, along with student and faculty satisfaction survey results,
stakeholder survey results, etc. During this time, a review of the impact of reducing admissions
to the MPH program should be undertaken. This time also would allow for an assessment of the
suitability of the level of University investment and resources allocated to the School.
As previously noted, it is expected that at the end of this two-year period, the University would
review the School to determine whether outstanding issues remain. Based on this review, the
University would then be able to determine whether the School should continue, or whether its
activities and programs should be dispersed to other units and the School disbanded. If it is
determined that the School should continue, its leadership team and faculty members can
decide on an accreditation model to pursue at that time.
18
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
5. CONCLUSION
In summary, the School of Public Health faces challenges in relation to engagement, focus, and balance.
While there continues to be passion and commitment with respect to the SPH vision and mission within
the University and beyond, there is a clear need for intense support, mentorship and relationship
building in order to sustain this passion, and to re-engage those for whom this passion has waned. One
senior University leader commented that, to date, the School of Public Health has not had a chance to
grow and flourish. With intensive University level support, transformative leadership, and engagement
within and beyond the University, the task force members believe that the School can achieve its goals.
However, the clock is ticking. It remains to be seen whether the School, the University community and
the public health community at large will engage in this rebuilding exercise, and move the School toward
achieving its original vision and mission.
The task force members wish to thank the individuals and groups who met with us throughout the
consultation period. Their candor, professionalism and commitment to the University and to the health
of the public are sincerely appreciated. We make special note of the students from the School of Public
Health and the Department of Community Health and Epidemiology who shared their stories freely,
articulately and with passion. You made us proud. To you, a heartfelt thank you.
19
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
APPENDIX 1: TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
University of Saskatchewan School of Public Health Task Force
Terms of Reference
August, 2015
Membership
Lois Berry, Chair, College of Nursing
Liz Harrison, Associate Dean, School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences,
College of Medicine
Bob Tyler, College of Agriculture & Bioresources
John Rigby, Institutional Planning & Assessment
Sylvia Abonyi, Department of Community Health & Epidemiology, College of Medicine
Julie Kryzanowski, Deputy Medical health officer, Saskatoon Health Region
Dana Ramsay, PhD student, School of Public Health
Suresh Tikoo, faculty member, School of Public Health
All members appointed by the Provost.
Administrative support: Lori Auchstaetter, Office of the Provost and Vice President,
Academic
Reports to: The Provost
Relates to: (Note: Some of these are key stakeholders. Others are simply individuals
and groups with whom the Task Force will consult.)
 Deans Council
 Deans of Health Sciences Colleges
 Acting Executive Director, SPH
 Department Head, Community Health and Epidemiology
 SPH students
 SPH faculty
 CHE students
 CHE faculty
 CHE students
 CHE faculty
 Planning and Priorities Subcommittee of University Council
20
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016




OVPR
Vice Provost Faculty Relations
Members of the Public Health community
Others as identified in the consultation process
The School of Public Health Task Force is responsible for:
By October 15, 2015, developing an action plan that establishes the future structure and
general operational processes of the School of Public Health, and achieving consensus
from the necessary key stakeholders in support of the implementation of this action
plan.
The Task Force will achieve this by:
1. Reviewing relevant documents regarding the history and confirming through
consultation the commitment to the vision and current issues surrounding the
School of Public Health, and teaching and research with respect to public health
in the broader university context.
2. Exploring the issue of public health teaching and research in the broadest
context, not simply in relation to the SPH.
3. Consulting key stakeholders and members of the University community and
beyond who can provide additional context and clarity around the current issues
facing SPH and identify potential mechanisms to resolve these issues.
4. On the basis of this research and consultation, developing an action plan which
will address the current issues. This action plan will include, but is not limited to:
a. Identification of an appropriate structure for achieving the vision of the
school.
b. Identification of the processes at school, college and university levels
needed in order to enact the action plan.
c. Identification of the resources necessary to achieve the action plan.
5. Engaging the key stakeholders necessary for the implementation of this plan in
negotiated consensus and commitment to the outlined actions.
21
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
APPENDIX 2: DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
** All documents were reviewed by the Chair. All task force members reviewed the Anonson et al. 2015
report and the 2007 University of Saskatchewan School of Public Health Proposal to University Council.
Other documents were available to all task force members for review.
Aronson, K., Janes, C., Virnig, B., & Tyler, R. (2015). School of Public Health: External Review Report.
Retrieved from http://www.usask.ca/ipa/documents/institutionaleffectiveness/review_sph_2015_finalreport.pdf
Goel, V; Wilson, D. (March 1, 2011). University of Saskatchewan Consultation Report on the
Development of the School of Public Health. Unpublished document, University of
Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, SK.
Krasnik, A.; Stjernberg, L., Barros, H.; Levin, I. (2014) Agency for Public Health Accreditation Team Draft
Report: Review for Accreditation of the Master of Public Health at the University of
Saskatchewan School of Public Health. Agency for Public Health Accrediation: Brussels, Belgium.
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. (2014) Specific Standards of Accreditation for
Residency Programs in Public Health and Preventive Medicine. Retrieved from
https://www.google.ca/#q=Specific+Standards+of+Accreditation+for+Residency+Programs+in+P
ublic+Health+and+Preventive+Medicine
University of Saskatchewan. (April 10, 2006). Task Force on Changing University Structures: Discussion
Paper on School of Public Health. Unpublished document, University of Saskatchewan:
Saskatoon, SK.
University of Saskatchewan (May 9, 2007). University of Saskatchewan School of Public Health Proposal
to University Council. Unpublished document, University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, SK.
University of Saskatchewan (June, 2013). School of Public Health Master of Public Health (MPH) Self –
Study report for Agency for Public Health Accreditation Unpublished document, University of
Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, SK.
University of Saskatchewan. (January 9, 2015). School of Public Health Review Essential information
Package 1. Unpublished document, University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, SK.
22
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
University of Saskatchewan. (January 16, 2015). School of Public Health Review, Essential Information
Package 2. Unpublished document, University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, SK.
23
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
APPENDIX 3: CONSULTATION PROCESS
Memo to Stakeholders
To:
Stakeholders interested in public health teaching, research and outreach at the
University of Saskatchewan
From:
University of Saskatchewan School of Public Health Task Force
Date:
September 17, 2015
Subject:
Information on Consultation Meetings
University of Saskatchewan Interim Provost and Vice-President Academic, Ernie Barber, has
created a Task Force of faculty members, students and community representatives to develop
an action plan aimed at resolving outstanding structural and process issues in public health
education, research and outreach at the University of Saskatchewan. With the intent of having
a plan ready to go forward to University Council in Fall, 2015, this group is asking for your input
with respect to teaching, research and outreach in the public health field at the University of
Saskatchewan in general, and specifically with respect to the role of the School of Public Health.
The Task Force members seek your input with respect to the following:
• The current validity and relevance of the original vision of the University of Saskatchewan
with respect to its role in public health teaching, research and outreach;
• The structures and processes that would best support the University in meeting its public
health mandate.
The Original Vision for Public Health Teaching and Research at the University of
Saskatchewan
As the only university in Canada co-locating Colleges of Dentistry, Kinesiology, Medicine
(including the School of Physical Therapy), Nursing, Pharmacy & Nutrition, and Veterinary
Medicine on one campus, the U of S believed that it was well positioned when it proposed to
University Council in May, 2007, the development of the School of Public Health. This proposal
was bolstered by the presence of scholars in other relevant units on campus, including the
Canadian Centre for Health and Safety (CCHSA), Saskatchewan Population Health and Research
Unit (SPHERU), Indigenous Peoples’ Health Research Centre (IPHRC), the Vaccine and Infectious
Disease Organization (VIDO-Intervac), Edwards School of Business, and the Colleges of Law and
Agriculture & Bioresources, and the Schools of Environment and Sustainability and Public Policy
which developed simultaneously with the School of Public Health. Development of the School
of Public Health was seen to require some new resources and a re-alignment of existing
resources. The proposal for creation of the School of Public Health stated:
The School of Public Health will increase the size and scope of graduate education on
campus…The School will bring together a number of outstanding research centres and
initiatives in a manner that has not been previously possible. This will create a vibrant research
community with the potential to promote innovative interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge
24
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
creation, synthesis and exchange beyond what might be attained by any individual centre.
(School of Public Health Proposal to University Council Executive Summary, May 9, 2007, p. 3)
Structures and Processes Required to Meet the University of Saskatchewan’s Public Health
Mandate
To achieve its goal as a centre of excellence for interdisciplinary education and research in the
field of public health, the University established the School of Public Health in July, 2007. The
school was to act as a hub and coordinating unit for public health activities on campus. The
attached document The University of Saskatchewan School of Public Health Backgrounder, June
2007 provides some context surrounding the creation of the school. This document served as
background for University Council in June, 2007, when the motion for the creation of the School
of Public Health was presented and passed.
Since the formation of the school, a number of reviews and reports have been conducted with
respect to its role, structure and functioning. The most recent review report indicated that
despite important accomplishments, serious issues and problems exist. The Review Team found
that the school is not sustainable without “significant organizational and structural changes”
(Aronson, Janes, Virnig & Tyler, 2015, p. 3). The full review report and the SPH response to it
are available at http://www.usask.ca/ipa/documents/institutionaleffectiveness/review_sph_2015_finalreport.pdf
Questions:
1. Do you agree that the University of Saskatchewan is well positioned to be a national and
international centre of excellence for interdisciplinary education and research in the field of
public health?
2. Is there a requirement for coordination and focus of public health teaching, research and
outreach at the University of Saskatchewan?
3. Is the School of Public Health the best model for coordination and focus of teaching, research
and outreach at the University of Saskatchewan, i.e. is the intent of the School of Public Health
as outlined in the Backgrounder document still relevant and achievable?
4. How do you see the current state of public health teaching, research and outreach at the
University of Saskatchewan?
5. What changes, if any (structure, governance, general operating processes, resources), are
necessary to strengthen and support public health teaching, research and outreach at the
University of Saskatchewan?
6. Could changes in the School of Public Health strengthen the University’s role in public health
teaching, research and outreach? What changes?
7. What would you need to see happen in order to engage you and affirm/reaffirm your
confidence in public health teaching, research and outreach at the University of Saskatchewan?
What would you need to see happen in order to engage you and affirm/reaffirm your
confidence in the School of Public Health? What do you believe others would need in order to
engage?
25
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
The University of Saskatchewan School of Public Health Backgrounder, June 2007
What is the School of Public Health?
The School of Public Health is a new interdisciplinary entity at the University of Saskatchewan that will
connect teaching, research and community outreach under one umbrella with a focus on public health.
This School will bring together new and existing resources to advance and sustain research, graduate
training and outreach on a wide range of issues related to public health.
Why create this School?
The role of public health has changed significantly in recent years. There is a global call to bolster public
health systems to ensure they are well positioned to meet future challenges. Outbreaks such as SARS,
BSE, water-borne illness, rising rates of obesity, diabetes and mental illness have focused attention on
the state of the Canadian public health system and current infrastructure inadequacies. The vital role of
public health in creating and supporting a healthy society underscores the need to establish a
comprehensive School to understand and solve complex health issues affecting individuals and
communities.
What will the School do?
With the goal of becoming a preeminent centre of learning and research in Canada, the School of Public
Health will focus on five major areas: (1) vaccinology and immunotherapeutics; (2) veterinary public
health; (3) agricultural and rural public health; (4) Indigenous peoples’ health; and (5) socio-behavioral
dimensions of public health.
In terms of academic programming, the School will increase the size and scope of graduate education on
campus. The present course-based Master’s degree in Public Health (MPH) will become the foundational
program of the School. Current thesis-based Master and Doctoral programs will be supplemented in the
next five years by new graduate MSc/PhD programs in vaccinology and immunotherapeutics,
epidemiology, biostatistics and socio-behavioral health and health administration.
The University will work closely with community based organizations, the health regions, Saskatchewan
Health and the Public Health Agency of Canada to provide advanced population and public health
services.
Who’s involved and how will the School operate?
The School has been developed in close collaboration with the deans of the U of S health science
colleges, key research centres, the Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculture, the Vaccine
and Infectious Disease Organization, the Saskatoon Health Region, and Saskatchewan Health.
The School will function much like a college, and will be led by an executive director, who will report to the
Provost and be a member of Dean’s Council. A rich interdisciplinary balance will avoid heavy reliance on
any one discipline and provide a critical mass of faculty to deliver programming. Care will be taken to
ensure School activities do not jeopardize any current programs. Faculty will have joint appointments in
the School and disciplinary colleges to allow various levels of involvement in School activities, and to
enrich both the colleges and the School. Initial resources for the School will be supplied by the
University’s Academic Priorities Fund.
When will the School be operational?
With the approval of the School by U of S Council in May 2007, the executive sponsor, appointed by the
Provost, will now choose an acting director, recommend founding faculty and oversee the selection of an
executive director. The acting director, in turn, will develop programs, establish a budget, hire personnel
and find space for the School. The School will offer programming in fall 2007. The School’s executive
sponsor, who will oversee the project, is Dr. Karen Chad.
What impact will the School have?
The School will increase the amount and excellence of population and public health research, enhance
graduate research opportunities, and link the university more closely to the community.
26
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
School of Public Health Task Force Consultations
School of Public Health Task Force Consultations September –November 2015
Date
Consultation
# present
September 8
Nazeem Muhajarine, Interim
1
Executive Director, SPH, July 1
2014 – June 30, 2015
September 18
Preston Smith, Dean, College of 1
Medicine & Vice Provost, Health
September 21
Health Science Deans; George
4
Mutwiri, SPH; Lorna Butler,
Nursing; Carol Rodgers,
Kinesiology; Doug Freeman,
Western College of Veterinary
Medicine
September 23
CH&E faculty
13
September 30
Adam Baxter Jones, Acting
2
Dean, College of Graduate
Studies and Research, Trever
Crowe, Associate Dean, CGSR
October 2
Karen Chad, Vice President,
1
Research
October 2
Jim Germida, Vice provost,
1
Faculty Relations
October 2
SPH students
18
October 2
Niels Koehncke, CCHSA
1
director
October 6
Vivian Ramsden, Chair,
1
Behavioral Ethics Review Board
October 7
Kishore Wasan, Dean, College
1
of Pharmacy & Nutrition
October 7
CH&E students
5
October 9
Michael Atkinson, former
1
Provost and Inaugural Executive
Director, Johnson Shoyama
Graduate school of Public Policy
October 14
SPH faculty
11
October 27
Andrew Potter, VIDO
1
October 28
George Mutwiri, Interim
1
Executive Director, SPH
November 2
Public health employers,
4
government representatives
(Provincial Medical Health,
Deputy Medical Health Officer,
Provincial Epidemiologist
November 17
Regional Director, First Nations
1
& Inuit Health Branch, Health
Canada
Total
18 consultations
68 individuals
27
School of Public Health Task Force Report, January 13, 2016
APPENDIX 4: REFERENCES
References
Aronson, K., Janes, C., Virnig, B., & Tyler, R. (2015). School of Public Health: External Review Report.
Retrieved from http://www.usask.ca/ipa/documents/institutionaleffectiveness/review_sph_2015_finalreport.pdf
Jung, J., Alexandre, B., Sarkar, S & La Prairie, A. (2015). Enumeration of the schools and students of
public health in Canada: Continuing trends and gaps. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 1(3), 134 –
143.
28